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

1. SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users David Morris Safety Engineer Office of Highway Safety Texas Division

2. SAFETEA-LU • Highways, Highway Safety, Transit, Other • 5-year legislation – 2005 – 2009 • Signed into law August 10, 2005 • Public Law 109-59

3. SAFETEA-LU Total Funding

4. New Highway Programs • Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program • Delta Region Development Program • Denali Access System Program • Express Lanes Demonstration Program • Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Program • Highways for LIFE Pilot Program • Highway Safety Improvement Program • Interstate Construction Toll Pilot Program • National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program • Projects of National and Regional Significance • Truck Parking Program • Safe Routes to Schools • Work Zone Safety Grants

5. Highway Programs Discretionary Programs • Highways for LIFE Pilot Program • New program • Innovative technologies, manufacturing processes, financing, or contracting methods to improve safety,reduce congestion due to construction, &improve quality • State submits application • For 2006-2009, at least 1 project per State with maximum of 15 projects per any one FFY nationwide • Up to 20% but not more than $5 million of total project cost & can be used as non-Federal share

6. Safety – Key Provisions • “Core” Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) (NEW) • SAFETEA-LU DOUBLES TEA-21 Safety Apportionment • Safety Set Asides • Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) • Flexibility

7. $5 Billion over 4 years (FY06 – FY09) Safety Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

8. Safety HSIP Apportionment Formula • 1/3: Total lane miles federal aid highways • 1/3: Total vehicle miles traveled on lanes on federal aid highways • 1/3: Number of fatalities on federal aid system

9. Safety Purpose of HSIP • To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads

10. Safety To obligate HSIP funds, States’ must: • Develop and implement a State Strategic Highway Safety Plan • Produce a program of projects or strategies • Evaluate the plan on a regular basis • Submit an annual report to USDOT

11. Safety Strategic Highway Safety Plans • TxDOT developing after consultation with safety stakeholders • Analyzes and makes effective use of crash data • Addresses 4 E’s • Considers safety needs of all public roads • Describes program of projects or strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards – 15 critical strategies • Must be approved by Governor or responsible state agency

12. Safety Texas’s Critical Emphasis Areas • Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections • Lane Departure • Reducing Head-On and Across-Median Crashes • Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway • Minimizing the Consequence of Leaving the Roadway • Increasing Seat Belt Use and Reducing Impaired Driving • Young Drivers and Curbing Aggressive Driving

13. Pavement Edge Drop-Off

15. Increased Edge Compaction ? Without Safety Edge With Safety Edge

16. After shoulder has been pulled back on Safety Edge

17. Safety HSIP Flexibility • A State may use up to 10% of HSIP funds to carry out other safety projects identified in the SHSP • The State must certify that: • State has met its needs relating to rail-highway crossings • The State has met its infrastructure safety needs relating to highway safety improvement projects

18. Texas est. $16.8 Million/Year Set Aside (FY06 – FY09) New Funding Formula 50% based on STP formula factors 50% based on # of publicrailway-highway crossings SafetyRailway Highway Crossings

19. SafetyHigh Risk Rural Roads High Risk Rural Roads Texas est. $8.5 Million/Year Set-Aside (FY06 – FY09) • Eligible on any roadway functionally classified as: • Rural major collector • Rural minor collector • Rural local road • Accident rate for fatalities & incapacitating injuries > statewide average • Construction and operational improvements

20. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program Purpose • Enable and encourage children to walk and bicycle to school • Make walking and bicycling to school safer and more appealing • Facilitate projects and activities that will • improve safety • reduce traffic • reduce fuel consumption • reduce air pollution in the vicinity of schools

21. SRTS Funding • Apportionment Ratio • Total student enrollment in primary and middle schools (K-8) in each state to all states • Minimum: $1,000,000/Fiscal Year • SRTS Coordinator

22. SRTS Requirements 3 Main Requirements • Implement SRTS program nationwide • Create National SRTS Clearinghouse • Develop information and educational programs • Provide technical assistance • Establish a National SRTS Task Force • Leaders in health, transportation and education • Study and develop a strategy for advancing SRTS nationwide (March 31, 2006) • Report to Congress

23. SRTS Program Implementation • State DOT responsible for program • State DOT must provide full-time coordinator (salary paid through infrastructure portion of SRTS program)

24. Work Zone Safety • Work Zone Safety Grants • National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse (http://wzsafety.tamu.ed) • Worker Injury Prevention & Free Flow of Vehicular Traffic

25. Final Rule onWork ZoneSafety and Mobility • The Final Rule 0nWork ZoneSafety and Mobilitywas published on September 9, 2004, in the Federal Register. • All state and local governments that receive federal-aid highway funding are affected by this Rule and are required to comply with the provisions of this Rule no later than October, 12, 2007. • The full text of the Rule can be found at: http://www.ops.ghwa.dot.gov/wz/docs/wz_rule.pdf • The new Rule was written to be flexible, taking into account different project types.

26. Final Rule onWork ZoneSafety and Mobility • Key Differences in Project-Level Provisions • Traffic Control Plan - TCP vs TMP • Former Rule: required development of TCP’s for projects. • New Rule: requires TMP’s to be developed and implemented for projects based upon expected impacts • Components of a TMP (Significant Projects) • TTC Plan • Transportation Operations Component • Public Information Component • Significant Project: A project the Agency determines will cause a relatively high level of disruption and includes certain projects on the Interstate System.

27. Final Rule onWork ZoneSafety and Mobility • Key Differences, Continued: • Responsible Person • Former Rule: required States to designate a qualified person a the project-level who would have primary responsibility and sufficient authority for administering the TCP • New Rule: requires the agency and the contractor to both designate a trained person at the project level to implement the TMP and other aspects.

28. Final Rule onWork ZoneSafety and Mobility • Key Differences, continued: • Pay Items • Former Rule: suggested that the PS&E’s consist of unit pay items for implementing all aspects of the WZ Traffic Control, as required by the TCP. • New Rule: allows for both method-based and performance based specifications. Provides individual pay items, lump sum payment or a combination of the two as options for method-based specifications.

29. Final Rule onWork ZoneSafety and Mobility • Key Differences, Continued: • Responsible Person • Former Rule: required States to designate a qualified person a the project-level who would have primary responsibility and sufficient authority for administering the TCP • New Rule: requires the agency and the contractor to both designate a trained person at the project level to implement the TMP and other aspects.

30. Final Rule onWork ZoneSafety and Mobility • State Level Processes and Procedures • Develop and Implement processes/procedures for systematic work zone impact assessment and management • Use work zone safety and mobility information to manage impacts on ongoing projects, and to conduct performance assessments across multiple projects to improve state work zone procedures • Require training for personnel involved in work zone planning, design, implementation, management and enforcement • Conduct process reviews to assess wide scale performance of work zones with the goal of improving work zone processes and procedures

31. Final Rule onWork ZoneSafety and Mobility • Good News! • By following the current Tx Dot Guidelines Memo we are already accomplishing much of what is required in the Rule. • Memo from Amadeo Saenz, Jr. on July 18, 2003 • It Makes Sense! • Aging highway system – more work zones • Growing traffic volumes and congestion • Traveler frustration leading to more aggressive driving

32. Final Rule onWork ZoneSafety and Mobility • Goals of the Final Rule: • Expand thinking beyond the Work Zone • Expand WZ Management beyond “traffic safety and control” • Advocate innovative thinking

33. NHTSA-Managed Programs High Visibility Enforcement Program • Section 406: Safety Belt Performance Grants • Section 408: State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements

34. Pedestrian & Bicycle • SAFETEA-LU continues the call for integrating walking and bicycling into the transportation mainstream • Continued broad eligibility for funding pedestrian and bicycle accommodations • Expanded pedestrian & bicycle consultation requirements for MPO plans

35. Questions? Please contact David Bartz, P.E. at: 512-536-5906 David.bartz@fhwa.dot.gov