	Background

During 2006, about 43,000 traffic fatalities occurred on the nation’s roads  and 290,000 people were seriously injured. Second,  the plan must define areas of safety emphasis through an analysis of state  fatality and serious injury data. The 25 state  plans that we reviewed generally addressed the 4 key elements added by  SAFETEA-LU. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. For the 25 states we selected, we analyzed their    strategic highway safety plans;    annual HSIP, high-risk rural road, and rail-highway crossing program    5 percent reports. 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).
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 ofsome states and provides significant funding to some crossing areas that have relatively few fatalities. Better alignment of federal funding with state priorities in their strategic plans could help ensure that HSIP funding best addresses those priorities. Lastly, as states implement the high-risk rural roads program, they are hindered by limited data on rural roads and crashes, which are needed to identify qualifying roadways and appropriate remedies. FHWA provided comprehensive guidance and training to assist states in preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and participated in states' strategic safety planning processes. FHWA's guidance to states on reporting their most hazardous locations took states' data limitations into account and gave states latitude in defining the methodology and scope of their 5 percent reports. Consequently, these reports vary in content and format and may not increase public awareness of highway safety as intended.