Improving Local Road Safety: Noteworthy State DOT Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance Practices Monday, September 23, 2013 2:00 – 3:30 PM (ET)
Agenda • Introductions • Assessment Purpose • Background • Noteworthy Practices • State DOT Presentations • Questions 2
What is the Difference? 3
Challenges • Local funding constraints • Low crash rates • State governments lack • Competing interests effective strategies • Difficulty securing local • Lack of data and data funding match analysis skills • Lack of staff • Limited state funds or expertise and resources 4
Assessment Objectives • Review State DOT practices for delivering safety funding and resources to local entities for road safety improvement projects – Identify extent to which federal/state funding and resources are being delivered to local entities and the associated challenges – Identify model practices 5
Technical Approach • Questionnaire • Conducted Interviews (38 states responded) and documented case studies for final report Collected Baseline Information On: Funding Resources and Incentives 1 Information and Resources Data Collection and Analysis Local Project Identification 2 Training and Development Training and Development 3 Technical Assistance Technical Assistance 4 Project Implementation Local Project Administration 6
Model Practices • Ohio DOT • Nebraska Department of Roads • Caltrans • Louisiana DOTD • Florida DOT • Tennessee DOT 7
Background
DOT Local Safety Program Organization Centralized Decentralized Program Organization Hybrid of Hybrid of Local Local-Aid Road Safety Centralized Division and Program and District/Region- Local Road Local Road District/Region- District/Region- Level Local Local-Aid Safety Safety Level Project Level Project Project Division Program/Unit Program Coordination Coordination Coordinators Scope/Responsibilities Safety Special unit/ Special unit/ Special All local projects All local safety projects department department unit/department identified, projects identified, handled with handles local identifies, identifies, prioritized, prioritized, all other safety prioritizes prioritizes safety developed and developed and local projects. safety projects, projects, district- administered at administered at projects. local-aid level staff district level by district level by division administer district engineers. local project administers projects. coordinator. projects. 9
Extent of DOT Involvement Breadth of DOT Involvement in Local Road Project Implementation Level 4 Technical Safety Assistance Level 3 Training & Development Level 2 Resources & Information Level 1 Depth of Relationship with Local Agencies 10
Assessment Results
States Obligating Funds to Local Safety 12
Data Collection and Analysis • Availability of local crash data in state traffic records databases Available Available Available Not Data Type for Most for Some for a Few Available Fatal Crash Data 35 0 0 0 Serious Injury Crash Data 32 3 0 0 Location Data (GIS or 15 8 8 4 Linear Reference) Exposure Data 3 15 15 1 13
Training & Technical Assistance • Data Analysis • State DOT • Problem Identification • LTAP • Countermeasure • MPO Identification • Locals • Benefit/Cost Analysis • University • Application Preparation • Private organizations • Project Development • Post Project Evaluation • Federal Regulations/Federal Aid • Other 14
Local Project Identification • RSA programs and training • Systemic safety assessment guidelines • Funding for county road safety plans • Advisory committee to oversee and review local projects • Application tool • SHSP goals incorporated into grant application 15
Local Project Administration: Commonly Used Streamlining Practices Percentage of Responses Top Five Strategies (n=38 States) Systemic safety improvements on local roads 61 Grouping multiple projects to reduce administrative burden 50 Identify local match and source prior to project selection 45 Local agencies use own labor and resources for small projects 39 Programmatic categorical exclusions 32 16
Conclusions • Local road safety programs save lives • Safety improvements need to be implemented at a systemwide level • States are using a variety of approaches to engage local agencies • A one-size-fits-all solution does not exist • Many states are making local road safety improvements a priority 17
Local Road Safety Checklist • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improving local road safety – Organizational, data, training and technical assistance, funding, program administration checklists 18
State DOT Presentations
Ohio’s Local Partner Focus for Increased Roadway Safety Victoria Beale Director, Ohio LTAP Center 20
Ohio’s State vs. Locally Maintained System • 937 cities/villages Maintenance Authority • 88 counties • 1,307 townships Municipal 87% of 30% Ohio’s ODOT Roadways Township 13% 34% are on the County Local System 23%
Home Rule “authority to exercise all powers of local self- government” An Ohio Street - 1907
Crashes by Roadway Ownership Serious Injuries Total Crashes Fatalities ODOT ODOT ODOT System System 28% System 36% 42% Local System Local Local 64% System System 58% 72% 23
Keys to Ohio’s Local Involvement • Data Analysis • Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) as centralized partner with Ohio’s locals – Data Sharing / Use – Road Safety Audits (RSAs) with funding – Township Sign Grant Program • County Sign Upgrade Program and Safety Funding through County Engineers’ Association of Ohio (CEAO) 24
Data Analysis – The Foundation • Through the SHSP/TRCC, Ohio has invested more than $5M in projects that create an accurate roadway inventory in each county. • Developed in-house automated tools that allow non-DOT users to easily access crash data and identify trends. 25
Ohio LTAP Center – Key Partner • Broad based approach – Technical Assistance through Road Safety Audits – Grant Administration Support for the Townships – Training Support, such as current training on “Roadway Departure Countermeasures” and on-going training on crash data tools “GCAT” 26
Ohio’s Rural Road Safety Audit Assistance (RRSAA) Program • LTAP contacts eligible counties, leads RSAs and recommends low-cost improvements on HRRR corridors • HSIP funds used as “carrot” to participate in the process • Goal: make safety improvements on local roads and build local expertise in safety review and analysis 27
Ohio’s Rural Road Safety Audit Assistance (RRSAA) Program (cont’d) Warren County Road Safety Audits - Percent of Crash Reduction 100% 100% 83.70% 80% 64.30% 58.30% 57% 56.60% 60% 40% 20% 0% Injury Fatal Fixed Object Wet Condition On Curve Excessive Speed
RRSAA Signage Upgrade Stubbs-Mills Road Before After
Township Signage Upgrade Grants Data Driven - Township Focused Tulley Township Hall, Marion County 30
Township Sign Upgrade Program • LTAP contacts top 100 townships based on number of crashes • Offers up to $50,000 in HSIP funds to upgrade safety- related signs • $1M set aside annually • LTAP handles all the paperwork; county forces install signs 31
Typical Intersection Signing Detail State Route T-Intersection shown. For crossroad intersection, replace Local Road Side Road warning signs with Cross Road warning signs, and omit Two-Direction Large Arrow sign. Other intersection configurations and jurisdictional arrangements may also exist at some locations.
Townships and DOT Contribute DOT Provides Data and Purchases Materials through LTAP - Township Installs Signs Weathersfield Township, Trumbull County 33
County Engineers Association ODOT sub-allocates $12M in federal funds to CEAO for safety improvements on county roads. • HSIP Safety Applications (Segment or Intersection) – Application cycle that scores projects based on various criteria • Systematic Safety Program – Guardrail: New or upgrade existing - max $150,000 – Pavement Markings: New or upgrade (wider, rumble) – max $150,000 – RPMs: New – max $75,000 • Curve Sign Upgrade Program – Offers up to $15,000 per county in HSIP funds to upgrade signs on high-crash curves – $250,000 set aside annually – Can bid work themselves or use state purchasing contract 34
LTAP Center Training Calendar Year 2012 20,208 training hours provided for Ohio’s Locals 35
Ohio’s Progress Towards Zero Deaths Ohio Fatalities as Compared January - July for Years Shown 800 678 700 660 592 600 540 536 495 500 400 300 200 100 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 36
Florida Local Roads Safety Programs Peter Hsu, P.E. D7 District Safety & Special Projects Engineer Florida Department of Transportation 37
State Perspective 38
Local Road Safety Data Florida • What % of roads are locally owned? 90% (110K centerline miles) • What % of fatalities and serious injuries occur on local roads? 42% (07 thru 11 avg.= 13,961 fatalities and serious injuries) 39
Recommend
More recommend
