Call for Projects (HSIP) Informational · PDF fileCall for Projects Informational Guide ... 6.1 Local Agency Safety ... The FDOT District Safety Office is responsible for administering

Call for Projects Informational Guide

Highway Safety Improvement Program

(HSIP)

Off-System

ii

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 HSIP Project Eligibility Requirements ............................................................................... 3

2.1 Eligible Applicant ................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Data Driven Process ............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Restrictions ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Process Flowchart ................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 Project Identification ....................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Project Selection ................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Non-Eligible Projects ............................................................................................................ 5

3.3 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification ................................................................ 5

3.4 Strategic Highway Safety Program (SHSP) Emphasis Area .................................................. 7

3.4.1 Emphasis Area: Intersection Crashes ................................................................................... 7

3.4.2 Emphasis Area: Lane Departure Crashes ............................................................................. 7

3.4.3 Emphasis Area: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motorcycles) ........................ 8

3.5 Implementation Approaches ................................................................................................ 8

3.5.1 Systemic Approach ................................................................................................................ 8

3.5.2 Spot Location Approach ........................................................................................................ 9

3.5.3 Comprehensive Approach ..................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Project Analysis ............................................................................................................. 10

4.1 Conceptual Design/Plan Recommended, Not Required .................................................... 10

4.2 Financial Analysis Not Required for Application ................................................................. 11

4.3 Benefit-Cost (B/C)/Net Present Value (NPV) Not Required for Application ....................... 11

iii

5.0 HSIP Funding Request .................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Maintaining Agency Submittal and Agreement ................................................................. 12

5.2 Documentation ................................................................................................................... 12

5.3 Electroinic Submission......................................................................................................... 12

5.4 Safety Projects Contingency Plan ....................................................................................... 12

6.0 Project Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 13

6.1 Local Agency Safety Team (LAST) ....................................................................................... 13

6.2 Project Selection ................................................................................................................. 14

7.0 Programming ................................................................................................................ 15

8.0 Delivery Method ........................................................................................................... 16

8.1 LAP ...................................................................................................................................... 16

8.2 Safety Work Program ......................................................................................................... 16

Figures

Figure 1: HSIP Process ___________________________________________________________ 4

Figure 2: Typical Safety Issues Addressed _____________________________________________ 6

Appendices

Appendix A: Checklist

Appendix B: Application and Preliminary Analysis

Appendix C: Program Management Bulletin 15-03

Appendix D: Select Countermeasure Guidance

1

1.0 Introduction Safety is the Florida Department of Transportation’s number one priority. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) addresses low cost (typically $1,000,000 or less) short-term safety projects. This program is applicable to all public roads except turnpike enterprise. The primary purpose of this program is the reduction of fatal and serious injuries resulting from traffic crashes The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005, established the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a core Federal-aid program. The overall purpose of this program was to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) continues the changes that SAFETEA-LU used to fund the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. 1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Informational Guide is to provide guidance on how to prepare documents documentations that support requests for off-system safety projects. Off-system projects are defined as projects not located on the State Highway System. This Informational Guide is designed to provide information on the procedures and processes for submitting projects for funding consideration. This Informational Guide should be used by local agencies, consultants, FHWA, FDOT, and staff from other agencies when developing and reviewing Off-System HSIP Projects. 1.2 Scope

The approval of an Off-System HSIP Application is the first step in a three-step process.

Step 1: Application Acceptance The acceptance of the Application provides a determination of safety, operational and engineering acceptability. While the information contained in this Informational Guide provides a basis for uniform analysis; individual situations must rely on sound engineering practice and analysis.

Step 2: FDOT State Safety Office Approval The approval of the Application provides a determination that FDOT requirements have been fulfilled and HSIP funding is available and earmarked for the project.

Step 3: FHWA Approval Approval is contingent upon compliance with applicable federal requirements, specifically Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), FDOT studies procedures and FDOT Work Program instructions.

It should be noted, however, that full compliance with the process outlined in the Informational Guide does not ensure approval of the Application.

2

1.3 Stakeholders

A fundamental component of the Off-system HSIP Application process is its management and coordination. A close coordination between stakeholders at various stages of the process is of utmost importance for a successful approval of the Application. The various stakeholdes involved are described in this section.

Local Agency

A unit of government with less than statewide jurisdiction or any officially designated public agency or authority of such a unit of government that has the responsibility for planning, construction, operation or maintenance of, or jurisdiction over a transportation facility. The term Local Agency includes, but is not limited to, a county, an incorporated municipality, a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), an expressway or transportation authority, a special road and bridge district or a regional governmental unit.

District Safety Engineer (DSE) The DSE is the primary point of contact for all Requesters, both inside and outside the Department. For all Applications, the DSE establishes the basis for acceptance, the evaluation criteria, the level of coordination needed, and the scope of the technical analysis and documentation. The DSE arranges a technical review of the safety impacts, engineering, and operations. The DSE makes the recommendation for action on the Application. The FDOT District Safety Office is responsible for administering Florida’s state and federal-aid highway safety improvement funds for state and local roadway safety improvements. This funding comes primarily through federal-aid safety programs such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which is a federal-aid program that focuses on improving traffic safety on all public roads. The District’s administration of this program encompasses many responsibilities, including: the establishment of program guidance; reviewing applications for improvements on local roadways; ranking applications/projects on a district-wide basis; selecting projects for funding based on the highest potential for reducing fatalities and serious injuries; focusing funding on problem areas identified in the Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP); and assisting with programming and delivery issues through the delivery of the local agency projects.

State Safety Engineer (SSE)

The SSE’s role is to formulate rules, policies, procedures, and guidance related to HSIP funding requests and coordinate with the FHWA and DSE.

FHWA FHWA Safety Engineer is the FHWA Division Office point of contact.

3

2.0 HSIP Project Eligibility Requirements

All project documentation is subject to review and eligibility determination. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FDOT retain the right to refuse funding eligibility to any proposed project that does not meet the minimum requirements for federal aid safety funding as set out by federal guidance and/or this document.

2.1 Eligible Applicant

Maintaining Agency who can certify their ability to deliver federal-aid projects are eligible for HSP funding. Signature of a representative with the authority to expend funds is required in accordance with the Local Agency Program (LAP), see section 8.0.

2.2 Data Driven Process Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) HSIP regulations require that justification for all HSIP funded safety projects be data-driven and evidence based regarding forecasted safety improvements. The proposed safety projects receiving approval will likely be prioritized based on: crash data showing fatal, incapacitating, or visible injury crash history; or crash data showing evidence of crash history of a particular type that can be corrected by the proposed safety project; or a traffic conflicts study (engineering safety study) with results showing a traffic hazard with the proposed safety project generating countermeasures to reduce the identified traffic hazard. Without analysis of the specific situation, the correct set of countermeasures may not be readily apparent. The best practice is to begin all safety evaluations without a preconceived selection of the countermeasure.

2.3 Restrictions FDOT will not approve the use of HSIP funds for projects intended to address capacity enhancement, beautification, economic development, drainage, maintenance, bridge need, or to meet federal requirements for a railroad quiet zone. Additionally, annual maintenance needs are not eligible for federal aid.

2.4 Process Flowchart

It is the responsibility of the local maintaining agency to evaluate the request, safety concerns, and recommend appropriate countermeasures for improvement. The maintaining agency will have the responsibility of implementing the projects and administering the program to the extent funds are available. They are the authority to apply for HSIP funds. The following chart outlines the District 2 Safety Office steps for processing Off-System Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Project Requests:

4

Local Agency Program (LAP) – Work Program

Preliminary Analysis: Initial countermeasures & Concept Description

Scope Review Prioritization Phases FY Designation

Funding Eligibility – Constructability Complete Study: Final countermeasures & Concept Cost Effectiveness: Benefit-Cost & Net Present Value

Identify nature and extent of safety problem

Identify nature and extent of safety problem

Submittal of HSIP Application and documentation by Maintaining Agency

Figure 1: HSIP Process

5

3.0 Project Identification

The first step for local HSIP funding is a clearly identified project. The location should not be currently under construction or identified in a planned project within 5 years of requested construction date. It is imperative to identify and document if this safety improvement project is also being submitted through another funding source for consideration. 3.1 Project Selection

Proposed HSIP safety projects can be site-specific in nature or they can be along multiple locations. All proposed projects, regardless of type, will be subject to the same project selection process. There will be no categories of proposed safety improvements that will receive automatic project approval. The keys to success in HSIP project selection will be: Employing a data driven project selection process that focuses on traffic fatalities and serious

injuries; Studying the site and crash records for problem identification and contributing factors; Applying a full range of countermeasures proven effective in reducing crashes and tailored to specific

highway types or conditions; and Focusing on lower cost solutions that will enable more sites and/or mileage that can be treated with

the available funds. 3.2 Non-Eligible Projects

Federal HSIP guidelines generally disallow proposed safety projects that are significantly composed of constructing drainage facilities, grade separations, bridges, culverts, paving unpaved roads, reconstructing paved roads, rehabilitation or pavement overlay of paved roads, and repairing pavement distresses. Proposed projects that are typically considered maintenance work to repair or replace existing deteriorated facilities with restored condition facilities of the same general characteristics are also not eligible for HSIP funds. Also generally disallowed are constructing additional through travel lanes or intersection channelization, or traffic signals primarily for purposes of capacity improvements to reduce traffic congestion. 3.3 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification

A reactive approach to road safety is associated with the identification of locations experiencing safety problems (screening), problem definition (diagnosis), and the identification and implementation of countermeasures (cure). This approach to road safety is based on the analysis of existing crash data. Road safety improvements proposed are considered in reaction to identified safety problems brought to light by crashes that have occurred after the road has been designed, built, and opened to the traveling public. Limitations of the reactive approach are as follows:

It requires the identification of high crash locations before improvement plans may be developed and implemented;

6

The supporting crash data is often outdated, incomplete and/or insufficient to support accurate diagnosis and intervention; and

It may be more costly, since improvement plans are implemented on a road already built and open to the public.

A proactive approach to road safety is associated with the prevention of safety problems before they manifest themselves in the form of a pattern of crash occurrence. The proactive approach applies this knowledge to the roadway design process or to the implementation of improvement plans on existing roads to diminish the potential of crashes occurring prior to the road being built or reconstructed. The advantages of a proactive approach include:

Crash prevention: It is not necessary for crashes to occur before crash prevention measures are taken; and

Lower costs: Changing plans is easier and less costly than to implement an improvement plan on a road open to the public.

Effective road safety management programs should exercise an optimal balance between reactive and proactive strategies.

Reactive Approach Proactive Approach

High Crash Locations Few Crash Locations

Over Represented Crashes on Urban Systems

Over Represented Crashes on Rural Systems

Urban Highway System Crashes Rural Highway System Crashes

Signalized Priority Location Intersection Crashes

Un-signalized Priority Location Intersection Crashes

Targeting All Crash Types Horizontal Curve Priority Location

Crashes Targeting Crash Types: Lane Departure,

Head-On, Right Angle, Pedestrian

Figure 3: Typical Safety Issues Addressed

7

3.4 Strategic Highway Safety Program (SHSP) Emphasis Area

The Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) focuses funding on problem areas where the greatest

reduction in the number of fatal and serious injury crashes exist. Florida’s SHSP is a statewide, data-

driven plan that addresses the “4 E’s” of safety – engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency

response. The SHSP identifies eight Emphasis Areas:

Aggressive Driving Intersection Crashes Vulnerable Road Users (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists) Lane Departure Crashes Impaired Driving At-Risk Drivers (aging road users and teens) Distracted Driving Traffic Data The FDOT District Safety Office is responsible for oversight and implementation of the highway safety improvement projects in support of the Florida SHSP. Additional information on the SHSP is provided at the following link: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/SHSP2012/StrategicHwySafetyPlan.pdf The Florida SHSP emphasis areas and common strategies for which infrastructure type safety projects may be proposed and approved are listed below.

3.4.1 Emphasis Area: Intersection Crashes

Intersection lighting Intersection-related pavement markings Intersection-related warning and regulatory signs Signalizing an un-signalized intersection (Crash Warrant must be satisfied) Warning flashing signals on approaches to intersections Intersection relocation to reduce hazards of potential traffic collisions Channelizing intersections Construct acceleration and deceleration lanes at intersections

3.4.2 Emphasis Area: Lane Departure Crashes

Route guide, warning, and regulatory pavement markings, including centerlines, edge lines, stop lines, passing/no passing zones

Route guide, warning, and regulatory signs Shoulder guardrail to shield roadside steep side slope lane departure crashes Chevrons Delineators Cable median barriers Concrete median barriers Guardrail median barriers and/or attenuation devices Roadway lighting, (on non-intersection sections)

8

Longitudinal shoulder rumble strips on rural high-speed roads with four feet or wider shoulders

Improved geometry or realignment of horizontal curves and vertical curves Re-grade eroded unpaved shoulders to eliminate travel lane pavement drop off Overlay paved shoulders to eliminate higher level paved travel lane drop off to lower

level paved shoulder Striping centerlines of poorly maintained rural paved county roads and tribal roads

to reduce likelihood of head-on crashes and lane departure crashes Widen roadside clear zones, by removing, delineating, shielding or relocating fixed

objects or other hazardous objects, such as utility poles Install Safety Edge

3.4.3 Emphasis Area: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motorcycles)

Enhanced crosswalk pavement markings and signing to reduce pedestrian involved crashes

Install signs, curb and gutter, median refuges, pedestrian detectors, and other devices to reduce pedestrian involved crashes

New generation pedestrian count-down signals at pedestrian crosswalks or intersections

Install fencing to prevent pedestrian trespassing and to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic

Construct relatively low construction cost pedestrian crossing grade separations for relatively high pedestrian traffic volume benefit

Construct sidewalks to reduce pedestrian involved crashes

3.5 Implementation Approaches

When an agency proactively identifies their safety issues throughout their roadway network, it is likely they will find high crash concentrations at intersections, roadway segments, and corridors. Typical approaches include:

Systemic Approach Spot Location Approach Comprehensive Approach incorporating human behavior issues

Each of these approaches has benefits and drawbacks. As Local agency practitioners identify their safety issues and analyze the data for crash patterns, they should be open to implementing a combination of these approaches. Whichever approach or method that is utilized the HSIP program is intended to address infrastructure improvements.

3.5.1 Systemic Approach

The Systemic Approach to safety involves identifying improvements that are widely implemented based on high-risk roadway features correlated with particular severe crash types. The approach helps states align their efforts with the requirements for the highway safety improvement program (HSIP), which focuses on fatal and serious injury crashes on ALL public roads. A

9

significant number of crashes occur on rural roads, which are often part of the local system. Because there is no even distribution of these crashes across the many miles of rural roadways, it is often difficult to isolate high-crash locations. The systemic approach gives states a way to make these investments in a cost-effective, efficient way. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) explicitly defines safety and the law clarifies the eligibility of systemic projects for HSIP funding. Systemic starts with a different premise for identifying potential for safety improvements, leading to a different set of projects. The systemic approach looks at crash history on an aggregate basis to identify high-risk roadway characteristics (e.g., sharp curves combined with higher traffic volumes, or sharp curves and narrow shoulders). While the traditional site analysis approach results in safety investments at specific locations, the systemic approach leads to widespread implementation of projects to reduce the potential for severe crashes, whether or not crashes have occurred at any given site. Because many severe crashes are spread out over a wide area, the systemic approach provides state, regional, and local agencies with an alternative method to identify and implement low-cost safety countermeasures addressing specific risk factors across the transportation network. Systemic analysis is a complement to site-specific analysis, and can be very effective in implementing low-cost safety countermeasures. (Wemple, n.d.). Additional information is provided at the following link: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/index.htm

3.5.2 Spot Location Approach

The Spot Location Approach is typically based on an analysis of crash history to identify locations that have significantly higher crashes and treat them accordingly. It is important for practitioners to understand that for many locations, safety issues can be complicated and sometimes the most appropriate fixes are not quick, easy, or cheap. Intersection improvements are some of the most common spot location projects. Intersections tend to have higher concentrations of crashes resulting from opposing traffic movements. These high crash concentrations often require stand‐alone improvements to adequately resolve the safety issues. If low‐cost countermeasures are used, this approach can prove very cost effective. The Spot Location Approach does not always have to include moderate or high cost improvements. It is often appropriate for local agencies to make low‐cost improvements at one location at a time.

3.5.3 Comprehensive Approach

The Comprehensive Approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. The “4 E’s of Safety” (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)) are often required to achieve marked improvement in roadway safety. Some of the most common issues are speeding, failure‐to‐yield, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these type of issues, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to deploy visible targeted enforcement and reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes. To improve safety, education and outreach efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement efforts. Enforcement and/or education can be effectively utilized as short‐term ways to address high crash locations, until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented.

10

4.0 Project Analysis

Five years of crash data shall be analyzed to identify crash characteristics

or patterns. Crash data eligible projects must involve fatal and/or serious

injury crashes. Develop a list of possible causes and countermeasures.

These causes must be site specific. Quantify crash history whenever

possible using scientifically based methods.

Safety analysis can be performed by analyzing historical crash data within

the safety area of influence. Road Safety Audits (RSAs) may also be utilized

(not required) to analyze existing and proposed safety performance.

A list of relevant crashes that can be reduced or corrected by the proposed safety improvement project

should be described in the application. List crashes by calendar year stratified by crash severity: fatal

(Class K), serious incapacitating injury (Class A), visible injury (Class B), complaint injury (Class C), and

property damage only (Class O). Provide additional descriptions of the characteristics of the crash data,

including how the cited crashes are relevant to the designated transportation safety issue.

Safety analysis tools that may be used are the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) published in 2010 and

enhanced Interchange Safety Analysis Tool (ISATe). Additional tools that can be used to perform Safety

Analysis are Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) and Safety Analyst. Safety analysis

assistance is available through the District Local Agency Safety Team (see section 6.1)

Note: Any submittals that do not include documented fatal and/or serious injury crashes will not be

considered. Non-crash based projects are not eligible for funding.

4.1 Conceptual Design/Plan Recommended, Not Required

The inclusion of a sketch of the existing conditions as well as proposed improvement conditions provides additional clarification of the requested safety improvements. An aerial may serve as the base image in lieu of a scaled CADD drawing that allows for viewing the surrounding development, alternative access routes, routing information and provide an overall perspective of the area. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has safety tools that may be sources in developing the concept drawing or description.

Proven Safety Countermeasures: Guidance on research-proven nine safety countermeasures. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/

Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse: Web-based database of CMFs along with supporting documentation to help transportation engineers identify the most appropriate countermeasure for their safety needs. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

If a concept design/drawing is not included with the application, a concept description or proposed improvement statement must be provided.

Crash Years

For HSIP funding, crash analysis years

are 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

11

4.2 Financial Analysis Not Required for Application

Safety program dollars are limited in amount but they present an opportunity to save lives and prevent severe injuries so it is very important that this funding be used wisely. Any right-of-way issues shall be clearly identified. The need to purchase right-of-way at any level (i.e. corner clips) will delay the project and lower its priority.

An engineer’s cost estimate is not required to be submitted with the application.

For applications that are moved forward, the Department will provide a detailed cost estimate

(which will include PE, CEI, contingencies, and R/W if available), of the proposed improvement. Inflation shall be considered in the estimate. This estimate will set the maximum amount of HSIP funding (federal aid) being sought.

4.3 Benefit-Cost (B/C)/Net Present Value (NPV) Not Required for Application

To use HSIP safety funds in the best manner possible federal requirements currently call for a financial analysis to document the safety benefits versus the project’s lifecycle cost. A Benefit/Cost analysis (B/C) is a requirement for individual sites that have a high priority due to severe crash history. FDOT requires a B/C ratio at or above 2.0 based on acceptable crash reduction factors and an accurate total project cost estimate including all phases of project development is the acceptable financial standard. Additionally, a Net Present Value (NPV) greater than 0 is also required for all projects.

A B/C and NPV analysis is not required to be submitted with the application. It will be developed by the Department based on the information provided in the application, concept description, constructability analysis and developed cost estimate for applications moved forward for consideration.

Safety improvements that do not have countermeasures and crash reduction factors identified in

the FHWA Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse may be considered in the project scope and cost estimate as “Other Safety-Related” improvement. Their inclusion will be included in the project’s B/C ratio and NPV shown in the final application.

12

5.0 HSIP Funding Request

5.1 Maintaining Agency Submittal and Agreement

Any application(s) for work entirely off the state roadway system or on the state roadway system that includes work intersecting with an off-system facility ,a representative of the Local Agency Program (LAP) certified maintaining agency with the authority to expend the required funds is required to sign. If the maintaining agency is not LAP certified, it may have a sponsoring LAP certified agency deliver the project that will be required to sign the application. Note: Signature indicates the maintaining agency’s willingness to enter into a LAP or other formal agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to complete and maintain the project if selected for funding. 5.2 Documentation

Submittals, when complete, shall be compiled in the same order as addressed below:

Part 1: Checklist Required Project information, applicant information and maintaining agency agreement. See Appendix A

Part 2: Application and Preliminary Analysis Required A completed application with no discrepancies/omissions and signed received by deadline date. See Appendix B

Part 3: Appendices As Needed Consists of appendices that facilitate an understanding of the request.

Part 3 may include any supplementary documentation developed or added by the District after the application submittal. This shall be considered a part of the submittal package and is provided only to assist the Applicant in getting a favorable and timely review. Any supplemental documents provided by the District will be appended and shall not alter the Engineer of Record’s or Professional of Record’s (POR) analysis.

5.3 Electronic Submission

Provide one (1) electronic copy of the application package by due date (midnight) at:

www.nfltrafficsafety.com

5.4 Safety Projects Contingency Plan

If an insufficient number of proposed safety projects are submitted by local agencies, the FDOT District Safety Office may take the initiative to develop, and propose any additional safety projects.

Warrants

All required warrant analyses per the Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) must be conducted, satisfied and submitted with

the application.

13

6.0 Project Evaluation

All applications are reviewed for completeness in submittal. Accepted applications are evaluated for HSIP eligibility and feasibility. Advanced projects are reviewed for constructability through additional data gathering. Preliminary selected projects are sent for review and concurrence through the District Program Management Office. All concurred projects are prioritized, moved into final selection and submitted for approval and funding through the State Safety Office and the Federal Highway Administration, Florida Division Office. 6.1 Local Agency Safety Team (LAST)

The Local Agency Safety Team (LAST) consists of District Safety Office consultants that are available to provide assistance within schedule availability. Summary of LAST responsibilities include:

Provide direct assistance to local agencies to identify potential Off System Safety Program projects. This will include assistance with evaluating potential candidate projects from the local agency priority list as well as assistance on which candidate projects appear to meet the application criteria.

Assist with the application process for the local agency candidate applicants.

Review the application package for eligibility and completeness to ensure the submitting agency has provided all requested information for the project.

Review the application and provide the following:

Qualitative assessment/field review of the existing conditions at each location to confirm information contained within the project application such as the existing geometry, facilities, and operational characteristics.

Constructability/feasibility review for the requested improvements. Attempt to verify or approximate if adequate right-of-way and clear areas exist to install the proposed improvements.

Complete the study analysis for advanced applications and provide the following:

Update or provide improvement concept

Calculate improvement cost estimate using FDOT construction costs.

Develop project scope and provide for review.

Update project costs based on Department comments.

Develop economic analysis (benefit/cost and net present value) Provide a summary of each application reviewed that includes a recommendation on whether

each project should be considered for the Safety Work Program through HSIP funds based on project characteristics.

LAST Contacts Metric Engineering

Lake Mary Office Julio Alegre, P.E., PTOE

(407) 644-1898 [email protected]

Jacksonville Office

Holly Walker, P.E., CPM (904) 260-1567

[email protected]

14

Review non-selected applications for various factors after the closing of programming. Coordinate with the applicant to update submitted applications for a one (1) year term to be considered during the next application cycle.

6.2 Project Selection

Project selection follows a three-stage process.

The first stage is to determine the eligibility and completeness of the safety application for HSIP funding. This review will check to ensure the application follows FDOT and FHWA guidelines and is consistent with the SHSP goals The second stage is to conduct a qualitative assessment review and complete the application. Field reviews may be conducted to investigate the constructability and feasibility of the requested improvement of the applications that have been advanced for further consideration. More information is provided in Section 6.1. The final stage is to prioritize eligible applications based on factors including the B/C ratio and net present value, link to SHSP emphasis areas,

total severe crashes, project cost range, engineering review, public support, and available HSIP funding. After reviewing the applications, LAST staff comments and priorities with district staff, the Project Manager will initiate prioritized projects into the Pool for inclusion in Department Work Program update. Funding will be transferred to the project based on the proposal’s cost estimate and schedule. More information is provided in Sections 7 and 8.

Eligibility

Quality Assessment

Prioritize

15

7.0 Programming

All transportation projects administered by the department must be incorporated into the Work Program. The Work Program includes all proposed project commitments classified by major program and appropriation category. Because it usually takes several years to complete a project, projects are scheduled in the following phases [LAP] {Work Program}:

Planning – [18]{12} Planning activities are achieved through either in-house planning or planning consultants and planning grants. Planning for a new project is usually undertaken along with the department’s strategic and policy planning process.

Project Development and Environment (PD&E) – [28]{22} The department studies environmental, economic, social and historic impacts of the project. The department also studies alternative concepts and project alignments, always considering a no-build option. The public is invited to communicate ideas through workshops and is invited to comment on the final report at a public hearing held after all requisite due diligence is completed. If the project is financed in part through federal funds, the final report is sent to the Federal Highway Administration for location and design approval.

Design – [38]{31, 32} The department actually designs the project during this phase which also includes the drainage, utilities, permits, median openings, access connections, and the right-of-way needs of the project.

Right-of-Way Acquisition – [48]{4B,41,42,43,45,46} The state must own the land on which a project is constructed. The state pays full and just compensation for all acquired property, including relocation expenses for existing homes and businesses. Typically adds two (2) additional years to the project schedule.

Construction – [58, 68]{52, 62} Costs of building the transportation project, including the department’s costs for overseeing the construction known as Construction Engineering Inspection (CEI)

By using this phased scheduling process, the department’s funds are not tied up unnecessarily for long periods of time. In reality, it could take seven or more years for a project to advance from concept to concrete. A potential schedule to be proposed may look as follows depending on method of delivery.

LAP Project FDOT Work Program Project

Phase FY Estimate Phase FY Estimate

38 16/17 32 16/17

58 18/20 4B 17/19

68 18/20 43 17/19

Total Cost: 52 20/22

62 20/22

Total Cost:

16

8.0 Delivery Method

Per Program Management Bulletin 15-03 (see Appendix C), the Local Agency Program (LAP) is the Department's primary delivery mechanism for off-system projects included in the Five-Year Adopted Work Program, as opposed to the Florida Department of Transportation (the Department) administering the off-system project. A local agency governing board(s) must approve a resolution or equivalent approval (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "resolution") endorsing the Department's delivery of the project when:

the prioritized project falls in the jurisdiction of a local agency unable to deliver the project, or

the prioritized project is to be delivered by the Department for efficiency, innovation, cost or time savings, or other reasons that may optimize project delivery.

8.1 LAP

The LAP process is used for projects that do not fit into the other methods of funding and requires a less

lengthy process to develop a project. The following should be taken into consideration:

Going through the LAP process will federalize an entire project and make it subject to federal

requirements. All federal projects must receive authorization prior to starting any phase of the

project.

If Right of Way (ROW) is needed, the maintaining agency should provide assurance that the ROW

acquisition process is underway in accordance with federal requirements and that it will be

completed in time for construction.

Several similar federally funded projects can be grouped under one LAP agreement.

The scope of services must be clearly defined in the application as well as the requested funds.

Additional scope of work that was not identified in the application will not be eligible for funding.

8.2 Safety Work Program

The Safety Work Program requires a lengthy process to develop a project. Under this process, the District

provides all services from design to CEI. All projects that involve ROW must be cleared by FDOT before

any construction is authorized. Projects are typically proposed in the 5th year for construction.

Appendix A

Checklist

Project and Applicant Information Project description and Priority Additional funding request information Local Agency Program (LAP) information provided Maintaining Agency contact information and signature

Project Summary

Project Location Information: Where the project is located. Proposed Project Description: Types of work that are proposed for the project. Safety Problem Description: Traffic safety issues related to documented fatal and serious injury crashes targeted for reduction.

Project Identification

Overall Identification of Need Identification of focus area Identification of eligible Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) emphasis area(s)

Existing Conditions

Roadway Characteristics Traffic Data (Amount and character of traffic using the facility) Limitations/Constraints (Drainage Impacts/Utility Impacts)

Preliminary Safety Analysis

Crash Data (5-year crash data history table) Prior attempts to address the Safety Issue Countermeasure Selection Proposed Improvement/Concept Description Potential for Proposed Improvements to Address the Safety Issue

Appendices (as needed)

Traffic Volume Counts Crash Summaries Analysis Forms Traffic Speed Studies Traffic Signal Warrants (Crash Warrant Satisfied) Turn Lane Warrants Other Traffic Studies & Analysis Future Planned Roadway Improvements Aerial & Other Photos of Location Field Review Notes Road Safety Audit (RSA)

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Application Checklist Off-System

Appendix B

Application and Preliminary Analysis

District Two Off-System HSIP Application 2015-2016 Page | 1

Off-System

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Application

Project Description Priority:

Project Title:

Project improvements also submitted through another funding source for improvements

CIGP SCRAP SCOP TA N/A

Describe:

Limited to 250 characters

Applicant Information

Maintaining Agency:

County Select County

Contact Person:

Address:

City: Florida Zip:

Phone: E-mail:

Local Agency Program (LAP) Willingness The Local Agency Program (LAP) is the Department's primary delivery mechanism for off-system projects included in the Five-Year Adopted Work Program, as opposed to the Florida Department of Transportation (the Department) administering the off-system project.

1. Is your agency Local Agency Program (LAP)

Certified? Yes No Certification Type Project Specific Full

2. If answered no to #1, is your agency interested in being LAP Certified?

Yes No

3. If answered no to #2, identify Sponsoring LAP Certified Agency

Note: Your signature below indicates your agency’s willingness to enter into a LAP or other formal agreement with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to complete the project if selected for funding. To be completed by the Certified LAP Agency or Sponsoring Certified LAP Agency

Name Title

Signature Date

District Two Off-System HSIP Application 2015-2016 Page | 2

Applicants are expected to submit applications based on a data-driven, comprehensive safety evaluation of their agency's roadway infrastructure, traffic volumes and crash data. Incomplete or missing information may constitute non-consideration during this programming cycle.

Project Summary Project Location Provide road name, intersection cross street names, and/or geographical references of where the project is located. Examples:

CR 241 from CR 335 to Alachua C/L CR 20 A (Keuka Road) from SR 20 to SR 20

Various locations along CR 13 Various locations throughout the County

Limited to 250 characters

County: Select County City/Town:

Functional Classification Select Classification

Length: Feet Miles

Proposed Project Description Describe, in general, the types of work that are proposed for the project. Examples:

Paved shoulders, pavement markings obstruction shielding

Strategic lights and Increase turning radii at strategic locations

Limited to 250 characters

Safety Problem Description Describe traffic safety issues related to documented fatal and serious injury crashes targeted for reduction. Examples:

Narrow Shoulders and Lane Departure Crashes associated with narrow shoulders, curves and/or hills Intersection Crashes associated with visibility restrictions Intersection crashes associated with bike/ped conflicts

Limited to 250 characters

District Two Off-System HSIP Application 2015-2016 Page | 3

Project Identification This section is intended to provide additional project details for the application reviewers and project files. Application reviewers will use this information in their assessment of the application. If significant inconsistencies are found in the application information, reviewers may conclude that the application includes one or more “fatal flaws” and the application will be dropped from further funding considerations. Overall Identification of Need How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified?

Jurisdiction-wide safety analysis Community or Regional Planning Process Corridor Safety Analysis/Road Safety Assessment Stakeholder, Community or Outside Specialists Spot-Location Safety Analysis/Road Safety Assessment Other Transportation Stakeholders

Was a data-driven, safety evaluation of their entire roadway network completed? Do the proposed project location(s) represent some of the agency's highest crash concentrations?

Limited to 5000 characters

Is the project focused primarily on “spot location(s)” or “systemic” improvements? Focus Area If Systemic, the primary type of improvement:

Upgrade Traffic Control Device Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Install/Improve Signing Pedestrian Countdown Heads/Crossing Upgrades Install/Improve Lighting Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation Rumble Strips/Stripes

Project focused primarily on

Intersection Improvements Roadway Improvements Number of Intersections Miles of Roadway

Which of the Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Emphasis Areas does the project address primarily?

Aggressive Driving Impaired Driving Intersection Crashes At-Risk Drivers (aging road users and teens)

Vulnerable Road Users (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists)

Distracted Driving

Lane Departure Crashes Traffic Data

District Two Off-System HSIP Application 2015-2016 Page | 4

Existing Conditions

Roadway Characteristics Roadway Type: Rural Urban Suburban Shoulder Type: Grass Paved Curb

Shoulder Grade: Flat Steep-Up Steep-Down

Traffic Data

No. of lanes

Posted Speed

Limit (mph) AADT Year

Collected

Lighting present

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Major Road:

Minor Road:

Limitations/Constraints

Select only one (1)

No Drainage Impact – no drainage work required

Major Drainage Impact – relocating or installing new curb inlets or other extensive drainage work is required, or drainage impact has not yet been determined

Minor Drainage Impact – extending pipes, reconfiguring swales or other minor work is required

Select all that apply

Relocation of private gas utility or fiber optic communication cable is not required

Relocation of public/private water or sewer utility is not required

Relocation of telephone, power, cable TV utilities is not required

No specimen or historic trees ≥ 18” diameter will be removed or destroyed

Project Safety Analysis

Crash Data* *can be obtained from Local Agency Safety Team (LAST)

Year Fatal Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes

Non – Incapacitating Injury Crashes

Property Damage

Only Crashes Total Crashes

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Total

Predominant Crash Type: Secondary Crash Type:

Attach detailed crash summary that includes the following (at a minimum): HSMV Report Number Crash Date Crash Time Roadway Intersecting Roadway Crash Location Crash Type No. Vehicles No. Fatalities No. Injuries Alcohol Drugs Weather Road Surface Lighting

District Two Off-System HSIP Application 2015-2016 Page | 5

Prior attempts to address the Safety Issue If appropriate, list all other projects/countermeasures that have been (or are being) deployed at this location. Applicants must identify all prior federal HSIP, High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) or Safe Routes To School (SRTS) funds approved within or directly adjacent to the propose projects limits within the last 10 years. (HSIP funding cannot be used to construct the same general type of countermeasures within the same limits within 10 years to ensure agencies do not apply the same Crash Reduction Factors to the same crashes.) If the agency is proposing to construct follow-up improvements along a corridor or at a location that has already had a safety project funded, it must be determined that the combined Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) applied to the crashes by both projects is not greater than 80%.

Limited to 7500 characters

Proposed Improvement/Concept Description In order to facilitate the development of a concept sketch, construction cost estimate and economic analysis, it is vital that enough detail is provided in the description.

Limited to 5000 characters

District Two Off-System HSIP Application 2015-2016 Page | 6

Potential for Proposed Improvements to Address the Safety Issue Depending on the nature of the project, explain why the agency chose to pursue "Spot location(s)" or Systemic" improvements.

Limited to 5000 characters

Additional Information

Limited to 5000 characters

Appendix C

Program Management Bulletin 15-03

Appendix D

Select Countermeasure Guidance

Traffic Signals In most cases, traffic signals are not safety control devices. They assign right of way for vehicles and are necessary for operational purposes. However, in some cases they can improve safety. The objective for the Highway Safety Improvement Program is to “reduce the occurrence of and the potential for fatalities and serious injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads” (23 CRF 924.5). Signal projects may be considered for funding provided they meet the following criteria. New Signals

Warrant 7, Crash Experience from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) must be met. Specifically, “5 or more reported crashes, of the types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period.” Exceptions to meeting this warrant may be made if an adequate case is made on how the new signal will “reduce the number of, or potential for, fatalities and serious injuries” as required by MAP-21.

All new signals shall meet current FDOT design standards. If exceptions to incorporating

these standards are necessary due to site specific conditions, explanation will be included with the application.

Existing Signals

Rebuilding an existing signal system may be eligible for HSIP funding if it is necessary for implementation of a geometric improvement, where the signal system cost is incidental to the primary geometric safety improvement on the project.

Rebuilding an existing signal system without geometric improvements may be eligible for HSIP funding if additional safety devices are included, such as: adding mast arms, adding signal heads, interconnect with other signals, etc.

Retiming of Signal Systems: The development and implementation of new signal timing plans for a series of signals, a corridor or the entire system is eligible. A safety data driven process showing how a particular corridor was chosen for retiming will be required.

Paved Shoulders in Conjunction with Resurfacing Projects

If narrow shoulder paving projects are funded through HSIP, it makes sense under certain circumstances

to do the work in conjunction with a resurfacing project, rather than as a separate, stand-alone project.

Work involving the paving of existing aggregate or turf shoulders with 1 to 2 feet of pavement may be

allowed within the following guidelines:

Narrow shoulder paving can be done in conjunction with resurfacing if the project is along one of

the segments specifically identified in the Work Program for this type of work.

The project can be at a different location than those identified in the Work Program if it is along

a higher-risk segment, as identified on a local agency Priority Crash or High Crash List.

The shoulder paving should include a safety edge and either shoulder or edgeline rumble strips.