While the state plans we reviewed indicated general compliance with  SAFETEA-LU’s requirements for preparing strategic highway safety plans,  states do not yet have the crash data analysis systems needed to identify  and select possible safety improvements as set forth in SAFETEA-LU. Our review of 25 state strategic highway safety plans and six site visits  indicated that, to varying degrees, states lack key components of crash  data analysis systems:    All 50 states maintain data on the crashes that occur on all public  roadways in the state, but in the 25 states we reviewed, the information on  crash locations was typically not in a geographic format (GIS or GPS)  suitable for mapping. Until states have obtained the necessary data and software, they cannot  conduct the kind of data analysis specified by SAFETEA-LU—namely,  identifying and ranking hazardous locations on all public roads,  determining appropriate remedies, and estimating project costs. This kind  of analysis is also necessary to generate 5 percent reports that fully meet  the requirements for these reports set forth in SAFETEA-LU, including  requirements for information on remedies and costs. Many of the 5 percent  reports we reviewed lack this required information. FHWA Assisted States in Preparing Strategic Highway Safety Plans, but Has Not Set Deadlines to Obtain All Needed Data

FHWA provided guidance and technical assistance to states in preparing  strategic highway safety plans, and FHWA division officials participated in  each state’s planning process. FHWA’s guidance included memorandums  describing new HSIP program procedures and a reference guide on  strategic planning. FHWA set August 31, 2009, as a deadline for  states to develop the crash location data needed to map crashes on all  public roads. In its guidance on the 5 percent report, FHWA gave states leeway in  interpreting the act’s requirements and did not specify a methodology. It Is Too Soon to Evaluate Results of States’ Efforts Since SAFETEA-LU, but Preliminary Evidence Raises Questions about whether Certain Program Provisions Are Aligned with States’ Safety Priorities

As previously noted, federal and state officials told us that the strategic  highway safety planning process improved collaboration and safety  planning, but it is too early to evaluate the results of states’ efforts to carry  out HSIP since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment, especially the results of  infrastructure projects identified through the strategic highway safety  planning process. First, states have  generally not taken advantage of HSIP’s flexible funding provision, which  allows them to use HSIP funding for noninfrastructure projects. Second,  the rail-highway crossing set-aside may target a low-priority type of project  for some states, although other states continue to emphasize this area. Few States Used HSIP Flexible Funding Provision for Behavioral and Emergency Medical Services Projects

States made limited use of the HSIP flexible funding provision that allows  them to transfer up to 10 percent of their HSIP funds to behavioral and  emergency medical services projects if they have adopted a strategic  highway safety plan and certified that they have met all their safety  infrastructure needs. As noted earlier, states designate their top safety priorities as emphasis  areas in their strategic highway safety plans and identify their most  hazardous locations in their 5 percent reports. FHWA Office of  Safety officials agreed that the program’s funding, which accounts for  approximately 17 percent of HSIP authorizations, was high based on the  number of fatalities that occur at rail-highway crossings. States Are in the Early Stages of Implementing the High-Risk Rural Road Program, and Data Limitations May Be Slowing Implementation

Many states are still in the early stages of implementing the set-aside  program for high-risk rural roads and have yet to obligate significant funds  for projects, and data limitations may be hindering their ability to target  program funds to eligible projects. Limited data on rural roads—including data on crash locations and local  roadway characteristics—may be hindering the program’s implementation  by making it difficult for some states to identify roads that conform to the  definition of high-risk rural roads in SAFETEA-LU.
Why GAO Did This Study

About 43,000 traffic fatalities occur annually, and another 290,000 people are seriously injured on the nation's roads. To reduce these numbers, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) nearly doubled funding for the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), authorizing $5.1 billion for 2006 through 2009. SAFETEA-LU also added requirements for states to develop strategic highway safety plans that cover all aspects of highway safety, including infrastructure, behavioral (education and enforcement), and emergency medical services projects; develop crash data analysis systems; and publicly report on the top 5 percent of hazardous locations on all their public roads. SAFETEA-LU also set aside funds for a legacy rail-highway crossing program and a new high-risk rural road program. This testimony provides preliminary information on the implementation of HSIP since SAFETEA-LU. It is based on ongoing work that addresses (1) states' implementation of HSIP following SAFETEA-LU, (2) FHWA's guidance and assistance for states, and (3) results of HSIP to date, including for the two set-aside programs. To conduct this study, GAO visited 6 states, judgmentally selected based on highway safety attributes, analyzed plans and reports from these 6 states and 19 randomly selected states, and interviewed FHWA and state safety officials.

What GAO Found

All states submitted strategic highway safety plans and reports listing the top 5 percent of their hazardous locations, according to FHWA. The 25 state plans GAO reviewed generally cover all aspects of highway safety, but the 25 states have not fully developed the required crash data analysis systems. FHWA and state safety officials cited the collaboration that occurred among safety stakeholders in developing the plans as a positive influence on state safety planning. Many of the 25 states lacked key components of crash data analysis systems, including crash location data, roadway characteristics data, and software for analyzing the data. As a result, most states cannot identify and rank hazardous locations on all public roads, determine appropriate remedies, and estimate costs, as required by SAFETEA-LU, and their 5 percent reports often lack required information on remedies and costs. FHWA provided written guidance and training to assist the states, especially in preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and participated in every state's strategic safety planning process. However, FHWA has not required states to submit schedules for obtaining complete roadway characteristics data, and because states lack complete data, FHWA's guidance on the 5 percent reports did not specify a methodology. As a result, states' 5 percent reports vary widely, raising questions about how this report can be used. It is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP as carried out under SAFETEA-LU because states need more time to identify, implement, and evaluate projects they have undertaken since adopting their strategic highway safety plans. However, preliminary evidence indicates that some HSIP provisions may not be aligned with states' safety priorities. First, most states have not taken advantage of a new spending provision that allows states to use some HSIP funds for behavioral or emergency medical services projects, partly because a certification requirement--that all state highway safety infrastructure needs have been met--may make them reluctant to do so. Second, the rail-highway crossing set-aside program does not target the top safety priorities of some states. Lastly, states are still in the early stages of implementing the high-risk rural road set-aside program, and data limitations may make it difficult for some of them to identify qualifying projects, especially for locally owned rural roads. FHWA agreed with GAO's findings.