GAO-09-35, Highway Safety Improvement Program: Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-35 
entitled 'Highway Safety Improvement Program: Further Efforts Needed to 
Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States’ Top 
Safety Priorities' which was released on November 24, 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. 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

November 2008: 

Highway Safety Improvement Program: 

Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align 
Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities: 

Highway Safety Improvement Program: 

GAO-09-35: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-35, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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 of some 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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

Congress should consider (1) revising HSIP’s flexible funding and rail-
highway crossing provisions to better align HSIP funding with states’ 
top safety priorities and (2) eliminating the 5 percent reporting 
requirement. GAO also recommends that FHWA set a deadline for states to 
obtain the roadway inventory data. DOT generally agreed with the 
findings and recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-35]. For more 
information, contact Katherine A. Siggerud, 202-512-2834 or 
siggerudk@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans Included Key Elements Added by SAFETEA- 
LU, but States Lacked Prescribed Data and Analysis Capabilities: 

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: 

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: 

Conclusions: 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: HSIP Apportionments for States, Including Equity Bonus and 
Other Adjustments: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

Table 2: Apportionments of HSIP Funds, by State, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: HSIP Funding Authorizations, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2009: 

Figure 2: DOT Funding for State Highway Safety Programs Authorized by 
SAFETEA-LU, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009: 

Figure 3: Extent to Which 25 State Strategic Highway Safety Plans 
Incorporated AASHTO's Safety Emphasis Areas: 

Figure 4: Rumble Strips and Cable Median Barriers in Iowa Designed to 
Keep Drivers on the Road and Reduce Head-on Collisions: 

Figure 5: State Ownership of Total Roadway Miles in Six States: 

Figure 6: National Trend in Fatal Accidents at Rail-Highway Crossings, 
1975 through 2007: 

Figure 7: Strategic Highway Safety Plan Implementation Uses Existing 
Federal and State Planning Processes: 

Abbreviations: 

AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

DUI: driving under the influence: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: 

FRA: Federal Railroad Administration: 

GIS: geographic information system: 

GPS: global positioning system: 

HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program: 

MADD: Mothers Against Drunk Driving: 

MMIRE: Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: 

SHSP: strategic highway safety plan: 

VMT: vehicle miles traveled: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

November 21, 2008: 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Mr. Inhofe: 

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.[Footnote 1] 

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.[Footnote 2] 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,[Footnote 3] 
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.[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] 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. 

Results in Brief: 

In implementing HSIP, states developed strategic highway safety plans 
that addressed the key elements identified in SAFETEA-LU, but generally 
lacked some prescribed data and analysis capabilities. All 50 states 
and the District of Columbia submitted their strategic highway safety 
plans to FHWA before October 2007, as required to avoid incurring the 
financial penalty to their HSIP funds. In our review of 25 of these 
plans, we found that the plans generally addressed the four key 
elements identified in SAFETEA-LU. Specifically, the plans (1) showed 
evidence of participation by a wide range of stakeholders in the 
development of the strategic highway safety plan; (2) defined areas of 
safety emphasis through an analysis of fatality and serious injury 
data; (3) included strategies and projects covering all aspects of 
highway safety (infrastructure improvements, behavioral approaches, and 
emergency medical services); and (4) provided for overall performance 
measurement. The inclusion of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the 
planning process helped break down the historical separation between 
engineering and behavioral programs that occurred before SAFETEA-LU, 
when FHWA focused exclusively on infrastructure improvements while 
NHTSA and FMCSA funded education and enforcement activities designed to 
change drivers' behavior. In defining safety emphasis areas, states 
built on prior safety planning efforts, although in the 25 state plans 
we reviewed, these areas often did not include the two focuses of 
HSIP's set-aside programs--rail-highway crossings and high-risk rural 
roads--possibly because of concerns about these two programs which we 
discuss later in this report. 

Regarding the lack of some data and analysis capability, although the 
states had fatality and serious injury data that were useful for 
developing their strategic highway safety plans, states generally did 
not have complete crash data analysis systems as described in SAFETEA- 
LU. These systems must include the capability to locate crashes on all 
public roads (e.g., crash location data and a mapping system to 
identify clusters of crashes); roadway inventory data describing 
roadway characteristics for all publicly owned roads; and the 
analytical capability to identify hazardous locations on all public 
roads, rank them according to their severity, identify potential 
remedies, and estimate the costs of these remedies. States we reviewed 
varied in their ability to meet these standards. FHWA expects states to 
have crash location capabilities by August 2009, thereby meeting a 
deadline set by the agency. FHWA is also developing an analytical 
system to support the hazard analysis added by SAFETEA-LU. However, 
FHWA has not established a deadline for states to develop roadway 
inventory data for all public roads, nor has it required states to 
submit schedules for achieving compliance with this requirement, in 
part because FHWA has not yet defined the specific roadway data 
elements needed to meet federal requirements for HSIP. 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 by 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. These data 
are particularly important for identifying remedies and estimating 
costs, but many states lack these data, especially for locally owned 
roads, which typically account for the majority of all public roads in 
a state. Most states have not developed roadway inventory data for 
locally owned roads because they do not operate and maintain those 
roads, and they are concerned about the possible costs and time frames 
involved in obtaining these data. As a result, states may have 
difficulty applying the data-driven, strategic approach to highway 
safety identified by SAFETEA-LU. In particular, this lack of roadway 
data has limited the ability of many states to prepare 5 percent 
reports that contain the required information on states' most hazardous 
locations, remedies, and costs. 

Because states were not required to submit their strategic highway 
safety plans to FHWA until October 2007, they have not yet had time to 
implement and evaluate their HSIP strategies and projects; hence, it is 
too soon to evaluate the results, particularly the impact on safety, of 
states' efforts to carry out HSIP under SAFETEA-LU. Nevertheless, our 
analysis suggests that two HSIP funding provisions may not be aligned 
with some states' safety priorities--which were developed under HSIP's 
federally defined strategic planning process and identified in those 
states' strategic highway safety plans--and therefore may not allow 
states to focus federal safety dollars on their highest-priority safety 
improvements. First, most states nationwide have not taken advantage of 
the flexible spending provision in HSIP that allows states to use up to 
10 percent of their program funds for behavioral programs or emergency 
medical services enhancements--even though states' strategic highway 
safety plans indicate substantial interest in implementing these 
strategies, and these strategies are routinely funded by NHTSA and 
FMCSA grants--because program restrictions may make it difficult for 
interested states to do so by requiring states to first certify that 
all of their highway safety infrastructure needs are met. In all six 
states we visited, officials agreed that making this certification was 
difficult. In two of those states, officials told us that they were 
interested in using some of their HSIP funds for behavioral or 
emergency medical services projects, but they could not meet the 
certification requirement because of ongoing infrastructure needs and 
concerns about the potential legal liability that a state could incur 
by certifying that all of its infrastructure needs had been met. 
Second, the HSIP set-aside that provides funding for rail-highway 
crossings is targeting an area that is a low priority in the strategic 
highway safety plans of some states, and it may provide safety funds 
for some projects with relatively low safety benefits. Finally, since 
states are in the early stages of implementing the high-risk rural road 
program, it is too soon to evaluate the program's results. However, 
based on our analysis of the 25 state strategic plans and our 
interviews with officials in 6 states, many states lack the roadway 
data needed to effectively implement the program. Additionally, the 
program's implementation is hindered by the inexperience of local 
governments--which are responsible for building projects--with federal 
requirements. 

FHWA provided states with comprehensive guidance and assistance to 
support their planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of 
HSIP, but the agency gave states latitude in preparing the 5 percent 
reports on states' most severe hazardous locations. FHWA issued eight 
guidance memorandums covering HSIP activities; provided training on 
strategic highway safety planning for state officials; and participated 
in states' strategic highway safety planning processes, often 
facilitating state safety planning summits. The guidance memorandums 
introduced new HSIP features, gave direction on annual reporting 
requirements for HSIP and the two set-aside programs, described 
requirements for the 5 percent report, and explained how states could 
use HSIP funds to address needs in their strategic highway safety 
plans. FHWA's guidance for the 5 percent reports took states' data 
limitations into account and gave states latitude in defining the 
methodology and scope of their reports. Consequently, states' 5 percent 
reports varied widely in their content and completeness, and their 
formats for identifying the most severe hazardous locations did not 
always appear easy for the public to understand, raising questions 
about the quality of the reports and their usefulness in advancing 
public awareness of highway safety hazards and needs, as intended. FHWA 
officials also raised concerns about the usefulness of the 5 percent 
reports, and the Secretary of Transportation has recommended 
eliminating the 5 percent reporting requirement in a proposal for 
reforming surface transportation programs, which was delivered to 
Congress in July 2008.[Footnote 6] To support states' monitoring of 
HSIP projects, FHWA provided guidance, under a broader oversight 
program that pre-dates SAFETEA-LU, on how to determine whether local 
agencies have the controls needed to comply with requirements for 
managing federal-aid highway funds. FHWA's guidance for evaluating HSIP 
projects directed states to evaluate all safety projects and 
strategies, coordinating with stakeholders who developed the strategic 
plan. Furthermore, the guidance directed states to use performance- 
based goals, established as part of the strategic highway safety plan, 
to evaluate the effectiveness of their safety strategies in reducing 
the number of fatalities and serious injuries. 

To improve HSIP's effectiveness, we suggest in this report that 
Congress consider taking two actions, including (1) restructuring HSIP 
statutory provisions related to the flexible funding for behavioral and 
emergency medical services projects and the rail-highway crossing set- 
aside program to better align HSIP funding with states' top safety 
priorities and (2) eliminating the 5 percent reporting requirement, 
given states' current data limitations that hinder their complete and 
consistent reporting. To help states fully implement the data-driven 
project selection process prescribed for HSIP, we also recommend that 
FHWA take three actions, including (1) defining which roadway inventory 
data elements a state needs to meet federal requirements for HSIP, (2) 
setting a deadline for the states to finalize development of the 
required roadway inventory data, and (3) requiring states to submit 
schedules to FHWA for achieving compliance with this requirement. In 
commenting on a draft of this report, The Department of Transportation 
(DOT) generally agreed with the findings and recommendations and 
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 
Federal Railroad Administration (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. 

Background: 

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.[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] 

* $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. 

Figure 1: HSIP Funding Authorizations, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2009: 

This figure is a combination bar graph showing HSIP funding 
authorizations, fiscal years 2001 through 2009. The X axis represents 
the fiscal year, and the Y axis represents dollars in millions. The 
bars represent high-risk rural roads, rail-highway crossings, and 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads). 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 398.59; 
Rail-highway crossings: 154.93; 
High-risk rural roads: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 407.26; 
Rail-highway crossings: 154.93; 
High-risk rural roads: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 405.4; 
Rail-highway crossings: 154.8; 
High-risk rural roads: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 506.28; 
Rail-highway crossings: 154.93; 
High-risk rural roads: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 491.8; 
Rail-highway crossings: 154.93; 
High-risk rural roads: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 925.81; 
Rail-highway crossings: 220; 
High-risk rural roads: 90. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 945.71; 
Rail-highway crossings: 220; 
High-risk rural roads: 90. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 965.93; 
Rail-highway crossings: 220; 
High-risk rural roads: 90. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 986.47; 
Rail-highway crossings: 220; 
High-risk rural roads: 90. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 9] 
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[Footnote 10] 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.[Footnote 11] 

Figure 2: DOT Funding for State Highway Safety Programs Authorized by 
SAFETEA-LU, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009: 

This figure is a table showing the DOT funding for state highway 
programs authorized by SAFETEA-LU, fiscal years 2006 through 2009. 

DOT model program: Federal Highway Administration (53.2 percent); 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $5,063.9. 

DOT model program: HSIP for all roads; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $3,823.9. 

DOT model program: HSIP set-aside for rail-highway crossings; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $880.0. 

DOT model program: HSIP set-aside for high-risk rural roads; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $360.0. 

DOT model program: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (24.3 
percent); 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $2,314.0. 

DOT model program: State and Community Highway Safety (Sec. 402); 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $897. 

DOT model program: Safety Belt Use; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $498. 

DOT model program: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $515.0. 

DOT model program: Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement (Sec. 
408); 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $138.0. 

DOT model program: Other programs (Occupant Protection, High-Visibility 
Enforcement, Motorcyclist Safety, and Child Safety and Child Booster 
Seat Use); 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $266.0. 

DOT model program: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (12.4 
percent); 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $1,183.0. 

DOT model program: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $796.0. 

DOT model program: Commercial Driver's License Improvement and 
Information System Programs; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $128.0. 

DOT model program: Border Enforcement; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $128.0. 

DOT model program: Safety Data Improvement; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $11.0. 

DOT model program: Other programs (Performance and Registration 
Information System Management,and Commercial Vehicle Information 
Systems and Networks programs); 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $120.0. 

DOT model program: Alcohol Penalty Transfers, fiscal years 2006 to 2008 
and 2009 estimates (10.1 percent)[A]; 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $964.9. 

DOT model program: Combined total (100.0 percent); 
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $9,528.8. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA data. 

[A] NHTSA's alcohol penalty transfers are shown separately from the 
FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA program authorizations because states can 
generally use the transferred funds for either behavioral or 
infrastructure projects. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 12] 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. 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans Included Key Elements Added by SAFETEA- 
LU, but States Lacked Prescribed Data and Analysis Capabilities: 

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. 

State Safety Planning Improved with the Increased Involvement of 
Multidisciplinary Stakeholders in the Strategic Planning Process: 

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.[Footnote 13] 

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.[Footnote 14] 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[Footnote 15] 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. 

States Defined Safety Emphasis Areas through Crash Data Analysis and 
Built on Prior Safety Planning Efforts to Develop Their Strategic 
Highway Safety Plans: 

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. 

Figure 3: Extent to Which 25 State Strategic Highway Safety Plans 
Incorporated AASHTO's Safety Emphasis Areas: 

This figure is a bar graph showing the extent to which 25 state 
strategic highway safety plans incorporated AASHTO's safety emphasis 
areas. The X axis represents the number of state plans that 
incorporated emphasis area, and the Y axis represents safety emphasis 
area. 

Safety emphasis area: Seatbelts and air bags; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 23. 

Safety emphasis area: Impaired drivers; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 23. 

Safety emphasis area: Keeping vehicles on the road; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 20. 

Safety emphasis area: Intersections; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 19. 

Safety emphasis area: Aggressive driving; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 19. 

Safety emphasis area: Minimizing consequences of leaving the road; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 18. 

Safety emphasis area: Improving decision support systems; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 16. 

Safety emphasis area: Pedestrians; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 16. 

Safety emphasis area: Head-on and cross median crashes; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 16. 

Safety emphasis area: Motorcyclists; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 16. 

Safety emphasis area: Heavy trucks; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 15. 

Safety emphasis area: Bicyclists; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 14. 

Safety emphasis area: Older drivers; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 14. 

Safety emphasis area: Work zones; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 12. 

Safety emphasis area: Increasing EMS capabilities; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 11. 

Safety emphasis area: Licensed, competent drivers; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 9. 

Safety emphasis area: Vehicle-train crashes; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 8. 

Safety emphasis area: Keeping drivers alert; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 8. 

Safety emphasis area: Graduated drivers licensing; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 4. 

Safety emphasis area: Driver safety awareness; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 3. 

Safety emphasis area: Processes and safety management systems; 
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 2. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of 25 state strategic highway safety plans. 

Note: Eighteen states include "Young drivers" as an emphasis area in 
their strategic plans. Although not an AASHTO-recommended area, it is 
closely related to AASHTO's "Graduated drivers licensing" area. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

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. 

Figure 4: Rumble Strips and Cable Median Barriers in Iowa Designed to 
Keep Drivers on the Road and Reduce Head-on Collisions: 

This figure is a picture of rumble strips and cable median barriers in 
Iowa designed to keep drivers on the road and reduce head-on 
collisions. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 17] 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. 

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: 

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[Footnote 18] 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). 

Many States Lacked Crash Location Data on Locally Owned Roads in a 
Usable Format for Analysis: 

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.[Footnote 19] 
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.[Footnote 20] 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). 

Figure 5: State Ownership of Total Roadway Miles in Six States: 

This figure is a combination bar graph showing state ownership of total 
roadway miles in six states. One bar represents nonstate miles, and the 
other represents state miles. The X axis represents state, and the Y 
axis represents percentage. 

State: California; 
State miles: 8.9; 
Nonstate miles: 91.1. 

State: Florida; 
State miles: 9.9; 
Nonstate miles: 90.1. 

State: Illinois; 
State miles: 11.6; 
Nonstate miles: 88.4. 

State: Iowa; 
State miles: 7.8; 
Nonstate miles: 92.2. 

State: Mississippi; 
State miles: 14.7; 
Nonstate miles: 85.3. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
State miles: 32.8; 
Nonstate miles: 67.2. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA's 2008 highway statistics. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Many States Lacked Roadway Inventory Data, Especially for Locally Owned 
Roads: 

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.[Footnote 21] 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. 

FHWA Is Developing Software to Analyze Data on Hazardous Locations, 
Remedies, and Costs: 

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. 

Lack of Data Limits States' Reporting on Their Most Severe Hazardous 
Locations: 

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.[Footnote 22] 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.[Footnote 23] 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. 

Improving States' Data and Analysis Capability May Be Costly and Will 
Take Time: 

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.[Footnote 24] 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. 

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: 

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. 

More Time Is Needed to Evaluate the Results of HSIP Projects Authorized 
under SAFETEA-LU: 

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.[Footnote 25] 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.[Footnote 26] 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. 

Figure 6: National Trend in Fatal Accidents at Rail-Highway Crossings, 
1975 through 2007: 

This figure is a line graph showing the national trend in fatal 
accidents at rail-highway crossings, 1975 through 2007. The X axis 
represents the year, and the Y axis represents the number of fatal 
accidents at rail-highway crossings. 

Year: 1975; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 728. 

Year: 1977; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 784. 

Year: 1979; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 684. 

Year: 1981; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 561. 

Year: 1983; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 440. 

Year: 1985; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 441. 
	
Year: 1987; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 483. 

Year: 1989; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 610. 

Year: 1991; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 462. 

Year: 1993; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 489. 

Year: 1995; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 419. 

Year: 1997; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 341.

Year: 1999; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 307. 

Year: 2001; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 320. 

Year: 2003; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 270. 

Year: 2005; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 283. 

Year: 2007; 
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 251. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of FRA data. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

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: 

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. 

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

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).[Footnote 27] 

Table 1: Information on Funding and Projects in Seven States Approved 
to Flex 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 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. 

State: Total; 
Approved funding: $12,783,799; 
Projects: [Empty]. 

Source: FHWA. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 28] 

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.[Footnote 29] 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. 

Rail-Highway Crossing Improvement Funding Set-aside May Target a Low 
Priority for Some States: 

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.[Footnote 
30] 

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.[Footnote 31] 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[Footnote 32] 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.[Footnote 33] 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. 

High-Risk Rural Road Program Is Too Recent to Evaluate Results, but 
Data Limitations and Localities' Inexperience Are Hindering 
Implementation: 

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.[Footnote 34] 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.[Footnote 35] 
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.[Footnote 36] 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. 

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: 

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. 

FHWA Provided Comprehensive Guidance and Technical Assistance, and FHWA 
Officials Participated in States' Planning Processes: 

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; and: 

* 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.[Footnote 37] 

FHWA Gave States Latitude on the Methodology and Scope of Their 5 
Percent Reports, Limiting the Reports' Usefulness in Increasing Public 
Awareness: 

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.[Footnote 38] 
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. 

FHWA's Guidance on Implementing Strategic Highway Safety Plans Relied 
on Existing Planning Processes and Informal Coordination among Key 
Federal and State Stakeholders: 

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.[Footnote 39] 

* 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. 

Figure 7: Strategic Highway Safety Plan Implementation Uses Existing 
Federal and State Planning Processes: 

This figure is a flowchart showing the strategic highway safety plan 
implementation uses existing federal and state planning processes. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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, particularly for 
behavioral and emergency medical services projects that 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 strategic 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 agency for 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, and FMCSA 
and their grantees coordinate and collaborate informally when they have 
no formal implementation agreements, according to officials we 
interviewed from those three agencies. Even though the strategic 
highway 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, state 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 to further their programmatic goals. This 
coordination occurs naturally in 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 these functions are 
in different offices, such as California and Iowa, officials 
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,[Footnote 40] called for states 
to submit their NHTSA grant applications in conjunction with their 
strategic highway safety plans 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 highway safety plans. 

FHWA Monitors HSIP through Reporting and Other Requirements: 

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 
are submitted by state transportation departments to FHWA, describe the 
state's progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects 
and 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 federal-
aid highway projects in the state will conform to federal requirements 
(e.g., the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, 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. 

FHWA Guidance Describes Evaluation Requirements for Strategic Highway 
Safety Plans and HSIP Projects: 

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." 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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 inventory data; and: 

* require states to submit schedules to FHWA for achieving compliance 
with this requirement. 

Agency Comments: 

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 [hyperlink, 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. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Katherine A. Siggerud: 
Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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 
reports; and: 

* 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 
pedestrian deaths; 

* 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: 

* Other federal agencies: 

- Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: 

- Federal Railroad Administration: 

- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

* State and local organizations: 

- American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: 

- Governors Highway Safety Association: 

- National Association of County Engineers: 

- National Association of Counties: 

* Education and research organizations: 

- AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety: 

- Operation Lifesaver: 

- the University of California Berkeley Traffic Safety Center: 

* Advocacy and industry groups: 

- American Highway Users Alliance: 

- Association of American Railroads: 

- 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: HSIP Apportionments for States, Including Equity Bonus and 
Other Adjustments: 

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. 

Table 2: Apportionments of HSIP Funds, by State, Fiscal Year 2008: 

State: Alabama; 
HSIP for all public roads: $21,585,162; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: $4,402,428; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: $2,016,648; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: $9,539,910; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: $662,834; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: $36,881,314. 

State: Alaska; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 5,907,146; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 223,474; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 12,050,239. 

State: Arizona; 
HSIP for all public roads: 20,670,374; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 2,643,819; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,931,182; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 9,788,759; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 647,806; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 34,386,328. 

State: Arkansas; 
HSIP for all public roads: 14,703,681; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,715,371; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,373,729; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 4,638,716; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 414,323; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 24,017,174. 

State: California; 
HSIP for all public roads: 94,542,807; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 15,799,013; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 8,832,902; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 19,037,163; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 2,448,257; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 135,763,628. 

State: Colorado; 
HSIP for all public roads: 15,692,814; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,130,510; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,466,141; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 3,020,772; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 403,595; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 22,906,642. 

State: Connecticut; 
HSIP for all public roads: 7,634,037; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,308,802; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 713,229; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,006,594; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 207,077; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 11,455,585. 

State: Delaware; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 751,047; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 120,352; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,997,262. 

State: District of Columbia; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 0; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 105,331; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,261,236. 

State: Florida; 
HSIP for all public roads: 50,848,349; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 8,536,504; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 4,750,636; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 30,712,493; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 1,726,230; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 93,121,752. 

State: Georgia; 
HSIP for all public roads: 34,004,366; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 8,181,350; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 3,176,944; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 19,527,994; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 1,134,186; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 63,756,468. 

State: Hawaii; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 516,791; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 115,667; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,767,691. 

State: Idaho; 
HSIP for all public roads: 6,946,249; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,656,853; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 648,971; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 3,138,513; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 214,675; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 12,175,911. 

State: Illinois; 
HSIP for all public roads: 33,302,208; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 10,055,232; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 3,111,343; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 9,783,419; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 923,939; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 55,328,263. 

State: Indiana; 
HSIP for all public roads: 18,953,829; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 7,204,490; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,770,809; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 10,402,398; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 622,541; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 37,708,985. 

State: Iowa; 
HSIP for all public roads: 14,534,318; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 4,947,537; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 1,357,905; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,415,309; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 346,151; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 21,908,918. 

State: Kansas; 
HSIP for all public roads: 16,594,875; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 6,123,937; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 1,550,418; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 812,955; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 379,165; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 24,703,020. 

State: Kentucky; 
HSIP for all public roads: 15,698,692; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,567,557; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,466,690; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 4,431,589; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 431,939; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 24,732,589. 

State: Louisiana; 
HSIP for all public roads: 15,843,364; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 4,159,189; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,480,207; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,025,349; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 386,978; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 23,121,131. 

State: Maine; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,186,942; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 0; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 105,331; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,348,178. 

State: Maryland; 
HSIP for all public roads: 14,093,286; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 2,273,932; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,316,701; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,328,637; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 354,772; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 19,657,784. 

State: Massachusetts; 
HSIP for all public roads: 12,952,825; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 2,360,935; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,210,151; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 758,716; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 298,434; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 16,984,193. 

State: Michigan; 
HSIP for all public roads: 31,354,773; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 7,768,635; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,929,399; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,336,286; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 852,409; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 49,536,684. 

State: Minnesota; 
HSIP for all public roads: 19,767,073; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 5,914,043; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,846,789; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 5,933,531; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 550,948; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 32,910,488. 

State: Mississippi; 
HSIP for all public roads: 16,276,249; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,328,546; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,520,650; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,958,785; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 415,114; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 23,669,116. 

State: Missouri; 
HSIP for all public roads: 25,818,035; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 6,034,429; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,412,115; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,071,981; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 726,043; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 41,610,517. 

State: Montana; 
HSIP for all public roads: 7,437,206; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,748,422; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 694,840; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 3,840,259; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 239,446; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 13,481,281. 

State: Nebraska; 
HSIP for all public roads: 9,980,723; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,705,049; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 932,474; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,044,352; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 239,151; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 15,423,447. 

State: Nevada; 
HSIP for all public roads: 7,465,355; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 697,470; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,316,151; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 209,580; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 11,369,396. 

State: New Hampshire; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 833,444; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 122,000; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 7,078,011. 

State: New Jersey; 
HSIP for all public roads: 17,422,236; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,588,846; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,627,717; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 5,499,292; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 490,985; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 27,647,106. 

State: New Mexico; 
HSIP for all public roads: 10,533,313; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,565,355; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 984,101; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 3,051,173; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 291,372; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 15,842,570. 

State: New York; 
HSIP for all public roads: 32,999,363; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 6,328,237; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 3,083,049; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 4,584,791; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 813,344; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 46,182,096. 

State: North Carolina; 
HSIP for all public roads: 25,069,804; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 6,171,837; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 2,342,210; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 9,343,151; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 735,103; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 42,191,899. 

State: North Dakota; 
HSIP for all public roads: 6,785,822; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,472,532; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 633,983; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 849,296; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 165,382; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 11,576,251. 

State: Ohio; 
HSIP for all public roads: 30,032,171; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 8,555,008; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 2,805,832; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 10,536,104; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 867,482; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 51,061,633. 

State: Oklahoma; 
HSIP for all public roads: 20,047,029; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 5,052,599; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,872,945; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 4,268,154; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 523,763; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 30,716,964. 

State: Oregon; 
HSIP for all public roads: 13,117,523; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 3,105,301; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 1,225,538; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,534,174; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 317,545; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 18,664,991. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
HSIP for all public roads: 31,809,303; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 7,191,491; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,971,865; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 6,726,382; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 830,151; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 47,868,890. 

State: Rhode Island; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 0; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 105,331; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,261,236. 

State: South Carolina; 
HSIP for all public roads: 22,033,900; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 4,096,530; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 2,058,573; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,504,797; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 651,945; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 36,041,855. 

State: South Dakota; 
HSIP for all public roads: 7,978,365; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 2,308,872; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 745,399; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,926,252; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 213,000; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 12,745,888. 

State: Tennessee; 
HSIP for all public roads: 22,140,448; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 4,591,335; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,068,528; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,107,608; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 646,332; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 36,261,587. 

State: Texas; 
HSIP for all public roads: 76,832,361; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 16,934,757; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 7,178,258; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 36,200,902; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 2,404,230; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 134,742,048. 

State: Utah; 
HSIP for all public roads: 7,175,986; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,586,657; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 670,435; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,404,186; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 185,012; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 10,652,252. 

State: Vermont; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 7,285; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 105,477; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,268,375. 

State: Virginia; 
HSIP for all public roads: 23,588,009; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 4,458,740; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,203,770; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,879,387; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 693,423; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 38,436,483. 

State: Washington; 
HSIP for all public roads: 16,847,426; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,991,859; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,574,013; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,137,725; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 391,183; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 23,159,840. 

State: West Virginia; 
HSIP for all public roads: 8,375,352; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,985,435; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 782,489; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,769,486; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 238,547; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 13,674,215. 

State: Wisconsin; 
HSIP for all public roads: 20,475,248; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 5,361,084; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,912,952; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 10,620,380; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 660,172; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 37,709,492. 

State: Wyoming; 
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567; 
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: 893,838; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 123,208; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 7,137,197. 

State: Total; 
HSIP for all public roads: $963,313,412; 
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: $220,000,000; 
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: $90,000,000; 
Equity bonus for HSIP: $300,723,422; 
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: $27,080,735; 
Total HSIP apportionment to states: $1,546,956,099. 

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data. 

Note: Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Katherine A. Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes:

[1] Cambridge Systematics, Inc., prepared for American Automobile 
Association, Crashes vs. Congestion: What's the Cost to Society 
(Bethesda, Md.: March 2008). 

[2] Pub. L. No. 109-59 § 1401. SAFETEA-LU amended provisions of Title 
23 of the United States Code (U.S. Code). For the purposes of this 
report, we refer generally to SAFETEA-LU instead of the U.S. Code when 
describing various requirements. 

[3] The Highway Safety Improvement Program is codified at 23 U.S.C. § 
148. The rail-highway grade crossing program is codified at 23 U.S.C. § 
130. 

[4] Federal-aid highways include the National Highway System, a 160,000-
mile network that carries over 40 percent of the nation's traffic. 

[5] SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that states without a strategic plan 
in place by this October 2007, deadline would still receive funds for 
highway safety improvement, but the amount would be capped at the 
fiscal year 2007 level. 

[6] Department of Transportation, Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New 
Transportation Approach for America (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2008). 

[7] The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and related 
extensions, authorized highway safety program funding for fiscal years 
1998 through 2005. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, HSIP was funded as part of the 
Surface Transportation Program. SAFETEA-LU established HSIP as a "core" 
FHWA program with its own separate funding. 

[8] On June 6, 2008, President Bush signed Pub. L. No. 110-244, the 
SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008, which amended the U.S. 
Code to allow states to direct, or flex, rail-highway crossing funds to 
highway safety improvement purposes if the state demonstrates that it 
has met its needs for installation of protective devices. Prior to this 
technical correction, states were able to flex funds designated for 
protective devices at rail-highway crossings to hazard elimination at 
rail-highway crossings, if they could demonstrate to FHWA that they had 
met their needs for protective devices. 

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

[10] NHTSA's alcohol penalty transfer program encourages states to pass 
alcohol-related safety laws by transferring a portion of a state's 
federal-aid highway allocation to qualifying safety programs if the 
state has not enacted federally desired laws to prevent drunk driving. 

[11] For the purposes of this report, we describe education and 
enforcement activities as "behavioral activities" because these 
activities attempt to change road users' behaviors. 

[12] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach. 

[13] Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
National Review of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (Washington, 
D.C.: November 2001). 

[14] The eight types of stakeholders include (1) governors' highway 
safety representatives; (2) regional and metropolitan planning 
organizations; (3) stakeholders from the major transportation modes; 
(4) state and local traffic enforcement officials; (5) federal 
officials responsible for implementing the rail-highway crossing 
program (Section 130); (6) representatives of Operation Lifesaver, a 
nonprofit education organization dedicated to ending collisions, 
fatalities, and injuries at rail-highway crossings and on railroad 
rights of way; (7) representatives conducting a motor carrier safety 
program; and (8) officials from state motor vehicle administration 
agencies. 

[15] Operation Lifesaver is a private, nonprofit organization supported 
by federal and railroad funds and dedicated to improving rail crossing 
and track safety through education and improved law enforcement. 

[16] The purpose of the high-risk rural road program is to achieve a 
significant reduction in traffic fatalities and incapacitating injuries 
on rural major or minor collectors, or rural local roads. 

[17] Typically, these goals are based on reductions in fatalities per 
100 million vehicle miles traveled. For example, Illinois' goal was to 
reach 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2008. 
States based their identification of emphasis area hazards, at least in 
part, on numbers of fatalities. 

[18] These include geographic information system (GIS) and global 
positioning system (GPS) formats. 

[19] Because FHWA does not require states to report on their capability 
to map crash locations, our analysis of which states have significantly 
limited or no capability in this area may represent an undercount. 

[20] The remaining 3 percent of roads are owned by the federal 
government (e.g., national park roads) and Indian tribes. 

[21] CH2M HILL, prepared for the American Association of State Highway 
and Transportation Officials, Surface Transportation Safety and 
Investment Update on Progress Since 2000 (Chicago, Ill.: September 
2006). 

[22] In its July 2008 proposal to Congress for reforming surface 
transportation programs, DOT recommended eliminating the requirement 
for the 5 percent report and instead requiring states to raise 
awareness of highway safety by posting their strategic highway safety 
plans and annual HSIP reports on their Web sites. 

[23] For the remaining 3 of 14 states that had limited or no mapping 
capability, 2 states reported some hazardous locations on locally owned 
roads in their 5 percent reports, using alternative data sources and 
analytic techniques, and 1 state was unclear about whether its listing 
of hazardous locations in its 5 percent report included locally owned 
roads. 

[24] CH2M HILL, prepared for the American Association of State Highway 
and Transportation Officials, Surface Transportation Safety and 
Investment (Chicago, Ill.: September 2002). 

[25] The Highway Safety Act of 1973 established the rail-highway 
crossing program (commonly known as the "Section 130" program) to 
eliminate hazards at rail-highway crossings by improving crossing 
infrastructure. SAFETEA-LU continued this program, which currently 
distributes $220 million to the states each year. The funds must 
generally be used for only two types of rail-highway crossing 
improvements--installation of protective devices and hazard elimination 
projects. SAFETEA-LU authorizes states to use not more than 2 percent 
of their rail-highway crossing allocation for data compilation and 
analysis. 

[26] Shannon Mok and Ian Savage, "Why has Safety Improved at Rail- 
Highway Grade Crossings?," Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 
Vol. 25, no. 4 (McLean, Va.: Society for Risk Analysis, August 2005), 
867-881. The authors attribute improved crossing safety to a number of 
factors in addition to the rail-highway crossing program, including 
reduced drunk driving, improved automotive braking, and more effective 
emergency medical services and railroad improvements (e.g., oncoming 
trains have become more visible with new locomotive lighting, and 
public awareness of rail crossing hazards has improved through 
educational campaigns such as Operation Lifesaver). The authors found 
that these other factors have been more effective than the installation 
of active warning devices at rail crossings in reducing rail crossing 
hazards. 

[27] Although flexed HSIP funds can be used in conjunction with state 
efforts funded through other federal programs, such as NHTSA and FMCSA 
programs, HSIP funds remain under the oversight of FHWA and states must 
include noninfrastructure projects in their annual HSIP reports. 

[28] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach. 

[29] As we have previously mentioned, NHTSA's 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 seatbelt use. 

[30] Locations in 5 percent reports are sometimes described in vague or 
technical terms, such as by mile markers, making it difficult in those 
instances to determine whether an included location is a rail-highway 
crossing. 

[31] Ohio selected crossing improvement projects on the basis of a risk 
assessment that considers factors, such as traffic volumes and train 
speeds at crossing locations. 

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

[33] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach. 

[34] The program defines high-risk 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. 

[35] FHWA distributes HSIP funding to the states, including funding for 
the high-risk rural road program, through annual apportionments 
established by statutory formula. HSIP's annual apportionments are 
"multi-year" funds that are available to the states for 4 years. 

[36] Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, The 
Administration of Federal-aid Projects by Local Public Agencies, Final 
Report (Washington, D.C.: December 2006). 

[37] Each state's road system includes federally designated 
interstates, other state-owned roads, and locally owned roads 

[38] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach. 

[39] States develop statewide transportation improvement programs 
(which incorporate projects proposed by local governments throughout 
the state) in which they propose HSIP safety construction projects for 
funding. States are required to include HSIP-funded behavioral or 
emergency medical services projects in their statewide transportation 
improvement program. State and local governments must seek public 
comments on their proposed projects and meet other requirements of this 
planning process to receive federal funds. 

[40] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach. 

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 Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

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: