Highway Safety Improvement Program: Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities
Published: 2008-11-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: About 43,000 people died and another 290,000 were seriously injured on the nation's roads in 2006. 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). SAFETEA-LU added requirements for states to develop strategic highway safety plans that include four key elements and to publicly report on at least the top 5 percent of hazardous locations on all of their public roads. The act also set aside funds for a legacy rail-highway crossing program and a new high-risk rural road program. As requested, GAO examined (1) states' implementation of HSIP following SAFETEA-LU, (2) HSIP results to date, and (3) FHWA's guidance and assistance to states. GAO analyzed plans from 25 states, including 19 randomly selected states and 6 states that GAO visited. GAO also interviewed FHWA and state safety officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: All states adopted strategic highway safety plans, and the 25 state plans that GAO analyzed addressed the 4 key elements added by SAFETEA-LU, although states lacked some of the crash data and analysis capabilities described in the law. GAO's analysis showed that the 25 states (1) involved multidisciplinary safety stakeholders; (2) defined areas of safety emphasis through analyses of state fatality data using crash data analysis systems; (3) identified strategies and projects to address these emphasis areas through infrastructure improvements, behavioral approaches, and emergency medical services; and (4) provided for overall and individual project evaluations. However, many of the 25 states lacked components of the prescribed crash data analysis systems, such as a system for locating crashes and roadway data for local roads. FHWA is developing such a system for the states, but many states lack necessary data for local roads because they do not maintain or operate them. Without the prescribed components, states cannot conduct some of the safety analysis defined by SAFETEA-LU or report to FHWA on their most hazardous locations on all public roads, determine appropriate remedies, and estimate costs--all requirements added by SAFETEA-LU. While FHWA has set a deadline for states to develop the capability to locate crashes on all public roads, it has not done so for roadway data. Because states were not required to submit their strategic highway safety plans to FHWA until October 2007, they have not had sufficient time to implement and evaluate their HSIP strategies and projects; hence, it is too soon to evaluate HSIP results carried out after SAFETEA-LU. However, two of HSIP's statutory funding provisions may not be aligned with some states' safety priorities contained in their strategic plans. First, FHWA data show that most states have not used a new flexible funding provision that allows states to allocate some HSIP funds for behavioral approaches or emergency medical services. Some states may be reluctant to use this provision, according to state officials we interviewed, partly due to an HSIP certification requirement that all state highway safety infrastructure needs have been met. Second, the rail-highway crossing set-aside program does not target a key safety priority ofsome states and provides significant funding to some crossing areas that have relatively few fatalities. Better alignment of federal funding with state priorities in their strategic plans could help ensure that HSIP funding best addresses those priorities. Lastly, as states implement the high-risk rural roads program, they are hindered by limited data on rural roads and crashes, which are needed to identify qualifying roadways and appropriate remedies. FHWA provided comprehensive guidance and training to assist states in preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and participated in states' strategic safety planning processes. FHWA's guidance to states on reporting their most hazardous locations took states' data limitations into account and gave states latitude in defining the methodology and scope of their 5 percent reports. Consequently, these reports vary in content and format and may not increase public awareness of highway safety as intended.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2006, about 43,000 people were killed and another 290,000 were  seriously injured on public roadways in the United States. Over half of  these fatalities in 2006—23,339, or 55 percent—occurred on rural roads  and 324 fatalities, or less than 1 percent, occurred at public rail-highway  crossings. Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for  people of every age from 4 through 34 in 2005. Moreover, according to a  study by the American Automobile Association, traffic crashes in urban  areas cost an estimated $164 billion in 2005, including the costs of  property damage, lost earnings, medical treatment, emergency services,  pain and lost quality of life, and other costs.
To reduce the number of crashes, traffic fatalities, and serious injuries on  public roads, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient  Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), August  2005, nearly doubling the federal funding for the Highway Safety  Improvement Program (HSIP) by authorizing $5.1 billion from 2006  through 2009. SAFETEA-LU identified three programs as part of HSIP—a  safety construction program for all public roads and a set-aside program  for rail-highway crossings, both of which predate SAFETEA-LU, and a  new set-aside program for high-risk rural roads. SAFETEA-LU authorized  about $1.3 billion per year for HSIP, including $220 million per year for  rail-highway grade crossings and $90 million per year for high-risk rural  roads. HSIP funds are distributed to the states according to a formula that  includes, among other things, the numbers of highway lane miles, vehicle  miles traveled, and fatalities—all on federal-aid highways—in each state.  In addition, SAFETEA-LU authorized funding increases for several  programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety  Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety  Administration (FMCSA). These programs provide states with grants to  address traffic safety issues involving passenger and commercial vehicles,  respectively, and to improve safety data.
Besides authorizing additional funding to improve highway safety,  SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that each state department of  transportation develop and submit new strategic highway safety plans,  approved by the state’s Governor or responsible state agency, to the  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which administers HSIP, by  October 1, 2007, to avoid incurring a financial penalty in HSIP funds for  the state. For states to receive full HSIP funding after this date, their plans  had to address four key elements specified in SAFETEA-LU. Specifically,  the plans, first, had to be developed with the participation of a wide range  of stakeholders in the strategic planning process and, second, had to  define areas of safety emphasis through an analysis of state fatality data  performed by a crash data analysis system capable of identifying the  state’s greatest highway safety hazards. Third, to address these safety  emphasis areas, the plans had to include strategies and projects covering  all aspects of highway safety for all public roads. The term “all aspects of  highway safety” includes strategies and projects to improve highway  infrastructure; address behavioral challenges such as drunk driving and  seat belt use; and improve emergency medical services, although HSIP  funds are primarily to be used for infrastructure improvements. Fourth,  the plans had to provide for evaluating both the strategic plans themselves,  including the overall progress made under the plans in reducing crashes  and fatalities, and the results of the states’ specific safety projects and  strategies. In addition, to advance public awareness of highway safety  hazards and needs, SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that states publicly  report on at least 5 percent of their most severe hazardous locations. The  states’ “5 percent reports” must include potential remedies for the hazards;  the estimated costs of those remedies; and impediments to implementing  the remedies, other than cost. FHWA must post the states’ 5 percent  reports on its Web site.
This report responds to your request that we assess the progress made  toward accomplishing the HSIP goals set forth in SAFETEA-LU. In  particular, we address the following questions: (1) What steps have states  taken to implement HSIP since SAFETEA-LU? (2) What have been the  results, to date, of states’ efforts in carrying out HSIP, including the results  of their set-aside programs for rail-highway crossings and for high-risk  rural roads? (3) What types of guidance and assistance has FHWA  provided to states to support their planning, implementation, monitoring,  and evaluation of HSIP?
To respond to all three questions, we adopted an overall approach that  included reviewing pertinent legislation; analyzing the strategic highway  safety plans and related documentation that 25 states submitted to FHWA  in 2007, including 19 randomly selected states and 6 judgmentally selected  states that we visited; reviewing FHWA guidance to states and division  offices; and interviewing FHWA Office of Safety and division officials,  state transportation and safety officials, and a wide range of stakeholders  and interest groups. To select the 6 states we visited—California, Florida,  Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania—we considered the number  of fatalities reported for 2005 and other factors, including the numbers of  fatalities that occurred on rural roads, the number of fatalities at rail- highway crossings, the miles of urban and rural roads in the state, and  geographic distribution. Our findings are not necessarily representative of  all 50 states and the District of Columbia because we did not review a  sufficient number of randomly selected states to generalize our results and  we selected 6 states judgmentally. We conducted this performance audit  from May 2007 through November 2008 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 and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. See appendix I for details of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: During 2006, about 43,000 traffic fatalities occurred on the nation’s roads  and 290,000 people were seriously injured. Overall, the number of fatalities  has remained fairly constant over the last decade, although the fatality rate  declined by about 17 percent, from 1.69 fatalities per 100 million vehicle  miles traveled in 1996 to 1.41 in 2006. DOT has a goal of lowering the  fatality rate to 1.0 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2011.
Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress increased funding for HSIP with the goal  of significantly reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public  roads. HSIP’s funding authorizations, which totaled $5.1 billion for fiscal  years 2006 through 2009, nearly doubled from pre-SAFETEA-LU levels.  SAFETEA-LU authorized funding for three major highway safety  programs, as follows (see fig. 1):    Over $950 million per year, on average, for the long-standing HSIP safety  construction program, which funds safety infrastructure projects—such as  intersection improvements and other safety enhancements—on any public  road.    $220 million per year to continue the rail-highway crossing set-aside  program within HSIP, reserving one-half of the funding for hazard  elimination projects—such as grade separations, reconstruction of  crossing structures, and crossing closures—and the other half for the  installation of protective devices, such as warning signs and gates.    $90 million per year for a new, high-risk rural road set-aside program to  address hazards on rural roads that have above-average crash rates  involving fatalities or serious injuries.
Besides authorizing increased funding, SAFETEA-LU added several other  requirements for HSIP:    State transportation departments must now prepare a strategic highway  safety plan that addresses four key elements added by SAFETEA-LU. First,  eight types of stakeholders must participate in preparing the plan. Second,  the plan must define areas of safety emphasis through an analysis of state  fatality and serious injury data. Third, the plan must identify strategies and  projects that cover all aspects of highway safety, which include   (1) infrastructure improvements; (2) behavioral approaches, such as  education and enforcement efforts meant to change drivers’ behavior; and  (3) emergency medical services. Fourth, the plan must provide for overall  performance measurement. SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that states  submit the plans to FHWA by October 1, 2007. States without a strategic  plan in place by this deadline would still receive funds for highway safety  improvement, but the amount would be capped at the fiscal year 2007  level.
To conduct their analyses of fatality and serious injury data, states must  now develop crash data analysis systems that they can use to identify  hazardous locations, potential remedies, and the costs of those remedies.
To advance public awareness of highway safety hazards and needs, states  must now analyze safety hazards on all of their public roads and report on  at least 5 percent of their most severe hazardous locations—in what is  known as the “5 percent report”—to FHWA for posting on its public Web  site. The report must be based on an analysis of crash data and, for the  identified hazardous locations, must include potential remedies and the  estimated costs of those remedies. Acknowledging that states have  differing levels of data available, FHWA set an August 31, 2009, deadline  for states to address all public roads in this report.
Under a new provision, states may now direct, or flex, 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 of their safety infrastructure needs.
FHWA administers HSIP, and its Office of Safety provides overall  programmatic direction and guidance. FHWA division offices located in  each state manage program implementation, review states’ annual  highway improvement program reports, and provide oversight of program  funding. For each of the programs within HSIP—the safety infrastructure  construction program, the rail-highway crossing set-aside, and the high- risk rural road set-aside—states must provide FHWA with an annual report  on the projects they have implemented and on their results.
Other DOT agencies are also involved in state highway safety programs:     NHTSA funds state traffic safety grant programs focused on behavioral  safety issues. For example, the State and Community Highway Safety  Grant program, commonly known as the Section 402 program, funds state  projects that address issues such as impaired driving and seat belt use.  Safety Belt Use grants, which reward states for passing and enforcing  safety belt use laws, can be used for activities ranging from public  education to roadway safety improvements. The State Traffic Safety  Information Systems Improvement grant program, also known as the  Section 408 program, provides funds to states to improve data collection  and analysis and requires that states conduct a highway traffic safety data  assessment and develop a plan to address any findings of this assessment.  Other NHTSA grant programs include Occupant Protection, Alcohol- Impaired Driving Countermeasures, and Child Safety and Booster Seat  Use.
FMCSA provides states with federal funds to address safety issues  associated with commercial trucks and buses. For example, the Motor  Carrier Safety Assistance Program provides grants to support state  compliance reviews and roadside inspections of commercial trucks. Other  FMCSA grants support border enforcement and safety data improvement  projects.
FRA maintains an inventory of rail-highway crossings and a crossing crash  reporting system that states use to manage safety at crossings. FRA also  provides states with computer software that assesses safety risks at  crossings by measuring traffic volumes, train speeds, and other factors.  However, FHWA, rather than FRA, administers HSIP’s set-aside program  for rail-highway crossing safety.
Federal highway safety programs award safety grants to state agencies,  but safety programs and projects are often implemented through local  government agencies and private organizations. For example, FHWA  administers HSIP primarily through state departments of transportation,  which may award subgrants to local government agencies to build safety  improvement projects on locally owned roads. Similarly, NHTSA grants to  state governors’ highway safety offices are often implemented through  subgrants to law enforcement agencies or private organizations involved  in areas such as preventing injuries or drunk driving. FMCSA also awards  grants to state agencies responsible for the Motor Carrier Safety  Assistance Program, and those state agencies may then engage local  agencies, like law enforcement agencies, to carry out the programs as  subgrantees.
Collectively, SAFETEA-LU authorized $9.5 billion over 4 years for state  safety programs administered by FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA. FHWA’s  HSIP received about 53 percent of the authorized funding. The remaining  authorizations were mainly for behavioral programs administered by  NHTSA and FMCSA. However, states have the flexibility to use one type of  NHTSA grant—Safety Belt Use—and NHTSA’s alcohol penalty transfers  for either behavioral projects or infrastructure projects (see fig. 2).  Authorizations for NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s behavioral programs amounted  to about 24 percent and 12 percent, respectively, accounting for over   36 percent of all DOT funding for state highway safety programs.
The funding that states receive for FHWA’s HSIP is generally higher than  the amount specifically authorized for it, mainly because of the Equity  Bonus Program. The Equity Bonus Program, authorized by SAFETEA-LU,  provides funding to states on the basis of equity criteria, such as a  minimum return on state contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. See  appendix II for further information on HSIP funding for states and related  adjustments.
In July 2008, DOT began preparing for the upcoming 2009 reauthorization  of surface transportation programs, including HSIP, by providing Congress  with a proposal for reforming surface transportation programs, including  HSIP. The proposed reforms for HSIP—which DOT said were designed to  reduce paperwork burdens, better align set-asides to target safety  problems, and provide greater flexibility for states—included, among  other things:    eliminating the requirement for the 5 percent report;  increasing the percentage of HSIP funds potentially available to direct, or  flex, to behavioral safety programs from 10 percent to 25 percent of HSIP  funds; and   ending the mandatory rail-highway crossing set-aside, while preserving the  eligibility of rail-highway crossing projects consistent with each state’s  strategic highway safety plan.
section_title: Strategic Highway Safety Plans Included Key Elements Added by SAFETEA-LU, but States Lacked Prescribed Data and Analysis Capabilities
paragraphs: According to FHWA, all 50 states and the District of Columbia complied  with the requirement, added by SAFETEA-LU, that they submit their  strategic highway safety plans to FHWA before October 2007. The 25 state  plans that we reviewed generally addressed the 4 key elements added by  SAFETEA-LU. First, these plans showed evidence of participation in the  strategic planning process by many of the stakeholders specified in the  legislation, and according to FHWA officials, this participation helped  break down the historical separation between planning activities for  infrastructure improvement projects and behavioral programs. Second, the  plans contained safety emphasis areas, which the states defined by  analyzing fatality and serious injury data, as required, and by building on  prior safety planning efforts. Third, to address the states’ safety emphasis  areas, the plans included strategies and projects that covered all aspects of  highway safety, including safety construction improvements, behavioral  approaches, and emergency medical services. Finally, the plans we  reviewed generally provided for evaluating states’ progress toward their  overall goal of reducing fatalities. Although the states had fatality and  serious injury data that were useful for developing their strategic plans,  they often did not have all of the components of crash data analysis  systems required since SAFETEA-LU. These systems include crash  location data, the capability to locate hazardous locations (e.g., a mapping  system that can identify clusters of crashes), roadway inventory data, and  the capability to identify and rank hazardous locations on all public roads  and identify potential remedies. FHWA and the states are taking steps to  address these issues, but the lack of data and analytical capability remains  the principal impediment to states’ implementation of the data-driven  project selection process and reporting requirements specified in  SAFETEA-LU and could be costly to overcome.
subsections: section_title: State Safety Planning Improved with the Increased Involvement of Multidisciplinary Stakeholders in the Strategic Planning Process
paragraphs: In developing their strategic highway safety plans, states increased their  consultation with a wide range of safety stakeholders, as required since  SAFETEA-LU’s enactment, and created a broad-based effort to identify  and address state highway safety issues. Before SAFETEA-LU’s  enactment, state transportation officials were not required to develop  plans for highway safety improvement projects in collaboration with state  officials responsible for behavioral or emergency medical services  programs, although some states had multidisciplinary safety planning  activities under way. For example, highway safety transportation officials  in three of the six states we visited—Florida, Iowa, and Mississippi—said  they had broad-based stakeholder involvement in the planning process  prior to SAFETEA-LU. FHWA had also endorsed this multidisciplinary  approach in a 2001 FHWA program review of HSIP that found a good  multidisciplinary safety management process was a best practice.
SAFETEA-LU directed state transportation departments, when developing  strategic plans, to consult with eight types of safety stakeholders, such as  metropolitan and regional transportation planning organizations and local  traffic enforcement agencies. Our review of 25 state plans showed that   20 states consulted with at least 5 of the 8 required types of stakeholders.  Twenty states also consulted with types of stakeholders not specifically  identified in SAFETEA-LU, such as local governments and other state  agencies. Stakeholders also typically included NHTSA and FMSCA  regional and state division officials. Although not every state achieved the  participation of every organization listed in the legislation, not all of the  organizations invited to participate did so, according to state highway  safety officials. For example, in two of the six states we visited, Operation  Lifesaver representatives were invited to participate in the planning  process but they were unable to attend.
To obtain stakeholder input, states held conferences or summit meetings  where participants could express their views. At the six states we visited,  consultation meant that an organization participated in a state safety  summit meeting and possibly participated afterward in an ongoing  committee responsible for implementation in a specific emphasis area. At  summit meetings, participants helped each state identify its key emphasis  areas and potential strategies for addressing them. For example, in  California, the state chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)  participated in a summit meeting that identified impaired driving as an  area for the state to emphasize and identified 10 strategies to reduce the  number of fatalities due to impaired drivers. MADD officials said the  organization also participated on the California committee charged with  developing specific action items to implement the strategies shown in the  strategic plan. In Illinois, the Operation Lifesaver representatives  participated in a summit meeting that identified a strategy to address  crashes at rail-highway crossings and also sat on the committee  responsible for developing action items to address that strategy.
State highway safety and transportation officials in the states we visited  said the strategic planning process presented a challenge in bringing  stakeholders from different areas together to collaborate on highway  safety. One challenge was to obtain the participation of stakeholders who  might not have been involved in highway safety in the past, such as  hospital representatives and other emergency services providers. Another  challenge was the cost to states of securing conference facilities and  conference materials to conduct summit meetings, according to some  state officials. In one state, the FHWA division office provided about  $20,000 to pay for the conference facilities. Furthermore, officials from  three of the six states we visited said that getting broad-based involvement  in the planning process was difficult because the cost of travel to a central  meeting place was too high for some organizations to participate in the  planning process. For example, Florida state highway officials held a  safety summit in Orlando because it is in the center of the state and added  a second summit in Miami after some potential stakeholders said that  travel costs would be too high for them to participate in the Orlando  summit.
The integrated approach to safety that brought highway safety  stakeholders together in a joint planning process was the most important  outcome of the program changes attributable to SAFETEA-LU, according  to FHWA officials. Highway safety transportation officials in the six states  we visited agreed that safety planning efforts improved because increased  multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement led to the development of  strategic highway safety plans that encompassed a wide array of safety  strategies and included approaches that have not traditionally been  associated with HSIP. This new planning process helped break down the  separation between engineering and behavioral programs that occurred  when FHWA and state highway departments focused exclusively on  highway construction projects, while NHTSA and FMCSA and their  grantees were responsible for education and enforcement projects that  addressed behavioral issues, such as impaired driving or violations of  safety regulations for commercial drivers and vehicles. The new planning  process also encouraged coordination among the DOT safety agencies  through information sharing and interdisciplinary safety programs. For  example, 21 of the 25 state strategic plans we reviewed cited the  participation of NHTSA and FMCSA officials. State safety officials in  California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania said that the requirements since  SAFETEA-LU served as the catalyst for such involvement.
section_title: States Defined Safety Emphasis Areas through Crash Data Analysis and Built on Prior Safety Planning Efforts to Develop Their Strategic Highway Safety Plans
paragraphs: In working with stakeholders to develop their strategic highway safety  plans, states defined safety emphasis areas by analyzing data on crashes  that resulted in fatalities and serious injuries, as required since SAFETEA- LU. According to our reviews of 25 strategic plans, states typically used  data on the types and causes of fatal and serious crashes to help  stakeholders identify safety areas to emphasize in their state strategic  highway safety plans. Previously, states had used data from all crashes to  establish highway safety program priorities, but they had not focused on  crashes resulting in fatalities and serious injuries.
In analyzing their fatality and serious injury data, states often followed a  preexisting comprehensive safety planning approach created by the  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials  (AASHTO). This multidisciplinary approach, built around guidance  published by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program,  identified “safety emphasis” areas, including seat belt use, heavy trucks,  head-on collisions, and rural emergency medical services. In a guide  issued in 1997 and updated in 2004, AASHTO described how a state could  organize its planning process, and some states had used the guide to  develop comprehensive highway safety plans before SAFETEA-LU was  enacted in August 2005. Eighteen of the 25 state plans we reviewed used  AASHTO’s list of safety emphasis areas, but some plans also included  areas of unique importance to the state. The 7 states that did not directly  use AASHTO’s list in their planning picked emphasis areas that were  similar. Figure 3 shows the extent to which the 25 plans we reviewed  incorporated AASHTO’s safety emphasis areas.
section_title: State Plans Included Strategies and Projects to Address Multidisciplinary Safety Emphasis Areas and Goals to Measure Overall Progress, but Generally Did Not Include Set-aside Programs
paragraphs: Since SAFETEA-LU, states have been required in their strategic highway  safety plans to develop strategies to reduce roadway hazards and identify  programs of projects to address all aspects of highway safety, including   (1) infrastructure (engineering, management, and operations);   (2) behavior (education and enforcement); and (3) emergency medical  services. Almost all of the 25 state strategic highway safety plans we  reviewed included strategies to reduce safety hazards and identified  programs of projects to address all 3 aspects of highway safety. For  example, all 25 of the state plans called for infrastructure improvements,  such as installing rumble strips or cable median barriers on roadways to  help keep drivers on the roadway and to reduce head-on collisions (see   fig. 4). All 25 plans also identified potential behavioral projects, such as  projects to enforce seat belt laws or speed limits or provide education to  reduce driving under the influence (DUI). Twenty-two of the 25 plans  included some emergency medical services projects, either within its own  or another emphasis area. These projects ranged from decreasing accident  response times to improving medical outcomes data.
In the 25 state plans we reviewed, the safety emphasis areas identified by  stakeholders frequently did not include rail-highway crossings or high-risk  rural roads, and projects that could be funded through the 2 set-aside  programs within HSIP were also not typically identified as high priorities.  For example, about two-thirds of the state strategic plans we reviewed   (17 of 25), did not identify improvements to rail-highway crossings in their  strategic highway safety plans as a key safety emphasis area. According to  some state department of transportation officials we interviewed, rail- highway crossings were not included as safety emphasis areas because  few fatalities were associated with these areas.
Similarly, state strategic highway safety plans did not specifically include  high-risk rural roads as a safety emphasis area or high-risk rural road  projects within an emphasis area. Many plans identified projects that  could be applicable to improving rural road safety, such as DUI programs  or efforts to minimize the frequency and consequences of roadway  departures. However, only one plan, from Indiana, included high-risk rural  roads as an emphasis area. Furthermore, although 18 of the 25 plans we  reviewed identified rural roads among the hazardous locations in the state  in their 5 percent reports, these locations may not meet SAFETEA-LU’s  definition of high-risk rural roads—that is, rural major and minor  collectors or rural, locally owned roads where the rates of fatalities and  incapacitating injuries exceed, or are expected to exceed, the statewide  averages. According to state department of transportation officials we  interviewed in 5 of the 6 states we visited, it was difficult to identify  potential high-risk rural road projects, in part because states often had  limited data on locally owned roads. As a result, states did not develop an  overall list prioritizing hazardous locations on high-risk rural roads. Some  states that lacked crash data for locally owned rural roads had to rely on  local governments’ road safety audits or anecdotal information to identify  hazardous locations and propose projects for their high-risk rural roads.
Since SAFETEA-LU, states have been required to evaluate their HSIP  programs and projects by establishing strategic and performance-based  goals, such as an overall fatality-reduction goal, and measuring their  program or project performance against those goals. All 25 of the state  plans we reviewed identified an overall state fatality-reduction goal. In  addition, 13 of these plans also established goals for the specific emphasis  areas described in their plan. For example, California’s strategic plan has  an emphasis area goal of reducing annual impaired driving fatalities by   15 percent through activities such as driver education and enforcement.  This reduction, combined with the goals for the other emphasis areas in  the strategic plan, is designed to meet the statewide fatality-reduction goal.  Another of the six states we visited also monitored performance in  achieving fatality-reduction goals for specific safety emphasis areas, and  reported those results periodically to state transportation leaders.
section_title: Many States Lack the Full Data and Analysis Capabilities to Rank Hazardous Locations According to Severity and to Report on the State’s Most Severe Hazardous Locations
paragraphs: Since SAFETEA-LU, states have been required to have crash data systems  that can identify, locate, and rank the severity of safety hazards at crash  locations and can analyze crash data and roadway conditions to develop  potential remedies. These crash data systems must include three  components: (1) the capability to locate crashes on all public roads,  including both state-owned and locally owned roads (e.g., crash data in a  geographic format that can be used with a system to map clusters of  crashes); (2) roadway inventory data that include roadway characteristics,  such as the number of lanes, width of shoulders, or types of signaling  devices at intersections; and (3) a data analysis system (i.e., software  program) to analyze the crash location and roadway inventory data to  identify potential remedies for the hazards. States are required to use their  crash data systems to report annually on at least 5 percent of their most  severe hazardous locations (i.e., 5 percent report).
section_title: Many States Lacked Crash Location Data on Locally Owned Roads in a Usable Format for Analysis
paragraphs: All 25 states we reviewed had crash data, and in our review of their   5 percent reports for 2007, only 1 of the 25 states indicated that it was  limited in its ability to map crash locations on state-owned roads.  However, many of the 25 states whose plans and associated reports we  reviewed did not have crash data on locally owned roads in a usable  geographic format that could readily be used to locate crashes on all  public roads, as required since SAFETEA-LU with, for example, commonly  available mapping software. While FHWA does not require states to report  on their capability to map crash sites and identify clusters of crashes on all  public roads, in our review of the 5 percent reports for the 25 states (2007),  about half of the 25 states (14 of 25) indicated that they had significantly  limited or no ability to use mapping to locate crashes on locally owned  roads in their states. Among these 25 states we reviewed, all 6 of the  states we visited had the ability to map crash locations on state-owned  roads, and 2 states, California and Iowa, also had the ability to map crash  locations on locally owned roads (i.e., their crash data for locally owned  roads was in a geographic, readily analyzable format and they had a  mapping system) and to use that information to identify the most severe  hazardous locations. The other 4 states had information on crash locations  on locally owned roads, but this information was not in a format that  could be used with standard geographical data systems to map the crash  sites and identify clusters of crashes on all public roads.
The inability to locate crashes on locally owned roads is significant  because, nationally, locally owned roads account for about 77 percent of  all public roads, while state-owned roads represent about 20 percent of the  total road mileage. In the six states we visited, the state-owned portion of  the public roads ranged from about 8 percent in Iowa to about 33 percent  in Pennsylvania (see fig. 5).
States with significantly limited or no ability to map crash location data for  locally owned roads would be unable to identify and rank all hazardous  locations on locally owned roads. Of the six states we visited, two  (California and Iowa) were able to locate crashes on all public roads,  including locally owned roads, enabling these states to identify hazardous  locations. The other four states had recently obtained or were planning to  obtain mapping systems that would allow them to identify crash locations  on all public roads, including locally owned roads.
FHWA established August 31, 2009, as the deadline for all states to have  enough data to locate crashes on all public roads and be able to rank these  locations according to their relative severity. FHWA has not required the  states to submit schedules detailing when they would have the data, but  FHWA officials said all states were on track to meet the deadline.  Additionally, all six states we visited indicated that they would have  sufficient crash data in a geographic format and a mapping system to  identify crash locations to meet FHWA’s requirements by the end of  August 2009.
subsections: section_title: Many States Lacked Roadway Inventory Data, Especially for Locally Owned Roads
paragraphs: With complete roadway inventory data, a state can analyze the safety  characteristics of crash locations to identify potential remedies and  estimate costs for each location. These data include characteristics of the  road related to safety, such as number of lanes, pavement conditions,  shoulder width, lighting, signs, and intersections. Although roadway  inventory data have been required since SAFETEA-LU, most of the   25 states we reviewed did not have adequate data, especially for their  locally owned roads, to generate an analysis of potential remedies. For  example, almost all of the states (22 of the 25) lacked complete roadway  inventory data for locally owned roads in the state, and over one–third of  the states (11 of the 25) lacked complete roadway inventory data for state- owned roads. Of the 6 states we visited, 2 states lacked roadway inventory  data for all state-owned roads and 5 states lacked roadway inventory data  for locally owned roads.
AASHTO also reported in 2006 that many states struggle with the  adequacy, currency, and quality of data, especially for local roads. Most  states have not developed roadway inventory data for locally owned roads  because they do not operate and maintain those roads, according to state  transportation officials we interviewed. FHWA officials told us they do not  expect states to obtain roadway inventory data for all of their public roads  by August 31, 2009, and officials in 5 of the 6 states we visited said they  would not have such data by that date. For example, officials in Illinois  estimated that they would not have roadway inventory data for all of their  public roads until sometime after 2013. FHWA has not established a  deadline for states to have roadway inventory data for all public roads, nor  has it required states to submit schedules for achieving compliance with  this requirement. According to an FHWA official, before establishing such  a deadline, FHWA would need to define the specific roadway data  elements needed to meet federal requirements. FHWA has taken a first  step in defining these data elements by developing a proposal for a set of  180 roadway inventory and traffic data elements—called the Model  Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE)—that can be used to  address HSIP’s roadway inventory requirements as well as other safety  analysis needs. FHWA officials told us that they anticipate testing a set of  the MMIRE elements at selected states in 2009. However, FHWA has not  yet defined which of the specific roadway data elements contained in  MMIRE are needed to meet HSIP’s requirements.
section_title: FHWA Is Developing Software to Analyze Data on Hazardous Locations, Remedies, and Costs
paragraphs: The third component needed for the data-driven project selection process  is software that can analyze crash location and roadway inventory data to  identify potential remedies for hazardous locations. FHWA is developing a  software tool, Safety Analyst, that should be able to support the safety  hazard analysis adopted by SAFETEA-LU by using the crash data and  roadway inventory data to determine the most severe hazardous locations,  rank them, identify possible remedies, and estimate the cost of  implementing the remedies. FHWA estimates that it will complete the  development of Safety Analyst and release it to the states in the summer of  2009. However, the system will not be of use to states that lack complete  crash location and roadway inventory data.
Three of the states we visited anticipated using Safety Analyst when it  becomes available. In addition, Mississippi has independently developed  its own program to analyze hazards and identify remedies. This program is  similar to Safety Analyst, but requires fewer types of roadway inventory  data. According to a Mississippi state transportation official, Safety  Analyst requires too many types of roadway inventory data, some of which  are not yet available in most states. For example, Safety Analyst requires  data on roadside safety conditions, which no state has included in its  database, yet such data are considered essential to a full understanding of  highway safety, according to AASHTO’s 2006 report.
section_title: Lack of Data Limits States’ Reporting on Their Most Severe Hazardous Locations
paragraphs: As we have previously mentioned, since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, states  have been required to prepare an annual report to FHWA—the 5 percent  report—that is intended to raise public awareness of the most severe  highway safety hazards and needs, according to FHWA’s guidance. The  report must describe at least 5 percent of the locations on a state’s public  roads that exhibit the most severe safety needs and identify these  locations in a clearly understandable format. The report is to be based on  each state’s analysis of crash data for locations on all public roads and  ranking of the relative severity of hazards at those locations. In addition,  the report is to describe potential remedies for the hazardous locations  shown and the estimated costs of those remedies. FHWA is required to  post the states’ reports on its Web site. The 5 percent report was not  intended to be a list of projects with the highest priority for construction,  but inclusion on the list could make these locations candidates for HSIP  safety construction projects.
The lack of data and analytical capability to map crash locations and  clusters of crashes has limited the abilities of many states to comply with  the 5 percent reporting requirement, and the reports we reviewed varied in  the information they provided. As we have previously mentioned, about  half of the 25 states (14 of 25) indicated that they had significantly limited  or no ability to use mapping to locate crashes on locally owned roads in  their states. As a result of this limitation, 11 of those 14 states were unable  to include hazardous locations on locally owned roads in their 5 percent  reports for 2007, because the states either did not have all of the required  information in a usable geographic format or lacked a system with  capability to map the locations. Four of the 6 states we visited (Florida,  Illinois, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania) were unable to report hazardous  locations on locally owned roads.
Limited roadway inventory data describing the safety-related  characteristics of roads also prevented most states from fully identifying  and reporting on potential remedies for hazardous locations and  estimating the costs of those remedies, as required for the 5 percent  reports. For example, 1 state we visited, California, submitted a 5 percent  report for 2007 that identified over 800 hazardous locations on state- owned and locally owned roads but identified no specific remedies, costs,  or implementation actions. According to FHWA’s review of all 51 of the   5 percent reports submitted by the 50 states and the District of Columbia  in 2006:    4 of 51 reports contained potential remedies for all identified locations,  including the estimated costs of the remedies and the actions needed to  implement them, as required;   37 of 51 reports contained limited remedy, cost, or implementation  information for the locations they identified; and   10 of 51 reports contained no information on potential remedies, estimated  costs, or implementation actions.
section_title: Improving States’ Data and Analysis Capability May Be Costly and Will Take Time
paragraphs: Officials from FHWA headquarters and from the six states we visited said  that developing a roadway inventory to meet the data requirements of  Safety Analyst could be costly. Also, in a 2002 report, AASHTO estimated a  cost of $3 million to $5 million per state to develop the inventory and  another $1.5 million per year to operate and maintain the system.  Mississippi officials we interviewed estimated it could cost their state   $50 million to develop a roadway inventory that would give them the  analytical capability described in SAFETEA-LU for all public roads. In  addition, a Florida department of transportation official with whom we  spoke estimated that developing these data for the state’s local roads  could cost several hundred million dollars and take several years or more.
While efforts to improve and maintain states’ crash data analysis systems  may be costly, SAFETEA-LU greatly increased the authorized funding  levels made available to states for these purposes. Although no high-risk  rural road program funds and no more than 2 percent of rail-highway  crossing program funds can be used for data improvements, there is no  limit on the use of authorized HSIP safety construction funds for data  gathering and maintenance. These authorized HSIP funds nearly doubled  under SAFETEA-LU, from about $500 million per year to nearly $1 billion  per year.
section_title: It Is Too Soon to Evaluate Project Results Since SAFETEA-LU, but Two of the Program’s Funding Provisions May Not Be Aligned with States’ Safety Priorities Identified in Strategic Highway Safety Plans
paragraphs: Because states were not required to submit their strategic highway safety  plans to FHWA until October 2007, they have not yet had time to select  and build infrastructure projects under these plans. Consequently, it is too  soon to evaluate the results—that is, the impact on safety—of HSIP  projects funded under SAFETEA-LU’s authorizations. However, in the   3 years since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment in 2005, states’ experience with  HSIP indicates that some funding provisions in HSIP may not always  target states’ greatest safety needs and priorities as identified in the states’  strategic highway safety plans. First, most states have not used the  program’s flexible spending provision, which allows them to use some  HSIP funding for noninfrastructure projects. Second, the set-aside  program that funds infrastructure improvements at rail-highway crossings  targets a low safety priority in some states, according to those states’  strategic highway safety plans, although other states continue to  emphasize crossing improvements. Finally, states have just begun to  implement the high-risk rural road program, so it is too soon to evaluate  the program’s results. Obligations of program funds have been limited,  however, suggesting that states may be having difficulty implementing the  program. Lack of data on targeted roads and administrative challenges  may be obstacles to implementation.
subsections: section_title: More Time Is Needed to Evaluate the Results of HSIP Projects Authorized under SAFETEA-LU
paragraphs: It is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP infrastructure projects  because too little time has passed for projects to be selected and built in  accordance with priorities in states’ strategic highway safety plans. Given  the October 2007 deadline for states to submit their strategic highway  safety plans to FHWA, states finalized their plans 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 1 year or more to  select and build, and subsequent project evaluations typically rely on   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  HSIP program. FHWA and state officials we interviewed in all six of our  site visits also told us that it is too soon to measure the effectiveness of the  strategic planning process and other changes under SAFETEA-LU in  reducing fatalities and serious injuries. However, in the 25 state annual  reports on HSIP projects for fiscal year 2007 that we reviewed, the states  typically reported that the HSIP projects completed prior to SAFETEA-LU  were generally effective in reducing crashes and fatalities at the project  locations, according to evaluations of crash data at improved locations for  the 3-year periods before and after the projects were completed.
It is also too soon to evaluate the results of rail-highway crossing projects  selected and built since SAFETEA-LU’s passage in 2005, but the overall  number of fatalities at rail-highway crossings continues to drop. Since the  crossing program was established in 1973, rail crossing safety has  improved considerably nationwide. A 2005 study, published in a  multidisciplinary journal dealing with risk analysis, attributed some of the  decline in fatalities at crossings to the program, while noting that other  factors, such as the decline in the number of crossings in recent decades,  may have contributed more to improved safety. For example, the study  noted that between 1975 and 2001, almost 30 percent of crossings had  been closed across the country. Currently, rail crossing deaths amount to  less than 1 percent of traffic fatalities, and the number of fatal accidents at  crossings has been declining (see fig. 6). In the states we visited,  transportation officials said that rail crossing safety had improved  substantially and some of the fatalities that occur now—when drivers  commit suicide or deliberately avoid warning devices—are difficult to  address with infrastructure improvements.
Finally, it is too soon to evaluate the results of the high-risk rural road  program because more time is needed for high-risk rural road projects,  like other HSIP infrastructure projects, to be selected, built, and evaluated.  According to state officials we interviewed, it is too soon to identify the  impact of the high-risk rural road program on safety because the states  have only recently begun to fund projects. Moreover, because the program  was newly established in SAFETEA-LU, there are no prior projects to  evaluate.
section_title: Safety Priorities Identified in States’ Strategic Highway Safety Plans Raise Questions about the Use of HSIP Flexible Funding and Rail-Highway Crossing Set-aside Provisions
paragraphs: Following the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, a state may direct, or flex, up to  10 percent of its HSIP funds to behavioral and emergency medical services  projects—if it adopts a strategic highway safety plan and certifies that it  has met all of its highway safety infrastructure needs. The rail-highway  crossing set-aside provision reserves $220 million a year for projects to  improve rail-highway crossing safety. Our analysis indicates that, in some  states, these provisions may not align federal funding with states’ most  important safety needs and priorities identified in their strategic highway  safety plans.
subsections: section_title: Few States Used HSIP Flexible Funding Provision for Behavioral and Emergency Medical Services Projects
paragraphs: Although states’ strategic highway safety plans include behavioral and  emergency medical services projects as well as infrastructure projects, as  required since SAFETEA-LU, few states have funded noninfrastructure  projects with HSIP funds. The 25 state strategic highway safety plans that  we reviewed called for behavioral projects and 22 of these plans called for  emergency medical services projects. In our visits to states, state safety  engineers particularly emphasized the importance of behavioral  approaches to safety, explaining that engineering solutions cannot by  themselves address problems such as impaired or aggressive driving, and  that the most effective remedies for these hazards would be those  addressing driver behaviors, rather than improving infrastructure.
Although the states’ strategic highway safety plans indicate substantial  interest in implementing behavioral and emergency medical services  projects, as of June 2008, FHWA had approved certifications from seven  states that their infrastructure needs had been met, enabling those states  to flex up to 10 percent of their HSIP funding for behavioral and  emergency medical services projects. Collectively, these seven states plan  to use approximately $13 million for such projects (see table 1).
Other states are not using HSIP funds to implement behavioral and  emergency medical services projects and may be reluctant to do so, in part  because of the certification requirement. For example, although none of  the six states we visited has requested approval to flex 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  requirements because of ongoing infrastructure needs and concerns about  the potential legal liability a state could incur by certifying that all of its  infrastructure safety needs have been met. Officials in the other states we  visited agreed that certification would be difficult, but these officials did  not express interest in flexing funds because they had enough  infrastructure projects to use all of the available HSIP funds.
The 10 percent limit on flexing HSIP funds for behavioral or emergency  medical services projects may also be problematic for some states. For  example, a California official questioned the 10 percent limit, suggesting  that the level of funding a state flexes should be based on the state’s  determination of program needs. Of the seven states approved to flex HSIP  funds, five requested approval to flex 10 percent of their HSIP  apportionment, which is the maximum percentage allowed under the  program. These states’ decisions to flex the maximum allowable  percentage may indicate the high value they place on behavioral or  emergency medical services projects in addressing their highway safety  priorities. In its July 2008 reform proposal, DOT recommended that states  be allowed to flex up to 25 percent of their HSIP apportionment to  behavioral and emergency medical services projects, but DOT did not  propose to eliminate or modify the certification requirement.
At least in part because of these conditions attached to flexing funds, most  HSIP funding remains focused on infrastructure. Moreover, with few  exceptions, federal safety programs specify what types of programs and  projects states can fund with federal dollars, thus further ensuring that  most HSIP funds remain focused on infrastructure improvement projects,  and behavioral and emergency medical services projects continue to be  funded primarily through NHTSA programs, especially the Section 402  program. As a result, federal safety dollars may not be aligned with the  priorities states identified in their strategic highway safety plans and may  not target the most effective types of safety projects. According to some  state safety engineers, removing the restriction that HSIP funds be used  solely for infrastructure improvements would allow states to better  address fatalities and serious injuries by directing funds to behavioral  problems such as impaired driving, which is the cause of many fatalities.
section_title: Rail-Highway Crossing Improvement Funding Set- aside May Target a Low Priority for Some States
paragraphs: After years of improvements in crossing safety since the rail-highway  crossing program began in 1973, such improvements are a low priority for  some states in their strategic highway safety plans, and the program may  provide safety funds for projects that provide comparatively low safety  benefits. SAFETEA-LU authorized a set-aside of $220 million per year for  this program from HSIP funds and allocates these funds among the states  according to a formula that is based, in part, on the number of rail-highway  crossings in each state. About two-thirds of the 25 state plans we reviewed  (17 of 25) did not identify improvements to rail-highway crossings in their  strategic highway safety plans as a key safety emphasis area. Officials in  two of the six states we visited said funding for crossing set-asides is  unnecessarily large, and they questioned the appropriateness of setting  aside such a large amount of HSIP funding for a program that addresses  the cause of less than 1 percent of fatalities. For example, state  transportation officials in Iowa noted that 20 percent of the nation’s HSIP  funds are directed to crossing safety, but these officials said crossing  improvement is a low-priority area for the state in its strategic highway  safety plan. FHWA officials also indicated to us that the level of funding  for the rail-highway crossing program was disproportionately high, given  the number of fatalities and accidents nationally. Additionally, in preparing  their 5 percent reports, states generally did not report crossings as top  hazards. For example, in our review of the 5 percent reports for 25 states,  we found 1 state—Oregon—that included a crossing on its list of top  hazardous locations, indicating that these locations are not high priorities  for most states.
Rail-highway crossing projects generally produced limited safety benefits,  such as reducing crashes and fatalities, according to our analysis of  project evaluations from 25 states. In the 25 annual reports we reviewed  for 2007, we found 21 included crash data for years before and after rail- highway crossing improvement projects were completed (4 states did not  include these data). Almost all of the improved locations in 15 of these   21 states showed zero incidents both before and after the improvement.  For example, in its 2007 report, the state of Washington reported no  fatalities in the 3 years before and in the 3 years after the completion of  the 12 crossing projects completed in 2003. Furthermore, in the few states,  such as Delaware, that reported benefit-cost ratios for crossing projects,  ratios were consistently less than one, reflecting infrequent incidents and  benefits too low to justify costs.
Nevertheless, other states prioritized rail-highway crossing safety in their  strategic highway safety plans because they have determined that crossing  safety projects are effective in improving overall highway safety. About  one-third of the plans we reviewed (8 of 25) identified crossings as a key  emphasis area. For example, Indiana, a state with approximately   4,800 miles of railroad track, emphasized rail-highway crossings in its  strategic highway safety plan, noting that collisions involving vehicles and  trains are more likely to result in fatalities and serious injuries than  collisions involving 2 or more motor vehicles. In its fiscal year 2007 rail- highway crossing program report, Indiana noted that at 67 locations where  crossing projects were completed during 2002 and 2003, 5 crashes that  resulted in fatalities or injuries occurred in the 3 years before the  improvements were made, whereas 2 crashes that resulted in injuries— and no fatalities—occurred in the 3 years after improvements were made.  In addition, 2 of the 6 states we visited, Mississippi and Illinois, have used  state money to augment federal funds for crossing safety. Specifically, in  2001 and 2003 Mississippi put a total of $8 million of state money into  crossing upgrades in addition to federal funding of $3.3 million for such  upgrades. Illinois, in recent years, has programmed $27 million per year of  state funds to rail safety (including crossings and grade separations), in  addition to the $10 million provided by the federal government through the  crossing program. Additionally, in our review of state rail-highway  crossing reports, we found 1 state, Ohio, that reported crossings were  significantly less dangerous following improvement projects, according to  the state’s assessment of crash risk. Finally, FRA officials noted that  crossing safety is particularly important for those states and communities  with a large proportion of crossings and train traffic, noting that accidents  at crossings can be catastrophic.
While the rail-highway crossing set-aside program, as implemented under  SAFETEA-LU, required that all of this program’s funding be spent on rail- highway crossing projects, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act  amended the law to allow states to use rail-highway crossing set-aside  funds for other types of HSIP projects if they certify that they have met all  of their rail crossing needs. In its July 2008 reform proposal, DOT called  for funding rail-highway crossing projects in accordance with each state’s  strategic highway safety plan, without a specific set-aside, or for reducing  the mandatory rail-highway set-aside. While the impact of the recent  technical correction in the law remains to be seen, some states may be  reluctant to certify that they have met all of their rail-highway crossing  needs or they may have legal concerns about the potential liabilities of  such a certification, just as some states were reluctant to make use of  HSIP’s flexible funding provision for those reasons.
section_title: High-Risk Rural Road Program Is Too Recent to Evaluate Results, but Data Limitations and Localities’ Inexperience Are Hindering Implementation
paragraphs: Most states are in the early stages of implementing the high-risk rural road  set-aside program and have yet to obligate significant funds for projects.  Data limitations are hindering these states’ ability to target program funds  to eligible projects, based on our review of the 25 states’ strategic highway  safety plans and associated reports and interviews with officials in the   6 states.
SAFETEA-LU authorized $90 million per year, or a total of $360 million for  fiscal years 2006 through 2009, for states to address hazards on roads  designated as high risk. According to reports on the program to FHWA by  the 25 states we selected, 23 of these states had begun implementing 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. Obligations made to date are low because states  remain in the early stages of implementing the program. As of the end of  June 2008, states had obligated $50.3 million, or about 19 percent of the  $270 million authorized by FHWA for the high-risk rural road program  through that period. Partly to address this issue, FHWA announced a  rural road safety initiative in early 2008 to highlight options for improving  rural road safety, thus encouraging states to take full advantage of the  funding available through the high-risk rural road program.
Limited data on rural roads—including data on crash locations and local  roadway characteristics—is 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 adopted by SAFETEA-LU. For example,  according to our review of 25 state strategic highway safety plans and  reports on the program, few states reported having roadway inventory  data for all public roads (3 of 25) or complete, high-quality crash data for  rural roads (5 of 25), leaving a significant number of states without data on  rural roads and, therefore, without the means to effectively implement the  program. Additionally, officials in 5 of the 6 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.
Even when data are available, the program may be challenging for states  to implement because of difficulties in analyzing those data. Some state  officials we interviewed said that selecting candidate projects on the basis  of data analysis was challenging because specific locations on rural roads  tend to have lower traffic volumes and few crashes, fatalities, and  incapacitating injuries, even though higher numbers of fatalities happen on  rural roads in general. Consequently, it is difficult for safety engineers and  planners to determine which specific roadway segments, intersections, or  other areas are most in need of improvement. For example, state officials  in Iowa noted that many rural road projects would not be selected on the  basis of crash frequency data and, consequently, other selection criteria,  such as input from local transportation officials, are necessary to pick  locations for improvements in rural areas.
Additionally, implementing projects on roads that are not owned by the  state may be challenging because administering improvement projects can  be difficult for local governments. Because many of the roadways targeted  by the high-risk rural road program are locally owned and managed, local  agencies need to be involved in implementing projects on those roads.  However, according to a recent FHWA study, local agencies may not have  much experience in managing federal-aid highway contracts. For  example, Iowa officials commented that the federal requirements  associated with the high-risk rural road program, like other federal aid  highway projects, can be difficult for county governments to handle.
section_title: FHWA Provided Comprehensive Guidance, Training, and Technical Assistance to Support States’ Planning and Implementation of HSIP, but Its Guidance on the 5 Percent Reports Gave States Latitude
paragraphs: To support states in planning and carrying out their HSIP programs,  FHWA officials provided comprehensive written guidance memorandums,  training, and technical assistance. FHWA’s Office of Safety issued  guidance memorandums covering the states’ planning, implementation,  and evaluation of HSIP programs and held training on strategic highway  safety planning for state officials. FHWA’s division offices also  participated in state planning efforts. In developing guidance on the new   5 percent report adopted by SAFETEA-LU, FHWA gave states latitude in  defining the methodology and scope of their reports, and consequently,  although these reports generally are consistent with SAFETEA-LU, they  may not be as useful to the public as intended. FHWA’s guidance on  developing and implementing strategic highway safety plans indicated that  states should rely on the existing transportation planning processes. In  addition, FHWA provided guidance to states on monitoring federal-aid  highway projects, including safety projects, to help ensure that local  public agencies are administering projects in accordance with federal  requirements. FHWA’s guidance for evaluating HSIP projects directed  states to evaluate all safety projects and strategies and to use  performance-based goals, established as part of the strategic highway  safety plan.
subsections: section_title: FHWA Provided Comprehensive Guidance and Technical Assistance, and FHWA Officials Participated in States’ Planning Processes
paragraphs: FHWA’s Office of Safety provided programmatic guidance to the states  through eight memorandums that introduced new HSIP features. These  memorandums explained how states should meet the new requirement for  a strategic highway safety plan, prepare annual reports on the HSIP safety  construction program and the 2 set-aside programs, apply to flex funds  between programs if needed to support their strategic plans, and prepare  annual 5 percent reports describing their most severe hazardous locations.  In addition, FHWA provided training through symposiums and offered  technical assistance to state departments of transportation to help them  establish a process for developing strategic plans that would meet the  requirements added by SAFETEA-LU. Although FHWA did not initially  issue regulations to implement SAFETEA-LU’s revisions to HSIP, it is now  doing so. FHWA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on SAFETEA- LU’s revisions to HSIP in April 2008 and, according to an FHWA official,  expects to propose a final rule late in 2008.
FHWA’s most extensive guidance memorandum, a 38-page booklet,  focused on how states should comply with the new strategic highway  safety planning requirements in SAFETEA-LU. The booklet recommended  several detailed steps to prepare for developing the plans, including steps  designed to encourage coordination, such as the following:    become familiar with existing safety plans developed for programs funded  by NHTSA and FMCSA, plus plans developed by statewide and  metropolitan planning agencies;   establish a working group to guide the development of the strategic plan;    bring safety partners together at a safety summit to share safety priorities  and discuss critical safety issues.
FHWA division staff worked closely with the states to help them carry out  their HSIP planning processes. For example, we found FHWA staff listed  among the state planning partners in all 25 of the strategic highway safety  plans that we reviewed. In the six states we visited, FHWA division  officials helped arrange for planning summits to be held, and, in two of the  six states, FHWA staff encouraged highway safety stakeholders to attend.  In Pennsylvania, the FHWA division office helped pay for the safety  summit. In Illinois, FHWA officials helped the state establish a state safety  engineering office. Without that office, compliance with new HSIP  requirements would have been difficult, according to FHWA division  officials. The FHWA division also helped with a summit and two planning  workshops.
In all six states we visited, FHWA division officials were, to varying  degrees, involved in states’ strategic highway safety planning processes— for example, by attending safety summit meetings, working on planning  committees for state strategic planning committees, facilitating meetings,  and clarifying FHWA policies and requirements. State officials in every  state we visited indicated that FHWA officials were highly instrumental  and played an important role in providing guidance and assistance during  the development of their strategic highway safety plans. In addition, in all  50 states, FHWA division offices were responsible for reviewing strategic  highway safety plans to assess the planning process and the completeness  of state plans, including whether the states’ data systems covered all  public roads.
section_title: FHWA Gave States Latitude on the Methodology and Scope of Their 5 Percent Reports, Limiting the Reports’ Usefulness in Increasing Public Awareness
paragraphs: In its guidance on the 5 percent report, FHWA gave states broad latitude in  meeting this new reporting requirement. SAFETEA-LU did not specify  criteria or a methodology for states to use in defining the hazardous  locations (e.g., the universe of roads that would be used to select the  locations and the definition of severe or hazardous safety needs) or  determining the exact percentage of hazardous locations states should  identify—beyond specifying that the report should include “at least five  percent” of the most severe hazardous locations in the state—nor did the  legislation include a prescribed format for the 5 percent reports, except to  say that the report must be “clearly understandable.” FHWA officials told  us that, consistent with the changes made by SAFETEA-LU, they did not  define a methodology and left it to the states to set criteria for selecting  locations. Also, as we previously mentioned, FHWA recognized that states’  data varied greatly and that many states lacked data, particularly on local  roads. The guidance instructed states to work with the crash location data  they had and to submit 5 percent reports with an explanation of the data  limitations and a schedule for achieving full coverage of all roads. In   May 2007, to identify and share best practices, FHWA distributed  information on noteworthy practices and examples, based on its analysis  of the 5 percent reports received in 2006. This information contained  suggestions for organizing a 5 percent report, but did not specify a  methodology for states to use in identifying and reporting on the most  severe hazardous locations.
Consequently, the 5 percent reports submitted to FHWA to date vary  widely in the criteria and methodologies used for selecting the most severe  hazardous locations and, thus, the number of locations reported, the  information included, and the format for presenting the information. First,  states used markedly different definitions of the universe of roads from  which they selected their hazardous locations—some states reported on   5 percent of a large set of roadway locations (e.g., any public road with a  crash involving a fatality or serious injury) and other states reported on   5 percent of a much smaller set of roadway locations (e.g., locations the  state had defined as the “most hazardous”). As a result of these differing  methodologies, states varied widely in the actual number of hazardous  locations described in their 5 percent reports. For example, according to  FHWA’s review of the 5 percent reports submitted by 50 states and the  District of Columbia in 2006, the number of locations reported per state  ranged from 1 to more than 3,200. Similarly, our review of 25 states’   5 percent reports submitted in 2007 indicates that the variations in  reporting have continued, with the number of locations reported per state  ranging from 5 to 880.
Second, the information included in 5 percent reports we reviewed also  varied. For example, some reports included remedies and costs for each  hazardous location, as required, while others showed remedies and costs  only for certain locations or for none at all. Third, states also used  different formats to identify the hazardous locations they listed in their   5 percent reports, and some formats may not be meaningful or readily  understandable to the public. For example, the public may find it difficult  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. Given  these differences in format—as well as the differences in methodology and  information included—the 5 percent reports may not be providing  consistent information to the public and fully serving their purpose of  raising public awareness of highway safety hazards and needs, as specified  in SAFETEA-LU and FHWA’s guidance.
According to FHWA officials, DOT proposed eliminating the 5 percent  report requirement in its July 2008 surface transportation reform proposal  because the department believed that sufficient and more useful  information would exist through the publication of states’ strategic  highway safety plans and HSIP annual reports. Those officials told us that  HSIP’s strategic plans and annual reports provide a more comprehensive  and consistent summary of safety challenges facing the states—and, thus,  offer more promise in contributing to public awareness of safety issues— than the 5 percent report. We also found that some states were using their  5 percent reports to help identify projects for funding. These states could  continue to do this analysis if the report were eliminated.
section_title: FHWA’s Guidance on Implementing Strategic Highway Safety Plans Relied on Existing Planning Processes and Informal Coordination among Key Federal and State Stakeholders
paragraphs: FHWA’s guidance recommended that state transportation departments  implement their strategic highway safety plans through existing safety  programs administered by FHWA, NHTSA, and FMSCA, and through  existing federal and state transportation planning processes, as follows:    FHWA directs states to implement HSIP infrastructure projects through  the same planning processes they use for other infrastructure projects— that is, states must include HSIP infrastructure projects in their statewide  transportation improvement program.
NHTSA requires states to list projects funded through its grant programs  in annual highway safety plans.
FMCSA requires states to list activities funded through its grant programs  in commercial vehicle safety plans.
To facilitate the coordination and implementation of the strategic highway  safety plan across these various federal programs, FHWA recommended,  but did not require, that states develop action plans with further  information on how they planned to implement projects through their  statewide transportation improvement programs, highway safety plans,  and commercial vehicle safety plans. The action plan was to provide more  detailed information about safety programs and projects than the strategic  highway safety plan, describe how programs and projects should be  coordinated and implemented, designate leadership responsibilities for  implementation, and specify funding sources. Figure 7 illustrates the  process for advancing programs and projects from the strategic highway  safety plan through an action plan to an FHWA, NHTSA, or FMCSA safety  funding program and plan.
According to FHWA’s guidance, an action plan could promote  coordination at the state level during the development of the HSIP  strategic highway safety plan and NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s program plans,   that  particularly for behavioral and emergency medical services projects could be funded through more than one program or agency. The action  plan could be developed with multiagency involvement and could address the implementation of all related DOT safety projects within a specific  emphasis area identified in the strategic highway safety plan, rather than  within a specific DOT safety program. Two of the six states we visited  were developing or had completed action plans. Mississippi is developing  multiagency action plans for the safety emphasis areas within its strate highway safety plan. These action plans describe the expected  effectiveness of proposed projects and identify project costs, keys to  success, any state legislative actions needed, and the lead state  implementing the proposed projects. In April 2008, California officials  completed a formal strategic highway safety action plan based on  collaborative work by seven state safety agencies, including the state  department of transportation, the office responsible for NHTSA safety  grant programs, and the office responsible for FMCSA programs.
In implementing strategic highway safety plans, FHWA, NHTSA, a FMCSA and their grantees coordinate and collaborate informally when  s we  they have no formal implementation agreements, according to official ay  interviewed from those three agencies. Even though the strategic highw safety plans must consider a comprehensive set of potential approaches to  improve highway safety, only the HSIP funds administered by FHWA must  be spent in accordance with this plan. Nevertheless, both NHTSA and  FMCSA have encouraged their field office staff and grantees to support the  implementation of state strategic highway safety plans through their  respective agencies’ highway safety plans and commercial vehicle safety  plans. For example, although NHTSA has not issued comprehensive  guidance to states on the relationship of the strategic highway safety plan to NHTSA programs, a NHTSA official told us that, in some cases, sta officials responsible for implementing NHTSA programs use the strategic  highway safety plan as a basis for setting their program priorities.  Likewise, according to an FMCSA official, in states that included motor  carrier safety issues in their strategic highway safety plan, FMCSA  program stakeholders also use the state’s strategic highway safety plan t further their programmatic goals. This coordination occurs naturall states, such as Florida and Pennsylvania, where the same officials are  responsible both for planning behavioral projects funded by NHTSA  programs and for implementing HSIP projects. In other states where th s  functions are in different offices, such as California and Iowa, official responsible for behavioral projects held key leadership positions in the  development of the state’s strategic highway safety plan. However, the  nature and extent of this coordination depends on the state, and there is no federal requirement to encourage it. DOT, in its July 2008 surface  transportation reform proposal, called for states to submit their NHTSA  grant applications in conjunction with their strategic highway safety plans  ese  to better ensure coordination. However, the DOT proposal does not  require NHTSA grantees to align the activities conducted under their  grants with the emphasis areas identified in their states’ strategic high safety plans.
section_title: FHWA Monitors HSIP through Reporting and Other Requirements
paragraphs: FHWA division offices monitor states’ performance through annual reports  for HSIP, including reports on the HSIP set-aside programs for rail- highway crossings and high-risk rural roads. These reports, which a re  submitted by state transportation departments to FHWA, describe the  state’s progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects  projects under the two set-aside programs; the effectiveness of these  projects; and the extent to which the projects helped reduce roadway  fatalities, injuries, and crashes. In addition to these reports, states are  required to prepare annually the 5 percent reports that we previously  discussed in this report.
As part of its oversight responsibilities, FHWA monitors the use of all  federal-aid highway funds, including HSIP funds. Under this oversight  program, FHWA has directed its division offices to work with states to  ensure that these projects are carried out in accordance with federal  requirements. For example, the FHWA division office and the state  transportation department enter into an agreement about how the fe aid highway projects in the state will conform to federal requirements  (e.g., the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 19 among others). In monitoring the federal-aid highway program, FHWA  conducts program reviews of state-administered projects on  predetermined schedules, using techniques such as risk assessments.
Additionally, FHWA division offices assess whether and how state  departments of transportation monitor locally administered federal-aid  projects for compliance with federal requirements. States are responsible  for determining that subrecipients of federal-aid highway funds—that is,  local agencies—have adequate project delivery systems and sufficient  accounting controls to manage those funds. Such systems and controls are  important to help ensure that HSIP projects will be built and federal funds  will be properly spent to reduce the share of fatalities that occur on roads  under local agencies’ jurisdiction. FHWA division offices periodically  review state transportation departments’ processes and procedures for  oversight of local agencies to determine if improvements are warranted.
section_title: FHWA Guidance Describes Evaluation Requirements for Strategic Highway Safety Plans and HSIP Projects
paragraphs: Since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment, states have been required to regularly  evaluate their strategic highway safety plans, and FHWA has issued  guidance that directs states to evaluate the plans annually after an initial  implementation period. FHWA’s guidance encourages states to continue  coordinating with stakeholders who participated in developing the plan  and include in their evaluation all safety projects and strategies, regardless  of funding source or responsible agency. FHWA noted that evaluating the  strategic plan would help states determine the impact of various strategies  and make better decisions about the allocation of resources. According to  FHWA’s guidance, the strategic plan should be revised periodically— approximately every 4 to 5 years—to update safety goals and strategies for  the state.
Both before and after SAFETEA-LU’s enactment, states have also been  required to evaluate the results achieved through individual projects  carried out under HSIP. FHWA’s guidance since SAFETEA-LU requires  using performance-based goals, established as part of the strategic  highway safety plan, to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan’s strategies.  Task groups, formed during the strategic highway safety planning process,  set specific performance-based goals for a state’s emphasis areas and  strategies to measure progress during the strategic highway safety plan’s  implementation. For example, a task group might set a strategy goal of  reducing cross-median fatalities and serious injuries by 20 percent within   4 years, as part of a larger emphasis area goal to reduce roadway  departure fatalities and serious injuries. Since SAFETEA-LU, FHWA’s  updated guidance for evaluating HSIP projects directs that states revise  their performance goals from reducing the “number and severity of  accidents and potential accidents” to reducing the “number of fatalities  and serious injuries.”
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The collaboration between safety stakeholders that resulted from the  strategic planning process added by SAFETEA-LU has helped states take a  more comprehensive approach to highway safety, but the data limitations  that many states face prevent them from fully implementing the data- driven project selection process specified in SAFETEA-LU. Although  FHWA expects every state to have the crash location data and a system to  locate crashes on all public roads by August 2009, many states will likely  take longer to obtain the roadway inventory data needed to identify  remedies for hazardous locations and to estimate the costs of those  remedies, as required. FHWA has not set a deadline for states to obtain  these data, nor has it required states to submit schedules to FHWA for  achieving compliance with this requirement. To this end, FHWA has taken  a first step by proposing a large set of potential roadway inventory data  elements in its MMIRE. However, the agency has yet to specify which of  these proposed elements are essential to address HSIP’s requirements for  analysis of hazardous locations on all public roads. Implementing a data- driven project selection process is critical because it provides a fact-based  approach for identifying and ranking safety priorities and demonstrating to  the public that states are using public funds effectively to address their  highest safety priorities. While states have estimated that the costs of  complying fully with the law’s data requirements may be high, SAFETEA- LU significantly increased states’ authorized HSIP funding and placed no  limit on the percentage of HSIP safety construction funds that the states  can use to address data deficiencies.
While SAFETEA-LU added requirements for states to develop and  implement strategic highway safety plans that consider a wide range of  approaches to improving highway safety, states have limited flexibility to  match funds to their safety priorities. For example, the restrictions on  using HSIP funds for noninfrastructure remedies—including the  requirement for certifying that all highway safety infrastructure needs  have been met before flexing HSIP funds to noninfrastructure projects— may preclude some states from using these funds for high-priority  behavioral or emergency medical services projects that the states’ data  indicate could save more lives, because of states’ ongoing infrastructure  needs and concerns about the potential legal liability of making such a  certification. Conversely, the requirement to set aside funds for rail- highway crossing improvements may lead states, in some cases, to apply  HSIP funds to projects that have a low priority in those states’ strategic  highway safety plans. Both of these funding restrictions have limited the  ability of some states to implement the full complement of approaches  described in their strategic highway safety plans and to fully achieve the  goal of using data to identify and select projects that best address their  highway safety priorities.
Based on our work and FHWA’s analysis, the quality and usefulness of the  5 percent reports that states have submitted to FHWA is questionable  because of data and other limitations. To date, the reports vary widely in  the methodology used for selecting the most severe hazardous locations  and, thus, the number of hazardous locations listed, the information  included, and the format for identifying those locations. While this  variation is consistent with the limited guidance FHWA provided on the  reports, the quality and usefulness of reports that list very few hazardous  locations or use unfamiliar terms to identify locations is unclear, and some  reports may not be enhancing public awareness of the most severe  highway safety hazards and needs as intended. FHWA officials told us that  HSIP’s strategic highway safety plans and annual reports provide a more  comprehensive and consistent summary of safety challenges facing the  states—and thus offer more promise in contributing to public awareness  of safety issues—than the 5 percent report. When DOT developed its  reform proposal as part of its preparation for the upcoming  reauthorization of all surface transportation programs, including HSIP, in  2009, it proposed eliminating this reporting requirement.
section_title: Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To improve HSIP’s effectiveness, Congress should consider taking the  following two actions:    To better align HSIP funding with states’ top safety priorities, restructure  two of HSIP’s statutory funding provisions by   modifying HSIP’s flexible funding provision to either revise or  eliminate the certification requirement so that states can more freely  direct HSIP funds to behavioral and emergency medical services  projects—rather than infrastructure improvement projects—when data  analysis indicates more fatalities and serious injuries could be  prevented by doing so and revising the rail-highway crossing set-aside program to ensure that its  funding level is more closely and appropriately tied to the number of  fatalities and serious injuries that such improvements can be expected  to prevent in the states, and to ensure that any resulting additional  funds be directed to highway safety projects that promise greater  benefits.
Eliminate the requirement for states to prepare the 5 percent report, given  states’ current data limitations that hinder their complete and consistent  reporting.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help states fully implement the data-driven project selection process  prescribed for HSIP, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation  direct the FHWA Administrator to take the following three actions:    define which roadway inventory data elements—contained in its proposal  for a Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements, as appropriate—a  state needs to meet federal requirements for HSIP;   set a deadline for states to finalize development of the required roadway  require states to submit schedules to FHWA for achieving compliance with  this requirement.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment prior to  finalizing the report. DOT generally agreed with the findings and  recommendations and provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. FRA officials also provided their additional  perspective on HSIP’s rail-highway crossing set-aside program—which is  administered by FHWA—emphasizing that such crossings have the  potential for serious or even catastrophic accidents and, as we noted in  our report, that crossing safety is particularly important for states and  communities with a greater proportion of crossings and train traffic.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to interested  congressional committees and the Secretary of Transportation. The report  also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In this report, we assessed the Highway Safety Improvement Program’s  (HSIP) progress toward enhancing highway safety through road  improvements—a goal set forth in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,  Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).  To perform this assessment, we addressed the following questions:   (1) What steps have states taken to implement HSIP since SAFETEA-LU?  (2) What have been the results to date of states’ efforts in carrying out  HSIP, including the results of their set-aside programs for rail-highway  crossings and for high-risk rural roads? (3) What types of guidance and  assistance has the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided to  states to support their planning, implementation, monitoring, and  evaluation of HSIP?
In responding to these questions, our overall approach was to review  pertinent legislation; analyze the strategic highway safety plans and related  documentation that 25 states submitted to FHWA in 2007, including   6 states where we conducted site visits; review FHWA guidance to states  and division offices; and interview FHWA Office of Safety and division  officials, state transportation and safety officials, and a wide range of  stakeholders and interest groups.
The legislation that we reviewed included    SAFETEA-LU’s changes to the HSIP provisions and other highway safety  funding authorizations in the U.S. Code and the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008.
For the 25 states we selected, we analyzed their    strategic highway safety plans;    annual HSIP, high-risk rural road, and rail-highway crossing program    5 percent reports.
Our analysis of this documentation focused on the extent to which the  selected states had met key elements added by SAFETEA-LU, including  involving multiple stakeholder groups in the strategic planning process;   selecting projects that addressed all aspects of highway safety, including  infrastructure, behavioral, and emergency medical services projects;   developing a data-driven project selection process; and  incorporating an evaluation component in the strategic highway safety  plan.
We also determined the extent to which the plans included projects  addressing rail-highway crossings and high-risk rural roads.
To select the 25 states whose highway safety documentation we analyzed,  we randomly selected 19 states and judgmentally selected 6 other states— California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania—where  we conducted site visits and more in-depth reviews. To select the 6 states  for site visits, we considered several factors, including    numbers of highway fatalities in 2005;    numbers and rates of alcohol-related fatalities, rural deaths, and    numbers of fatalities at rail-highway crossings;    miles of urban and rural roads; and    geographic distribution.
Although our analyses covered about half of the 51 strategic highway  safety plans and related reports that the 50 states and the District of  Columbia submitted to FHWA, our analyses cannot be projected  nationwide because our sample did not include a sufficient number of  randomly selected states and we selected the 6 states we visited  judgmentally.
Besides analyzing the 25 selected states’ strategic highway safety plans  and related reports, we reviewed 8 guidance documents that FHWA  provided to the states on implementing their highway safety programs and  interviewed FHWA Office of Safety officials. Additionally, in the 6 states  we visited, we interviewed FHWA division officials and state  transportation and safety program officials. We asked the FHWA officials  about the guidance and assistance they provided to the states and sought  the views of the state officials on the value and extent of FHWA’s  involvement in the strategic highway safety planning process. During our  site visits, we also asked FHWA division officials and state transportation  officials for their views on how SAFETEA-LU had affected HSIP and the  implementation of the rail-highway crossing and high-risk rural road  programs in their states.
Finally, we interviewed representatives from a wide range of stakeholder  and interest groups to obtain their views on the program. These groups  included the following:    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration    State and local organizations:    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials    National Association of County Engineers    Education and research organizations:    AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety  the University of California Berkeley Traffic Safety Center    Advocacy and industry groups:    Mothers Against Drunk Driving  We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 through November  2008 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 and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained meets these standards.
section_title: Appendix II: HSIP Apportionments for States, Including Equity Bonus and Other Adjustments
paragraphs: Formulas in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation  Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) govern the Federal  Highway Administration’s (FHWA) apportionments to states for the  Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). FHWA bases its HSIP  apportionments initially on the amounts authorized by SAFETEA-LU for  the program and the related apportionment factors. FHWA then applies  other adjustments based on factors not related to safety.
First, SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that FHWA apportion HSIP funds  to individual states based on three equally weighted factors: (1) lane miles  of federal-aid highways in each state, (2) total vehicle miles traveled on  federal-aid highways in each state, and (3) number of fatalities on the  federal-aid system in each state. FHWA then adjusts the HSIP  apportionment for other factors identified in SAFETEA-LU and other laws  related to federal appropriations in general. Adjustments made because of  SAFETEA-LU provisions include the Equity Bonus Program; the State  Planning and Research set-aside; and, as applicable, revenue-aligned  budget authority. Other laws include rescissions due to appropriations  acts.
The Equity Bonus Program, authorized by SAFETEA-LU, creates the  largest adjustment that FHWA makes to state HSIP apportionments. The  Equity Bonus Program provides funding to states based on equity criteria,  such as a minimum return on contributions to the Highway Trust Fund.  Because of the Equity Bonus Program, FHWA increased states’ HSIP  apportionments by $281 million in fiscal year 2006, $281 million in fiscal  year 2007, and $301 million in fiscal year 2008. It added 23.6 percent to the  amount SAFETEA-LU authorized for HSIP in fiscal year 2008. Under the  program, two states and the District of Columbia did not receive an  adjustment because they did not meet program criteria, while the other  states, which met the bonus criteria, had their HSIP apportionments  increased by varying amounts.
States are required, since SAFETEA-LU, to set aside 2 percent of their  HSIP apportionments for specified state planning and research purposes.  In fiscal year 2008, this set-aside reduced the amount that FHWA  apportioned to states for HSIP by $27 million.
SAFETEA-LU included provisions for the distribution of revenue-aligned  budget authority. This adjustment, which reflects changed estimates in  highway account tax receipts, can cause a change in HSIP  apportionments, to bring budget authority in line with revised revenue.  FHWA made no revenue-aligned budget authority adjustments in fiscal  years 2006 or 2008, but did increase the HSIP apportionment in fiscal year  2007 by $32.1 million due to this adjustment factor.
Appropriations laws can mandate a rescission of apportionments. In 2006,  FHWA revised the HSIP apportionment down by 1 percent due to a  rescission. This reduced the HSIP apportionment by about $12.4 million  for fiscal year 2006. No rescissions were required for fiscal years 2007 and  2008.
Table 2 provides details of FHWA’s fiscal year 2008 apportionments by  state.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, other key contributors to this  report were Rita Grieco (Assistant Director), Richard Calhoon, Bess  Eisenstadt, Susan Irving, Bert Japikse, Jacqueline Nowicki, Sara Ann  Moessbauer, John W. Stambaugh, and Frank Taliaferro.