This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1015T 
entitled 'Highway Safety: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to 
Implement Changes in the Highway Safety Improvement Program Since 
SAFETEA-LU' which was released on July 17, 2008.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT: 
Thursday, July 17, 2008: 

Highway Safety: 

Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Implement Changes in the Highway 
Safety Improvement Program Since SAFETEA-LU: 

Statement of Katherine A. Siggerud:
Managing Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

GAO-08-1015T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1015T, a testimony before the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

About 43,000 traffic fatalities occur annually, and another 290,000 
people are seriously injured on the nation’s roads. To reduce these 
numbers, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) nearly doubled funding for 
the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement 
Program (HSIP), authorizing $5.1 billion for 2006 through 2009. SAFETEA-
LU also added requirements for states to develop strategic highway 
safety plans that cover all aspects of highway safety, including 
infrastructure, behavioral (education and enforcement), and emergency 
medical services projects; develop crash data analysis systems; and 
publicly report on the top 5 percent of hazardous locations on all 
their public roads. SAFETEA-LU also set aside funds for a legacy rail-
highway crossing program and a new high-risk rural road program. 

This testimony provides preliminary information on the implementation 
of HSIP since SAFETEA-LU. It is based on ongoing work that addresses 
(1) states’ implementation of HSIP following SAFETEA-LU, (2) FHWA’s 
guidance and assistance for states, and (3) results of HSIP to date, 
including for the two set-aside programs. To conduct this study, GAO 
visited 6 states, judgmentally selected based on highway safety 
attributes, analyzed plans and reports from these 6 states and 19 
randomly selected states, and interviewed FHWA and state safety 
officials. 

What GAO Found: 

All states submitted strategic highway safety plans and reports listing 
the top 5 percent of their hazardous locations, according to FHWA. The 
25 state plans GAO reviewed generally cover all aspects of highway 
safety, but the 25 states have not fully developed the required crash 
data analysis systems. FHWA and state safety officials cited the 
collaboration that occurred among safety stakeholders in developing the 
plans as a positive influence on state safety planning. Many of the 25 
states lacked key components of crash data analysis systems, including 
crash location data, roadway characteristics data, and software for 
analyzing the data. As a result, most states cannot identify and rank 
hazardous locations on all public roads, determine appropriate 
remedies, and estimate costs, as required by SAFETEA-LU, and their 5 
percent reports often lack required information on remedies and costs. 

FHWA provided written guidance and training to assist the states, 
especially in preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and 
participated in every state’s strategic safety planning process. 
However, FHWA has not required states to submit schedules for obtaining 
complete roadway characteristics data, and because states lack complete 
data, FHWA’s guidance on the 5 percent reports did not specify a 
methodology. As a result, states’ 5 percent reports vary widely, 
raising questions about how this report can be used. 

It is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP as carried out under 
SAFETEA-LU because states need more time to identify, implement, and 
evaluate projects they have undertaken since adopting their strategic 
highway safety plans. However, preliminary evidence indicates that some 
HSIP provisions may not be aligned with states’ safety priorities. 
First, most states have not taken advantage of a new spending provision 
that allows states to use some HSIP funds for behavioral or emergency 
medical services projects, partly because a certification 
requirement—that all state highway safety infrastructure needs have 
been met—may make them reluctant to do so. Second, the rail-highway 
crossing set-aside program does not target the top safety priorities of 
some states. Lastly, states are still in the early stages of 
implementing the high-risk rural road set-aside program, and data 
limitations may make it difficult for some of them to identify 
qualifying projects, especially for locally owned rural roads. FHWA 
agreed with GAO’s findings. 

Figure: Rumble Strips and Cable Median Barriers to Improve Highway 
Safety: 

[See PDF for image] 

Photograph of a highway with a cable median barrier. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1015T]. For more 
information, contact Katherine A. Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 
siggerudk@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss 
highway safety. My statement today focuses on our ongoing work on the 
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement 
Program (HSIP). The program, established in 1973, provides funds 
through the Federal Aid Highway Program to states primarily for 
infrastructure and other improvements designed to reduce the number of 
crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities on the nation's roads. During 
2006, about 43,000 traffic fatalities occurred and 290,000 people were 
seriously injured. Congress significantly revised HSIP through the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), passed in August 2005.[Footnote 1] Key 
revisions include the following: 

* The annual authorization for HSIP nearly doubled to about $1.3 
billion per year.[Footnote 2] 

* States must now prepare a strategic highway safety plan that 
addresses all aspects of highway safety, which include infrastructure 
improvements, behavioral approaches such as education and enforcement 
projects meant to change drivers' behavior, and emergency medical 
services approaches.[Footnote 3] Eight types of stakeholders must 
participate in developing the strategic highway safety plan. 

* States must now develop crash data analysis systems that they can use 
to identify hazardous locations, potential remedies, and the costs of 
these remedies. 

* To advance public awareness of highway safety, states must now 
analyze safety hazards on all their public roads and report the most 
hazardous 5 percent of these locations, in what is known as the "5 
percent report," to FHWA for posting on its public Web site. 

* The act authorized a $220 million per year set-aside of funds for 
rail-highway crossing improvements under an existing rail-highway 
crossing program established in the Highway Safety Improvement Act of 
1973. 

* The act created a new $90 million per year set-aside for 
infrastructure projects on high-risk rural roads and defined these 
roads. 

* The act added a provision that allows states to transfer, or flex, up 
to 10 percent of their HSIP funds to behavioral and emergency medical 
services projects[Footnote 4] provided the state has adopted a 
strategic highway safety plan and certified that it has met all its 
safety infrastructure needs. 

FHWA is not alone in funding state safety programs. The National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) administer almost half of federal 
safety funding through grants provided to states for their safety 
programs. These grants are generally for behavioral projects. The 
Department of Transportation (DOT) encourages states to align their 
NHTSA-or FMCSA-funded programs with the strategic highway safety plans 
they develop in implementing HSIP, but such alignment is not required. 

My testimony today addresses (1) the extent to which states have 
implemented HSIP requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU, including key 
elements of strategic highway safety plans and crash data analysis 
systems, (2) the types of guidance and assistance FHWA provided to the 
states to support them in planning and carrying out HSIP, and (3) the 
results to date of states' efforts in carrying out HSIP, including the 
results of the set-aside programs for rail-highway crossings and for 
high-risk rural roads. 

My testimony is based on preliminary work we are doing for this 
Committee for a review of HSIP scheduled for release later this year. 
To examine states' strategic highway safety planning, we reviewed 
strategic highway safety plans and related program reports for a total 
of 25 states, including 19 randomly selected states and 6 states we 
visited--California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, and 
Pennsylvania. We based our judgmental selection of these 6 states on 
our analysis of attributes associated with highway safety, such as 
fatalities and roadway characteristics, in each of these states and 
based on comments from highway safety experts. For these 6 states, we 
also obtained information on the development of their strategic highway 
safety plans and state officials' views. To identify and assess the 
types of guidance and assistance FHWA provided to the states in 
planning and carrying out HSIP, we reviewed FHWA guidance and 
interviewed FHWA headquarters officials and, in the 6 states we 
visited, FHWA division and state officials. To determine the results of 
the states' efforts since SAFETEA-LU, we reviewed strategic highway 
safety plans and analyzed data from HSIP annual reports for our 25 
selected states. The results of our review of strategic highway safety 
plans and associated reports and site visits are not necessarily 
representative of all states. To address all our objectives, we also 
interviewed other DOT safety program officials and other highway safety 
stakeholders. We began this performance audit in May 2007, in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings based on our 
audit objectives. 

Summary: 

States have developed strategic highway safety plans that meet the 
requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU, but have not fully implemented 
the required crash data analysis systems. According to FHWA, all 50 
states and the District of Columbia submitted strategic highway safety 
plans, and all 25 plans we reviewed generally covered all aspects of 
highway safety, including infrastructure, behavioral, and emergency 
medical services projects. The plans also contained other elements 
prescribed by SAFETEA-LU. State officials we interviewed described the 
results of the new planning requirement as positive, and FHWA officials 
said they considered the collaboration among various stakeholders in 
developing these plans as the most important result to date of SAFETEA- 
LU's HSIP revisions. However, states do not yet have the crash data 
analysis systems needed to identify and select possible safety 
improvements as prescribed by SAFETEA-LU. These systems include (1) 
data from crash reports in a geographic format suitable for mapping 
crashes on all public roads; (2) data on the characteristics of all 
public roads, such as the number of lanes, width of shoulders, and 
other roadway features; and (3) software for mapping and analyzing the 
data. While states have data on crash locations, these data are often 
not in a format for geographic analysis and many states lack data on 
roadway characteristics, especially for locally owned roads. Typically, 
states have better data on the roads they own than on locally owned 
roads in the state, but state-owned roads account for a relatively 
small proportion of the public road miles in most states, averaging 20 
percent nationwide and ranging from 8 percent to 33 percent in the 6 
states we visited. Therefore, most states cannot currently perform 
analyses to identify hazardous locations on all public roads, determine 
appropriate remedies, and estimate the costs of these remedies as 
required to identify and select safety improvements and to fully meet 
the requirements for the 5 percent reports. FHWA is developing software 
that may help states perform their safety analyses once their data 
improve. 

FHWA provided guidance and assistance to the states to support them in 
planning and carrying out HSIP, but has not yet established deadlines 
for key efforts related to crash data analysis. FHWA developed guidance 
to help states prepare their strategic highway safety plans, 5 percent 
reports, and other required reports; provided technical assistance and 
training for state officials; and participated at the division level in 
every state's strategic planning process. FHWA set an August 2009 
deadline for states to have crash location data suitable for mapping, 
but has yet to establish deadlines for states to have the required data 
on roadway characteristics. In its guidance on the 5 percent report, 
FHWA gave states leeway in interpreting the act's requirements and, 
recognizing their data limitations, did not specify a methodology. As a 
result, states developed widely varying versions of the report, some of 
which use a format that may make it difficult for the public to 
identify listed sites. Consequently, it is unclear if this report is 
meeting its public information purpose. 

It is too soon to evaluate the results of states' efforts to carry out 
HSIP since SAFETEA-LU's enactment because states need time to identify, 
implement, and evaluate HSIP projects undertaken after adopting their 
strategic highway safety plans. Given that states submitted their 
strategic highway safety plans to FHWA in 2006 and 2007, and that 
project selection and construction can take a year or more, it is too 
early to know whether the HSIP projects selected will make a difference 
in reducing crashes, serious injuries, or fatalities at project sites. 
Already, however, preliminary evidence raises questions about how well 
some HSIP provisions are aligned with states' safety priorities. First, 
few states have taken advantage of a provision that allows states to 
transfer some HSIP funds to behavioral programs and emergency medical 
services projects if they certify they have met all the highway safety 
infrastructure needs they can address through HSIP. As of the end of 
June 2008, seven states had received approval for transfers. Other 
states told us they are interested in transferring funds but have not 
done so, partly because of concerns about the certification 
requirement. Second, about two-thirds of the strategic highway safety 
plans we reviewed (17 of 25) did not include rail-highway crossings as 
a top priority, or emphasis area, but SAFETEA-LU reserves about 17 
percent of HSIP's authorized funding for these projects through the 
rail-highway set-aside program, leading some states to question the 
size of this set-aside program. A June 2008 act provides states with 
flexibility to use their rail-highway set-aside funds for other types 
of infrastructure improvements under HSIP if they certify that they 
have met all their rail-highway crossing needs.[Footnote 5] Finally, 
implementation of HSIP's high-risk rural roads set-aside program is in 
the early stages, and although 16 of the 25 states we reviewed had 
identified and funded projects by the end of fiscal year 2007, 5 of the 
states we visited were having difficulty identifying qualifying 
roadways and appropriate remedies because they lacked data on crash 
locations and local road characteristics. 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans Included Key Elements Added by SAFETEA- 
LU, but States Lack Data for Analysis Specified by the Law: 

All 50 states and the District of Columbia submitted strategic highway 
safety plans to FHWA before October 2007, a deadline established by 
SAFETEA-LU. Additionally, the 25 state strategic highway safety plans 
we reviewed generally contained the key elements specified in SAFETEA- 
LU, such as consideration of all three approaches to improving highway 
safety, including infrastructure improvement, behavioral approaches 
(education and enforcement), and emergency medical service 
improvements, and evidence of involvement by a broad set of 
stakeholders. For example: 

* All 25 plans included infrastructure improvement and behavioral 
approaches among the emphasis areas or key strategies that states 
identified to address their top priorities. Twenty-two of the plans 
included emergency medical services improvements. 

* Our review of the plans indicated that 20 of 25 states consulted with 
at least five of the eight specified types of stakeholders, including 
representatives of the state agencies that administer NHTSA and FMCSA 
safety grants. 

As a result, the new planning process helped break down the separation 
between engineering and behavioral program planning that existed prior 
to SAFETEA-LU. Highway safety officials in states we visited said the 
extent of cooperation between stakeholders that occurred when 
developing the strategic highway safety plan was a largely new 
development after SAFETEA-LU. FHWA officials told us that they believe 
this change in planning is the most important result to date of the 
changes in HSIP. Likewise, officials responsible for safety programs at 
NHTSA, FMCSA, and in the states we visited agreed that HSIP's strategic 
highway safety planning process facilitated more integrated safety 
planning than had occurred in the past. 

While the state plans we reviewed indicated general compliance with 
SAFETEA-LU's requirements for preparing strategic highway safety plans, 
states do not yet have the crash data analysis systems needed to 
identify and select possible safety improvements as set forth in 
SAFETEA-LU. These systems include crash location data in a geographic 
format suitable for mapping and roadway characteristics data--such as 
lane and shoulder dimensions--for all public roads, together with 
software that can analyze the data. With these components, states can 
identify hazardous locations, develop appropriate remedies, and target 
resources to the greatest hazards. The requirement to obtain and 
analyze data for all public roads is a significant departure from past 
practice for many states. Before SAFETEA-LU, states generally had such 
information only on the roads they owned, because that information was 
useful for managing the maintenance and operation of their state-owned 
roads. However, state-owned roads account for a relatively small 
proportion of the public road miles in most states, averaging 20 
percent nationwide. In the six states we visited, the state-owned 
portion of all public roads ranged from about 8 percent in Iowa to 
about 33 percent in Pennsylvania, and the remaining roads were locally 
owned. This data gap presents a challenge for states that may be costly 
for many to address, but the increased funding authorized for HSIP is 
generally available for data improvements as well as safety projects. 

Our review of 25 state strategic highway safety plans and six site 
visits indicated that, to varying degrees, states lack key components 
of crash data analysis systems: 

* All 50 states maintain data on the crashes that occur on all public 
roadways in the state, but in the 25 states we reviewed, the 
information on crash locations was typically not in a geographic format 
(GIS or GPS) suitable for mapping. Safety engineers use crash location 
data to determine if accidents recur, or cluster, at specific sites. 
Among the states we visited, Iowa and California had crash data in a 
geographic format that allowed accidents to be located precisely on any 
public road in the state, but the other four states did not have such 
data for nonstate roads. According to our review of 25 states' 
strategic highway safety plans, some states are working toward 
improving their crash location data by upgrading their crash reporting 
systems with GPS capabilities, yet it is still common for crash 
location data to come from handwritten crash reports that use mile-post 
markers, intersections, or street addresses to identify crash 
locations. 

* Most of the 25 states included in our review did not have data on 
roadway characteristics for all publicly owned roads, especially 
locally owned roads. As noted, states generally maintain these data 
only for roads they are responsible for maintaining and operating. For 
example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation originally 
established, and now maintains the data for, a roadway characteristics 
database to support its management and operation of state-owned roads. 
The department still uses the database primarily for this purpose, but 
the data can also be used for safety analyses. Furthermore, because it 
is costly and time consuming to gather and maintain roadway 
characteristics data, states generally have not expanded their roadway 
characteristics databases to include locally owned roads. For example, 
Florida officials estimated that it would initially cost $300 million 
and could take 3 years to develop such a database. In addition, they 
noted there would be annual maintenance costs to keep the data current. 
Of the six states we visited, only Iowa had roadway characteristics 
data for all public roads. 

* Most of the 25 states we reviewed have not developed software or 
other analytic tools to use the crash location and roadway 
characteristics data to perform the analysis required by SAFETEA-LU. 
FHWA is developing a software system, known as "Safety Analyst," that 
is designed to help states use crash location and roadway 
characteristics data to determine their most hazardous locations, rank 
them, identify possible remedies, and estimate the costs of 
implementing the remedies. FHWA estimates that it will complete the 
development of this software and release it to the states later in 
2008. In the meantime, some states may also be developing their own 
approaches. For example, Mississippi is developing its own software, 
which is similar to Safety Analyst. 

Until states have obtained the necessary data and software, they cannot 
conduct the kind of data analysis specified by SAFETEA-LU--namely, 
identifying and ranking hazardous locations on all public roads, 
determining appropriate remedies, and estimating project costs. This 
kind of analysis is also necessary to generate 5 percent reports that 
fully meet the requirements for these reports set forth in SAFETEA-LU, 
including requirements for information on remedies and costs. Many of 
the 5 percent reports we reviewed lack this required information. 

FHWA Assisted States in Preparing Strategic Highway Safety Plans, but 
Has Not Set Deadlines to Obtain All Needed Data: 

FHWA provided guidance and technical assistance to states in preparing 
strategic highway safety plans, and FHWA division officials 
participated in each state's planning process. FHWA's guidance included 
memorandums describing new HSIP program procedures and a reference 
guide on strategic planning. Furthermore, FHWA held training symposiums 
and provided technical assistance through its division offices and 
resource center. According to our review of 25 strategic highway safety 
plans and six site visits, FHWA division staffs were actively involved 
in the state planning efforts that resulted in states' adoption of 
strategic highway safety plans and FHWA's acceptance of these plans. 

In its guidance to states on implementing HSIP, FHWA stopped short of 
requiring states to gather all the data needed for the type of safety 
analysis specified in SAFETEA-LU. FHWA set August 31, 2009, as a 
deadline for states to develop the crash location data needed to map 
crashes on all public roads. FHWA officials told us that they believe 
that states will meet this deadline. However, recognizing the data 
limitations many states face, FHWA has not set a date for states to 
have the other required data on roadway characteristics for all public 
roads. Without roadway characteristics data, states cannot identify 
remedies and estimate the costs of infrastructure projects using 
analytic tools, such as Safety Analyst, but must instead rely on older 
approaches that combine data analysis with field surveys of potential 
improvement locations, roadway safety audits, or other information 
sources. 

In its guidance on the 5 percent report, FHWA gave states leeway in 
interpreting the act's requirements and did not specify a methodology. 
Recognizing the states' data limitations, FHWA advised the states to 
prepare their 5 percent report using available data. Consequently, 
states prepared widely varying 5 percent reports. For example, some 
reports included remedies and costs for each location while others 
showed remedies and costs only for certain locations or for none at 
all. In our review of the 2007 reports for 25 states, the number of 
locations reported ranged from 5 to 880, with 3 states reporting 10 or 
fewer locations and 6 states reporting over 100. Additionally, many 
reports list locations in a format that the general public may find 
difficult to use. For example, the public may find it hard to identify 
a hazardous location when it is identified in the report by the roadway 
mile marker, as is done in several reports we reviewed. We found that 
some states were using their 5 percent reports to help identify 
projects for funding, but where the format for identifying the sites 
was not readily accessible to the public, it was not clear whether the 
reports would enhance public awareness of highway safety, as intended. 

It Is Too Soon to Evaluate Results of States' Efforts Since SAFETEA-LU, 
but Preliminary Evidence Raises Questions about whether Certain Program 
Provisions Are Aligned with States' Safety Priorities: 

As previously noted, federal and state officials told us that the 
strategic highway safety planning process improved collaboration and 
safety planning, but it is too early to evaluate the results of states' 
efforts to carry out HSIP since SAFETEA-LU's enactment, especially the 
results of infrastructure projects identified through the strategic 
highway safety planning process. However, preliminary evidence from our 
review of 25 states' plans and six site visits indicates that three 
provisions in SAFETEA-LU may not be aligned with states' safety 
priorities. First, states have generally not taken advantage of HSIP's 
flexible funding provision, which allows them to use HSIP funding for 
noninfrastructure projects.[Footnote 6] Second, the rail-highway 
crossing set-aside may target a low-priority type of project for some 
states, although other states continue to emphasize this area. Third, 
states have just begun to implement the high-risk rural road program, 
but data limitations may be making it difficult for some states to 
allocate program funds to qualifying projects. 

More Time Needed to Evaluate HSIP Projects Since SAFETEA-LU: 

Too little time has passed for states to select and build 
infrastructure projects identified in their strategic highway safety 
plans and, as a result, it is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP 
projects funded under SAFETEA-LU's authorization. Given the October 
2007 deadline for states to submit their strategic highway safety plans 
to FHWA, states finalized their plans relatively recently--28 states 
did so in 2006, and the remaining 22 states, plus the District of 
Columbia, did so in 2007. Because infrastructure projects can take a 
year or more to select and build, and subsequent project evaluations 
require 3 years' worth of crash data after the projects have been 
implemented, it is too soon to assess the effectiveness of projects 
undertaken under the new program. 

Few States Used HSIP Flexible Funding Provision for Behavioral and 
Emergency Medical Services Projects: 

States made limited use of the HSIP flexible funding provision that 
allows them to transfer up to 10 percent of their HSIP funds to 
behavioral and emergency medical services projects if they have adopted 
a strategic highway safety plan and certified that they have met all 
their safety infrastructure needs. As of the end of June 2008, seven 
states had applied to FHWA, and been granted approval, to transfer 
about $13 million in HSIP funds to behavioral or emergency medical 
services projects (see table 1), according to FHWA data. Though none of 
the six states we visited has requested approval to transfer HSIP 
funds, officials in two of those states did express interest in doing 
so. However, these officials noted that their states could not meet the 
certification requirement because of ongoing infrastructure needs and 
concerns about the potential legal liability a state could incur by 
certifying that all its infrastructure safety needs have been met. 
Officials in the other states we visited agreed that certification 
would be difficult, but did not express interest in transferring funds 
because they had enough infrastructure projects to use all the 
available HSIP funds. 

Table 1: Information on Funding and Projects in Seven States Approved 
to Transfer HSIP Funds for Behavioral and Emergency Medical Services 
Projects: 

State: Alabama; 
Approved funding: $5,671,268; 
Projects: Education, emergency medical services, and enforcement 
activities. 

State: Colorado; 
Approved funding: $1,867,737; 
Projects: Work zone safety, traffic records, occupant protection, and 
other activities. 

State: Hawaii; 
Approved funding: $579,662; 
Projects: Specific information on projects not available from FHWA. 

State: Michigan; 
Approved funding: $380,000; 
Projects: Various safety projects, such as work zone safety and winter 
driving safety education. 

State: Nebraska; 
Approved funding: $2,100,000; 
Projects: Impaired driving, occupant protection, and young driver 
safety activities. 

State: Utah; 
Approved funding: $983,132; 
Projects: Continuation of the Zero Fatalities Program, which 
incorporates a number of behavioral approaches. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Approved funding: $1,202,000; 
Projects: Various public education programs, such as work zone safety 
and older and medically impaired driver safety. 

Total: 
Approved funding: $12,783,799. 

Source: FHWA. 

[End of table] 

At least in part because of these conditions attached to transferring 
funds, most HSIP funding remains focused on infrastructure. In some 
instances, the funding allocated between approaches may not be aligned 
with the emphasis areas laid out in the state strategic highway safety 
plan. Nevertheless, states may use NHTSA and FMCSA grants as well as 
transfer HSIP funds to address behavioral and emergency medical 
services approaches to improving highway safety. In contrast to HSIP 
funding, though, grants from related NHTSA and FMCSA programs are not 
formally aligned with the strategic highway safety plan developed as 
part of HSIP. In our interviews with federal officials at FHWA, NHTSA, 
and FMCSA, we found that stakeholders from those three organizations 
were collaborating, usually informally, but to date, the flexible 
funding provision in HSIP has not significantly altered the sources of 
federal funding states use to fund infrastructure, behavioral, and 
emergency medical services safety projects. Additionally, because 
states' NHTSA and FMCSA grant awards are not formally aligned with 
states' strategic highway safety plans, it is unclear to what extent 
states have aligned their total federal highway safety funding with 
priorities identified in their strategic highway safety plans. 

Rail-Highway Crossing Improvement Set-aside May Target Low-Priority 
Projects in Some States: 

HSIP's funding set-aside for rail-highway crossing improvements may 
target projects that are a low priority and yield low safety benefits 
for some states, but other states continue to emphasize rail-highway 
crossing improvements. Our review of 25 strategic highway safety plans 
showed that improving rail-highway crossings was often a low priority 
for states. As noted earlier, states designate their top safety 
priorities as emphasis areas in their strategic highway safety plans 
and identify their most hazardous locations in their 5 percent reports. 
Seventeen of 25 states had not identified rail-highway crossings as an 
emphasis area. In our review of the 5 percent reports submitted by 
these 25 states in 2007, we found that Oregon alone identified a rail- 
highway crossing in its 5 percent report of most hazardous locations. 
[Footnote 7] 

States' relatively low emphasis on safety improvements at rail-highway 
crossings may be related to their evaluations of the effectiveness of 
recent improvements. In reviewing our 25 selected states' rail-highway 
crossing program annual reports for 2007, we found 21 reports that 
included before-and-after crash data for rail-highway crossing 
improvement locations. In 15 of these 21 states, almost all of the 
improved locations showed zero incidents both before and after the 
improvement. Nevertheless, West Virginia's annual crossing report noted 
that as long as federal funding through the set-aside program 
continues, the state's strategic highway safety plan will address rail- 
highway crossings despite low project benefits. 

The six states we visited varied in their views on the set-aside for 
rail-highway crossing improvements. Officials in two of the states said 
that the set-aside may be disproportionately high given the low risk 
rail-highway crossings pose compared with other hazardous locations. 
FHWA Office of Safety officials agreed that the program's funding, 
which accounts for approximately 17 percent of HSIP authorizations, was 
high based on the number of fatalities that occur at rail-highway 
crossings. Conversely, officials in Illinois noted that rail-highway 
crossings are a safety priority for the state. Additionally, 
Mississippi demonstrated the importance of improving crossings through 
their safety programs by augmenting federal set-aside funds with state 
funds. 

The SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act[Footnote 8] provides states 
with flexibility to use rail-highway crossing set-aside funds for other 
types of HSIP projects if they certify that they have met all their 
rail-highway crossing needs. While it remains to be seen how states 
will respond to this amendment, they may be reluctant to certify that 
they have met all their needs. As noted earlier, some states have been 
reluctant to make use of HSIP's flexible funding provision because they 
may still have some infrastructure needs or may have legal concerns 
about the potential liabilities of such a certification. 

States Are in the Early Stages of Implementing the High-Risk Rural Road 
Program, and Data Limitations May Be Slowing Implementation: 

Many states are still in the early stages of implementing the set-aside 
program for high-risk rural roads and have yet to obligate significant 
funds for projects, and data limitations may be hindering their ability 
to target program funds to eligible projects. SAFETEA-LU created this 
program because over half of highway fatalities occur on rural roads. 
The act authorizes $90 million per year to address hazards on rural 
roads defined as high risk.[Footnote 9] Projects on roadways that meet 
the act's definition are eligible for funding under the program. 
According to reports on the program to FHWA by the 25 states we 
selected, 23 of these states had implemented the program to some extent 
by the end of fiscal year 2007. Of these 23 states, 16 had already 
identified projects and approved, funded, or contracted for at least 
one infrastructure project, and 7 were still identifying potential 
projects, gathering data, or performing other preliminary activities. 
Because states remain in the early stages of implementing the program, 
obligations made to date are low; for example, through June 2008, 
program obligations for all years under SAFTETEA-LU totaled $50.3 
million, compared with almost $270 million authorized through that time 
period. 

Limited data on rural roads--including data on crash locations and 
local roadway characteristics--may be hindering the program's 
implementation by making it difficult for some states to identify roads 
that conform to the definition of high-risk rural roads in SAFETEA-LU. 
Officials in 5 states we visited noted that limitations in their crash 
location and roadway characteristics data made it difficult for them to 
identify qualifying roadways and appropriate remedies. Additionally, in 
our review of 25 state reports, we found states cited data limitations 
as a difficulty in implementing the program. For example, at the end of 
fiscal year 2007, Texas had yet to implement the program due to data 
limitations. 

Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared 
statement. We plan to report in more detail on changes in the Highway 
Safety Improvement Program and may have recommendations at that time. I 
would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members 
of the Committee might have. 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

For further information on this statement, please contact Katherine A. 
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key 
contributions to this testimony were Rita Grieco, Assistant Director; 
Richard Calhoon; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Bert Japikse; Sara Ann 
Moessbauer; John W. Stambaugh; and Frank Taliaferro. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 109-59. SAFETEA-LU amended provisions of Title 23 of 
the United States Code. For the purposes of this testimony, we refer 
generally to SAFETEA-LU instead of the United States Code when 
describing various requirements. 

[2] The HSIP funding that states receive is generally higher than the 
amount authorized, mainly because of the Equity Bonus program. The 
Equity Bonus program, authorized by SAFETEA-LU, provides funding to 
states based on equity criteria such as a minimum return on state 
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. For fiscal year 2008, SAFETEA- 
LU authorized $1,275.9 million for HSIP, including two set-asides for 
rail-highway crossings and high-risk rural roads. After adjustments, 
including the equity bonus, FHWA apportioned $1,550.6 million to states 
for HSIP--over 20 percent more than the authorized amount. 

[3] Emergency medical services approaches to improving highway safety 
include projects to reduce response time to crash locations and improve 
medical care in the aftermath of a crash, for example. 

[4] SAFETEA-LU states that approved states can flex HSIP funds to 
noninfrastructure projects that are identified in their strategic 
highway safety plans. According to FHWA officials, noninfrastructure 
projects are generally behavioral and emergency medical services 
projects. 

[5] SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act, Pub. L. No. 110-244. 

[6] Noninfrastructure projects are generally behavioral and emergency 
medical services projects, according to FHWA officials. 

[7] Because the locations in 5 percent reports are sometimes described 
in vague or technical terms, such as by mile markers, it may be 
difficult to determine if an included location is a rail-highway 
crossing. 

[8] Pub. L. No. 110-244 (2008). 

[9] The program defines high-risk rural roads as rural collectors or 
local roads that have shown fatality or serious injury accident rates 
above the state average for similar road types, or, based on projected 
changes in traffic volume, are likely to show above average rates in 
the future. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: