Highway Safety: Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural Road  
Safety Challenges (28-MAY-04, GAO-04-663).			 
                                                                 
Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the	 
United States. In 2002, there were 42,815 fatalities and over 2.9
million injuries on the nation's highways. Crashes on rural roads
(roads in areas with populations of less than 5,000) account for 
over 60 percent of the deaths nationwide, or about 70 deaths each
day. Further, the rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on
rural roads was over twice the urban fatality rate. GAO 	 
identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road fatalities,
(2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the nation's  
rural roads, and (3) the challenges that may hinder making	 
improvements in rural road safety. GAO obtained information from 
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway  
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and other organizations	 
with knowledge of these issues. In addition, GAO analyzed fatal  
crash data on rural roads from Department of Transportation	 
databases and visited five states that account for about 20	 
percent of the nation's rural road mileage. GAO also contacted	 
academic experts and examined legislative proposals for improving
rural road safety. We provided copies of a draft of this report  
to the Department of Transportation for its review and comment.  
In discussing this report, agency officials noted that safety	 
should be part of every project designed and built with 	 
federal-aid highway funds.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-663 					        
    ACCNO:   A10262						        
  TITLE:     Highway Safety: Federal and State Efforts to Address     
Rural Road Safety Challenges					 
     DATE:   05/28/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Accident prevention				 
	     Data collection					 
	     Federal aid for highways				 
	     Highway engineering				 
	     Highway safety					 
	     Motor vehicle safety				 
	     Traffic accidents					 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Fatalities 					 
	     Rural areas					 
	     FHWA Hazard Elimination Program			 
	     FHwA Rail-Highway Crossings Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-663

United States General Accounting Office

                     GAO Report to Congressional Committees

May 2004

HIGHWAY SAFETY

       Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural Road Safety Challenges

                                       a

GAO-04-663

Highlights of GAO-04-663, a report to congressional committees

Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the United
States. In 2002, there were 42,815 fatalities and over 2.9 million
injuries on the nation's highways. Crashes on rural roads (roads in areas
with populations of less than 5,000) account for over 60 percent of the
deaths nationwide, or about 70 deaths each day. Further, the rate of
fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on rural roads was over twice the
urban fatality rate.

GAO identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road fatalities, (2)
federal and state efforts to improve safety on the nation's rural roads,
and (3) the challenges that may hinder making improvements in rural road
safety. GAO obtained information from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and
other organizations with knowledge of these issues. In addition, GAO
analyzed fatal crash data on rural roads from Department of Transportation
databases and visited five states that account for about 20 percent of the
nation's rural road mileage. GAO also contacted academic experts and
examined legislative proposals for improving rural road safety. We
provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. In discussing this report,
agency officials noted that safety should be part of every project
designed and built with federal-aid highway funds.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-663.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud, (202)
512-2834 or [email protected].

May 2004

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural Road Safety Challenges

Four primary factors contribute to rural road fatalities-human behavior,
roadway environment, vehicles, and the care victims receive after a crash.
Human behavior involves the actions taken by or the condition of the
driver and passengers. Human behaviors are important because almost 70
percent of the unrestrained (unbelted) fatalities between 2000 and 2002
occurred in rural crashes. Additionally, the majority of alcohol-and
speeding-related fatalities occurred on rural roads. Roadway
characteristics that contribute to rural crashes include narrow lanes,
sharp curves, trees, and animals. Vehicle factors include problems that
arise due to the design of vehicles and are important for both urban and
rural roads. Care of crash victims also contributes to rural fatalities
because of the additional time needed to provide medical attention and the
quality of rural trauma care.

Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002

  4.0 Fatalities/100 mil. miles traveled 3.63 3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 Interstate Other Minor Major Minor Local prinicipal arterial collector
collector arterial

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA and FHWA data.

In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided about $27.4 billion in federal-aid
highway funds to states. While many projects using these funds have safety
features, the amount used for safety is not tracked. However, about $648
million of these funds went to the Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway
Crossings Programs and were specifically provided for safety
purposes-about $330 million of which went to improve rural road safety.
NHTSA provided about $671 million to states for activities that influence
both rural and urban drivers' behavior in such areas as safety belt use,
drunk driving, or speeding. States are ultimately responsible for
selecting the projects to support with federal funding. The five states we
visited used a portion of the funding received for rural road safety.

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety-for example,
not all states have adopted safety belt and drunk driving laws that might
curb behavior contributing to rural road fatalities. In addition, states
are limited in using federal-aid highway funds for certain rural roads,
and most rural roads are the responsibility of local governments that may
lack the resources to undertake costly projects to improve road safety.
Further, some states lack adequate crash data to support planning and
evaluation of safety projects. Lastly, the nature of rural areas makes it
difficult to provide adequate emergency medical care.

Contents

     Letter                                                                 1 
                                           Results in Brief                 2 
                                              Background                    5 
                                Four Factors Contribute to Rural Road      11 
                                              Fatalities                   
                             Federal and State Efforts to Improve Highway  
                                         Safety Include Rural              
                                                Roads                      15 
                              Many Challenges Hinder Efforts to Improve    25 
                                          Rural Road Safety                
                                  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation       36 
Appendixes                                                              
                Appendix I:       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology       37 
               Appendix II: Examples of State Activities to Improve Rural  40 
                                             Road Safety                   
              Appendix III:          Low-Cost Safety Improvements          49 
                            Table 1: State Use of Federal Highway Funds by 
     Tables                               Road Type, Fiscal                
                                              Year 2002                    29 
                             Table 2: FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements  49 

Figures Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3: Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Proportion of Rural Road Mileage in the 50 States,
2002 5
Rural Miles by Type of Rural Road Functional
Classification, 2002 6
Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002 8
Fatalities and Fatality Rates per 100 Million Miles
Traveled for Rural Roadways, 1982 through 2002 9
FHWA and NHTSA Funding for State Safety Programs
under TEA-21 17
How NHTSA Provided $2.7 Billion of Safety Program
Funding to States under TEA-21, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2003 19
Portion of Rural Local Roads Not under State
Jurisdiction, 2002 30

Contents

Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials BAC blood alcohol concentration DOT Department of Transportation
EMS emergency medical services FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FHWA Federal Highway Administration GAO General Accounting Office HPMS
Highway Performance Monitoring System NHTSA National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration SAFETEA Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient

Transportation Equity Act of 2004 SUV sport utility vehicle TEA-21
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TEA-LU Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

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. However, 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.

A

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

May 28, 2004

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable John W. Olver

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury, and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard Shelby

Chairman

The Honorable Patty Murray

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General Government Committee
on Appropriations United States Senate

Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the United
States. In 2002 alone, there were 42,815 fatalities and more than 2.9
million injuries on the nation's highways. Crashes on rural roads
(roadways in areas with populations of less than 5,000) account for over
60 percent of these fatalities-25,849 deaths, or about 70 each day.
Further, the rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on rural roads
was more than twice the urban fatality rate. The magnitude of rural road
mileage and the widespread dispersal of crashes makes preventing and
responding to rural road crashes difficult. The federal government
provides funds for states to use in addressing highway safety problems.
These include construction and safety project funds administered by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to eliminate roadway hazards and
improve rail-highway crossings and grants administered by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to encourage safe driving.

The Conference Report accompanying the 2003 Consolidated Appropriation
Resolution directed us to review aspects of rural road safety and report
to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To meet this
requirement, we identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road
fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the
nation's rural roads, and (3) the challenges that may hinder making
improvements in rural road safety. To identify the factors contributing to
rural road

fatalities, we used an earlier GAO report, Highway Safety: Research
Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes
(GAO 03-436, March 2003) and supplemented it by obtaining information from
FHWA, NHTSA, and other organizations familiar with this issue. In
addition, we analyzed fatal crash data on rural roads from Department of
Transportation (DOT) databases. We assessed the reliability of these
databases and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. To identify federal and state efforts to improve
rural road safety, we interviewed and obtained documentation from
officials in FHWA and NHTSA and visited five states that, in total,
accounted for about 20 percent of the nation's rural road mileage. To
identify challenges that may hinder making improvements in rural road
safety, in addition to interviewing the above officials, we contacted
experts from academia and from advocacy groups and reviewed various
legislative proposals that may help address the issues. For each of the
selected studies that are used in this report, we determined whether the
study's findings were generally reliable. To do so, we evaluated the
methodological soundness of the studies using common social science and
statistical practices. We performed our review in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I provides more
details on our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief	One or more of four factors contribute to rural road
fatalities: human behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the medical
care victims receive after a crash. Human behaviors are the actions taken
by or the condition of drivers and passengers, including the use or nonuse
of safety belts, alcohol impairment, and speeding. Human behaviors are
important to rural safety because, according to NHTSA data for 2000
through 2002, rural crashes accounted for about 68 percent of unrestrained
(unbelted) fatalities, about 63 percent of all alcohol-related fatalities,
and 62 percent of speeding-related fatalities. In addition, over 80
percent of fatalities at speeds of 55 miles per hour or higher occurred in
rural areas in 2001. Roadway environment characteristics that contribute
to crashes and fatalities include the design of the roadway and roadway
conditions: narrow lanes, sharp curves, lack of medians, small or
non-existent shoulders, trees, utility poles, and animals. Such factors
are important in rural crashes-more than 70 percent of the nation's
fatalities from singlevehicle run-off-the-road crashes occur on rural
roads. Vehicle factors include any vehicle-related failures that may exist
in the vehicle or the design of the vehicle and are important in both
rural and urban crashes. For example, when heavy sport utility vehicles or
pickup trucks collide with

small compact cars, the occupants in the lighter and lower vehicle are
more likely to die as a result of the crash, particularly if struck in the
side. Finally, the lack of prompt and effective emergency medical services
contributes to rural road fatalities. For example, NHTSA data for 2002
show that for 30 percent of the fatal crashes on rural highways, victims
did not reach a hospital within 1 hour of the crash,while only 8 percent
of victims in fatal urban crashes did not reach a hospital within 1 hour.

Federal and state agencies' efforts to improve rural road safety are
generally included within programs that address broader aspects of highway
construction or highway safety. For example, in fiscal year 2003, FHWA
provided the states and the District of Columbia approximately $27.4
billion in federal-aid highway funds, most of which can be used to
construct new highways or to maintain or improve existing highways. While
many of these highway improvement projects may include safety features
that affect rural roads, the safety features are not specifically
segregated for reporting purposes. Within the overall federal-aid highway
funding for states, about $648 million was specifically identified for
safety purposes-about $330 million of which went to rural road safety for
highway Hazard Elimination or Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. These
programs enable states to address safety concerns on all rural roads
through construction improvements. In addition, in fiscal year 2003, FHWA
budgeted about $10.9 million for research into safety advancements and
provided oversight and assistance to states that benefits both urban and
rural roads. In fiscal year 2003, NHTSA provided states with about $671
million for use in programs designed to reduce both rural and urban
crashes caused by human behaviors. The five states we visited used a
portion of the federal funding they received to support rural road safety
improvements. However, the states did not track all funds used by rural
and urban categories so the total amount spent on rural road safety is
unknown. Most state officials we spoke with supported the current
flexibility they have to use the funds provided in areas they determine
are the most important and did not favor having a separate rural road
program or initiative.

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety. For instance,
not all states have adopted safety belt and alcohol laws that meet federal
standards. For example, 30 states have not enacted primary safety belt
laws, which allow police officers to pull over and cite motorists
exclusively for the infraction of not using their safety belts, and 23
have not enacted alcohol laws that meet federal requirements relating to
penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders and prohibiting open
containers of alcohol in

vehicles. In addition, the sheer volume of rural roads and the low volume
of traffic on some of them, combined with the high cost of major
construction improvements, make it difficult to rebuild rural roads with
safer designs. Furthermore, while states can use federal safety funds for
any public road, they are limited in using their federal construction
funds on certain rural roads-particularly two-lane rural roadways that
provide access to farms, rural residences, and other rural areas. Efforts
to improve rural road safety are further complicated because most rural
roads are not owned by states but rather are the responsibilities of
municipal, county, or township governments. These local governments may
not have resources available to undertake significant projects to increase
rural road safety. Further, some states lack information upon which to
make informed decisions on potential road safety solutions, regardless of
whether the road is rural or urban. In addition, the ability to reduce
rural road fatalities is hampered by difficulties in providing prompt
medical services in rural settings. For example, rural areas are less
likely to have 911 emergency dialing and it may take longer to reach a
hospital. Legislation has been introduced in the Congress as it considers
the reauthorization of Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century,
which would address some of the factors that contribute to rural
fatalities or that make it difficult to improve rural road safety. Some of
the proposals include provisions for providing incentives for enacting
stronger state traffic safety laws; funding for high-risk rural roads,
state safety data systems, new safety research, and emergency medical
services; and additional flexibility in states' use of some federal funds.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. The department generally agreed
with the report's content. In discussing this report, agency officials
noted that safety should be part of every project designed and built with
federal-aid funds. In addition, the department provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.

Background	There are more than 3.9 million miles of roadway in the United
States, of which about 3.1 million miles, or about 77 percent, are
considered rural roads.1 Rural roads are defined as those roads that are
located in or near areas where the population is less than 5,000.2 As
figure 1 shows, rural roadways make up more than half of the road miles in
44 states.

Figure 1: Proportion of Rural Road Mileage in the 50 States, 2002

Number of states 40

35

                                       33

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 Percentage of rural road miles

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.

Rural roads can be further divided into six functional classifications-
interstates, other principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors,
minor collectors, and local roads. Interstates and arterials allow the
highest

1For purposes of this report, rural road data refers to roads in the 50
states. The District of Columbia has no rural roads and we do not include
Puerto Rico's 8,000 miles of rural roads in our computations.

2Urban areas are those places within boundaries set by the responsible
state and local officials that have a population of 5,000 or more. Rural
areas are those areas outside the boundaries of urban areas.

traffic speeds and often have multiple lanes and a degree of access
control. Collector roads are designed for lower speeds and shorter trips
and generally link areas to arterial roads and interstates. They are
typically twolane roads that extend into residential neighborhoods. Local
roads are any roads below the collector system and may be paved or unpaved
roadways that provide access to farms, residences, and other rural
property. As shown in figure 2, local roads make up the majority of the
nation's rural roads.

Figure 2: Rural Miles by Type of Rural Road Functional Classification,
2002

Rural road miles (thousands) 2,500

68.4%

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Interstate Other Minor Major Minor Local principal arterial collector
collector arterial

Functional classification

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.

Rural roads have more fatalities and a greater rate of fatalities than
urban roads, when considering vehicle miles traveled.3 In 2002, of the
42,815 fatalities on the nation's roadways, 25,849 (60 percent) were on
rural roads. Based on miles traveled, the overall fatality rate from
traffic crashes on rural roads was about 2.29 fatalities for every 100
million miles traveled, while urban fatality rates were about .97
fatalities for every 100 million miles traveled.

Fatalities occurred at higher rates on rural roads that have lower roadway
functional classifications. As shown in figure 3, during 2002, rural local
roads had the highest fatality rates at 3.63 per 100 million miles
traveled, while rural interstates had fatality rates of 1.18. In an urban
setting, the lowest rates are for urban interstates-.60 fatalities per 100
million miles traveled-about one-sixth the level of rural local roads.

3In presenting information on traffic fatalities, we used data contained
in NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System database for 2002, the most
recent available. This database contains state-reported data on all
fatalities in the United States.

              Figure 3: Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002

Fatalities/100 mil. miles traveled

                                      3.63

Interstate

            Other prinicipal arterial Minor arterial Major collector

Minor Local collector

                Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA and FHWA data.

In the past two decades, the total number of fatalities on the nation's
roadways fell from 43,945 in 1982 to 42,815 in 2002. However, during this
period, fatalities on rural roadways rose slightly from 25,005 in 1982 to
25,849 in 2002. As shown in figure 4, during the period from 1982 to 2002,
the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled on rural roads
declined about 37 percent. During the same period, the fatality rate on
urban roads declined about 54 percent.4

4While the number of fatalities rose during this period, the fatality rate
declined. FHWA officials attribute the decline to the increased vehicle
miles traveled coupled with many other factors, such as increased safety
belt use, decreased alcohol-impaired driving, safety improvement in
vehicles and on the highways, and more congested highways leading to lower
speeds.

Figure 4: Fatalities and Fatality Rates per 100 Million Miles Traveled for
Rural Roadways, 1982 through 2002

Fatality rate Fatalities

4.0 30,000

3.5 25,000 3.0

2.5 20,000

2.0 15,000

1.5 10,000

1.0

0.5 5,000

0.0 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

                    Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.

Total rural fatalities Rural fatality rate

FHWA and NHTSA are two agencies within the U.S. Department of
Transportation responsible for road safety. FHWA's mission is to provide
financial and technical support to state, local, and tribal governments
for constructing, improving, and preserving the highway system. As part of
this mission, FHWA seeks to reduce highway fatalities and injuries through
research and by implementing technology innovations. In addition, its
Office of Safety develops and implements strategies and programs to reduce
the number and severity of highway crashes involving both motorized and
nonmotorized travelers on the nation's highways, streets, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, and at intermodal connections. NHTSA's mission is
to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor
vehicle crashes. The agency sets and enforces safety performance standards
for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and provides grants to
state and local governments. NHTSA, among other things, also investigates
safety defects in motor vehicles, helps states and local communities
reduce the threat of drunk drivers, promotes the use of safety belts and
child safety seats, and provides consumer information on motor vehicle
safety topics. Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21),5 NHTSA provided the states with about $2.7 billion for
efforts to improve driver behaviors and safety data from fiscal year 1998
through fiscal year 2003.

Other organizations such as the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Governors Highway Safety
Association also play important roles in highway safety. As an
organization representing state transportation departments, AASHTO
provides engineers with guidance on how to design safe and efficient roads
through a publication referred to as the Green Book.6 In addition, AASHTO
recently published a special guide on alternative designs for very
low-volume roads.7 Furthermore, in 1997 AASHTO also focused attention on
improving roadway safety by developing a Strategic Highway Safety Plan
that identified 22 key or emerging highway safety emphasis areas. Topics
included (1) aggressive and speeding drivers, (2) keeping vehicles on the
roadway and minimizing the consequences of leaving the roadway, and (3)
supporting better state coordination and planning for behavioral and
construction programs. For each of these areas, publications are being
developed under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program that
address the issues and potential countermeasures.8 Another organization
that plays a major role in highway safety is the Governors Highway Safety
Association, which represents the highway safety programs of states and
territories on the human behavioral aspects of highway safety. Areas of
focus include occupant protection, impaired driving, and speed
enforcement, as well as motorcycle, school bus, pedestrian and bicycle
safety, and traffic records.

5P.L. 105-178, 1998.

6A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The most recent
update of this publication was in 2001.

7Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT<400),
2001.

8The National Cooperative Highway Research Program is a part of the
Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. It is also
undertaking a project to develop a highway safety manual, in response to
AASHTO's safety plan.

Four Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities

One or more of four factors contribute to rural road fatalities-human
behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the degree of care for
victims after a crash.9 Human behavioral factors involve actions taken by
or the condition of the driver and passenger of the automobile, including
the use or nonuse of safety belts, the effects of alcohol or drugs,
speeding and other traffic violations, and being distracted or drowsy when
driving. Roadway environment factors that contribute to rural road
fatalities include the design of the roadway (e.g., medians, lane width,
shoulders, curves, access points, lighting, or intersections); roadside
hazards (e.g., utility poles, trees, and animals adjacent to the road);
and roadway conditions (e.g., rain, ice, snow, or fog). Vehicle factors
include vehiclerelated failures and vehicle design issues that contribute
to a crash and are important in both rural and urban crashes. Lastly,
victim care includes the quality of the emergency response and the
hospitals that provide medical treatment for those involved in a crash.

Several Human Behaviors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities

Several human behaviors contribute to rural road fatalities, including
nonuse of safety belts, alcohol-impaired driving, speeding, and being
distracted or drowsy when driving. In general, human factors are
considered the most prevalent in contributing to crashes.

o 	Not using safety belts contributes to fatalities in rural crashes. For
example, of the approximately 53,000 unrestrained (unbelted) vehicle
occupant fatalities that occurred from 2000 through 2002, about 36,000 or
68 percent occurred in rural areas. NHTSA research on safety belt use in
rural areas shows that rural areas are essentially similar to urban areas
in safety belt use rates. In 2002, NHTSA data showed about 73 percent belt
use in rural areas and 72 percent in urban areas.10

9Highway Safety: Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That
Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes, GAO-03-436, (Washington D.C.: Mar.
31, 2003). This report categorized the factors contributing to motor
vehicle crashes as human behavior, roadway environment, and vehicle
factors. It also notes that in addition to crashes, roadway fatalities are
affected by use of safety belts and the care provided after the crash
occurs.

10Estimates are based on the National Occupant Protection Use Survey, an
observational survey of safety belt use, conducted in June 2002. The data
collectors in this survey assessed urbanization subjectively and the
occupants in rural areas might or might not have lived in rural areas. The
sampling error for this data was plus or minus 4.9 percent for urban and
plus or minus 4.3 percent for rural, at the 95 percent confidence level.

o 	Alcohol-impaired driving contributed to 27,775 rural road fatalities
from 2000 through 2002-about 63 percent of the 44,403 alcohol-related
fatalities nationwide. While, according to NHTSA data, there is little
difference between blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of rural and urban
drivers involved in fatal crashes, state officials told us that risks from
drinking and driving in rural areas are increased because of longer
driving distances and the lack of public transportation options available
to intoxicated drivers.

o 	From 2000 through 2002, about 62 percent of the nation's speeding
related fatalities were on rural roads, amounting to about 24,000 of the
39,000 fatalities where speed was a contributing factor, according to
NHTSA data. According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety officials,
speed influences crashes by increasing the distance traveled from when a
driver detects an emergency until the driver reacts; increasing the
distance needed to stop; increasing the severity of an accident (i.e.,
when speed increases from 40 to 60 miles per hour, the energy released in
a crash more than doubles); and reducing the ability of the vehicles,
restraint systems, and roadside hardware, such as guardrails and barriers,
to protect occupants.

o 	Drivers who are distracted or drowsy also contribute to rural crashes.
For example, a 2002 NHTSA national survey found that drivers involved in a
distracted-related crash attribute their distraction to such items as
looking for something outside the car (23 percent of drivers in a
distracted-related crash), dealing with children or other passengers (19
percent), looking for something inside the car (14 percent), or another
driver (11 percent).11 A Virginia Commonwealth University pilot study of
distracted drivers found that for rural drivers in the study, crashes
often involved driver fatigue, insects striking the windshield or entering
the vehicle, and animals and unrestrained pet distractions.12 The study

11National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving Attitudes and
Behaviors: 2002, The Gallup Organization, March 2003. The Gallup
Organization conducted the survey. The sampling errors for the percentages
reported in this report are about plus or minus 4.3 points, at the 95
percent confidence level. The responses were self-reported responses to a
2002 survey asking for recall over the past 5 years.

12Andrea L. Glaze, M.A., and James M. Ellis, M.S., Pilot Study of
Distracted Drivers, Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory, Center for
Public Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, January 2003. The results
are based on Virginia drivers involved in a crash between June 15 and
November 30, 2002, where one or more of the drivers were identified as
inattentive and/or distracted.

found that in urban areas distracted driving crashes often involved
drivers looking at other crashes, traffic, or vehicles, or using cell
phones.

Roadway Environment Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities

Roadway factors also contribute to rural road fatalities. Rural roads can
be narrow; have limited sight distance due to hills and curves; have small
or nonexistent shoulders; have no medians; and may have hazards or objects
near the roadway such as trees, utility poles, or animals. As a result of
these features, fatal crashes on two-lane rural roads are significant. For
example, FHWA reports that over 70 percent of single-vehicle
run-off-the-road fatalities occur on rural roadways and that about 90
percent of these were on two-lane rural roads. Similarly, crashes
involving vehicles crossing the centerline and either sideswiping or
striking the front end of oncoming vehicles are a major problem in rural
areas, accounting for about 20 percent of all fatal crashes on rural
two-lane roads.13 In addition, crashes with animals-specifically larger
animals such as deer and elk--are also prevalent in rural areas. For
example, according to the Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse,
there were more than 130,000 deer-vehicle crashes reported in five states
in 2000.14 In addition, a Highway Safety Information System report
examined five states' experiences with motor vehicle collisions involving
animals and found that from 1985 through 1990, 74 percent to 94 percent of
reported crashes involving animals occurred on rural roads.15 The report
also found that collisions involving animals ranged from about 12 percent
to 35 percent of all reported crashes on two-lane rural roads. Rural
roadway conditions can also contribute to rural crashes and resulting
fatalities. Surface conditions that can impair a driver's ability to
control the vehicle include snow, ice, standing water, and oil, in
addition to such road surface features as potholes, ruts, and pavement
edge dropoffs. Lack of lighting also contributes to rural road fatalities.
For example, a

13Bhagwant N. Persaud, Richard A. Retting, and Craig Lyon, "Crash
Reduction Following Installation of Centerline Rumble Strips on Rural
Two-Lane Roads," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, September 2003.

14Keith K. Knapp, Development of a Deer-Vehicle Crash Countermeasure
Toolbox, Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse. The five states
included are Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The study
notes that the numbers cited are reported crashes and that actual crashes
with deer could be much higher.

15Warren E. Hughes, Investigation of Crashes with Animals, Highway Safety
Information System, March 1995, FHWA-RD-94-156. Results are applicable to
crashes in Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and Utah.

study performed for the Minnesota Department of Transportation found that
the installation of street lighting at isolated rural intersections
reduced both nighttime crash frequency (25 percent to 40 percent) and
crash severity (8 percent to 26 percent).16

Vehicle Design Contributes to Rural Road Fatalities

The design of the vehicle can contribute to rural road fatalities. The
wide variances in vehicle sizes and weights, as well as vehicle
configurations, sometimes result in greater damage and injury to smaller
vehicles and their occupants if a collision occurs. For example, when
heavy sport utility vehicles (SUV) or pickup trucks collide with smaller
cars, the occupants in the lighter and lower vehicles are more likely to
die as a result of the crash, particularly if struck in the side. Vehicle
design has been shown to affect vehicle handling in particular types of
maneuvers. In rural settings this is important because the roads may be
narrow and have sharp curves. The design of the vehicle in these types of
crashes can make a difference in whether a run-off-the-road vehicle rolls
over, one of the most serious types of crashes. Almost three-fourths of
fatal rollover crashes occur in rural areas, according to a 2002 NHTSA
study.17 In 2002, rollover crashes killed 10,666 occupants in passenger
cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans. A study by the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety that examined single-vehicle rollover crashes concluded
that the combined rollover crash rate for pickup trucks and SUVs was more
than twice the rate for passenger cars.18 In addition, a NHTSA study found
that in 2002, nearly two-thirds of the 3,995 SUV occupant fatalities
occurred in rollover crashes.

16Howard Preston and Ted Schoenecker, Safety Impact of Street Lighting at
Isolated Rural Intersections, Minnesota Department of Transportation,
April 1999.

17William Deutermann, Characteristics of Fatal Rollover Crashes, DOT HS
809 438, April 2002.

18Charles Farmer and Adrian Lund, "Rollover Risk of Cars and Light Trucks
after Accounting for Driver and Environmental Factors," Accident Analysis
and Prevention, vol. 34, 2002.

Lack of Effective and Available Emergency Medical Services Contribute to
Rural Road Fatalities

Lack of effective and available emergency medical services (EMS) also
contribute to rural road fatalities. For example, victims did not reach a
hospital within an hour of the crash in about 30 percent of the fatal
crashes on rural roads, according to NHTSA data for 2002. This compares
with 8 percent of the fatal crashes on urban highways where victims did
not reach a hospital within an hour. In addition, the Emergency Medical
Services Division Chief at NHTSA told us that providing adequate medical
care in rural areas is more challenging due, in part, to the lack of
trauma services. A 2001 GAO report found that rural areas are more likely
to rely on volunteers rather than paid staff, and these volunteers may
have fewer opportunities to maintain skills or upgrade their skills with
training.19 According to an opinion survey of state EMS directors in 2000,
rural areas received significantly less coverage by emergency medical
technicians, paramedics, enhanced 911 services, and emergency
dispatchers.20 Finally, a 1995 Montana study concluded that the absence of
an organized trauma care system contributed to preventable deaths from
mechanical trauma, including motor vehicle crashes.21

Federal and State Efforts to Improve Highway Safety Include Rural Roads

Each year FHWA and NHTSA provide billions of dollars to states to improve
roadways and eliminate roadway hazards, as well as to improve driver
behavior. In addition to funding, FHWA and NHTSA provide technical
guidance and support for state safety programs and conduct research on
roadway safety. Neither agency has specific rural road safety programs,
but efforts to improve rural road safety are generally included within
programs that address broader aspects of highway construction or highway
safety. The states are ultimately responsible for deciding on the use of
the funding provided. The five states we contacted funded projects

19Emergency Medical Services: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With A
Growing Focus on Lack of Data, GAO-02-28 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12,
2001).

20National Association of State EMS Directors, "Challenges of Rural
Emergency Services: Opinion Survey of State EMS Directors," June 2000.
State EMS Directors were asked to use their own definition of "rural," and
their answers reflect an estimate of coverage based on their opinions.
Enhanced 911 allows emergency responders to automatically locate people
who call 911 from cellular telephones.

21Thomas Esposito, "Analysis of Preventable Trauma and Inappropriate
Trauma Care in a Rural State," 1995. A multidisciplinary review panel
judged the preventability of deaths occurring in Montana between October
1, 1990, and September 30, 1991, that were attributed to mechanical
trauma. Half of the deaths reviewed were attributed to motor vehicle
crashes.

that improved rural road safety. However, not all the states could
identify all funds used for rural road safety because the data were not
collected nor maintained in that manner. Therefore, it is not possible to
determine the relative emphasis that states place on rural road safety and
whether the emphasis has changed over time.

Funding Is Provided to States to Eliminate Roadway Hazards and Improve
Driving Behavior but Portion Used for Rural Safety Is Unknown

FHWA and NHTSA provide the states funding to support a variety of
programs, part of which was used to improve rural road safety. In fiscal
year 2003, FHWA provided states and the District of Columbia with about
$27.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds. Under TEA-21, from fiscal year
1998 though fiscal year 2003, federal-aid highway funding totaled about
$167 billion. States use these funds to, among other things, construct new
roadways; maintain the interstate highway system through resurfacing,
restoring, rehabilitating, or reconstructing activities; and replace or
rehabilitate highway bridges. While many of these highway improvement
projects may include safety features that affect rural roads, the safety
features are not specifically segregated for reporting purposes. For
example, expanding a stretch of roadway to ease congestion could have an
added impact of improving safety but could be reported as reconstruction
or rehabilitation, depending on the actual project. In addition,
construction projects may include items that can improve or upgrade safety
features such as installing new guardrails or impact barriers but may not
be identified or accounted for as a safety improvement. However, the
federalaid highway funds include two specific safety programs-Hazard
Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossings-that can be used for rural road
safety improvements. In addition, NHTSA also provided states with funds
under TEA-21 to address driver behaviors.

As shown in figure 5, under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal
year 2003, FHWA and NHTSA provided states about $6.7 billion specifically
to improve roadway safety and improve driver behavior.

Figure 5: FHWA and NHTSA Funding for State Safety Programs under TEA-21

Dollars in millions

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

NHTSA programs

FHWA programs

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA and FHWA data.

From fiscal year 1998 through 2003, under TEA-21, FHWA provided about $4
billion to states specifically for highway safety construction under two
programs-Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. Highway
safety projects built with these funds include construction projects to
eliminate highway design hazards, such as narrow lanes or sharp curves;
improve intersections; or improve rail-highway grade crossings. Under
these programs, states can spend funds to address safety construction
issues on any public state or local roadway. Nationwide, about $1.4
billion, or 49 percent, of the funds spent by states were used for rural
purposes. For fiscal year 2003, about $648 million went to the states for
hazard elimination and highway-rail crossings programs-about $330 million
of which went to improve rural road safety.

Under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, NHTSA
provided about $2.7 billion to states and the District of Columbia for
programs addressing driving behavior through formula grants, incentive
grants, and penalty transfer funds.22 (See fig. 6.) Under the formula
grants program, about $859 million was provided to the states to carry out
traffic safety programs designed to influence drivers' behavior in such
areas as safety belt use, alcohol-impaired driving, regional traffic
safety initiatives, traffic records and safety data collection systems,
and pedestrian safety. Incentive grants of about $1.2 billion under TEA-21
were provided to states for achieving improvements in safety belt use,
reducing drunk driving, and improving highway safety data. Penalty
transfer of funds was required under TEA-21 for states that did not adopt
specific laws prohibiting open alcohol containers in passenger
compartments or setting minimum penalties for repeat drunk driving
offenders. Under these requirements, states that are currently subject to
either penalty must transfer 3 percent of their federal-aid highway
construction funds to the NHTSA programs. The transferred funds can be
used to support behavioral programs to limit drunk driving or can be spent
on highway hazard elimination projects. In fiscal year 2004, 23 states
were subject to one or both penalty transfer programs. From fiscal year
2001, when the penalties began, through fiscal year 2003, about $637
million has been transferred under this program. NHTSA does not collect
information on the funds used for rural roads because it is difficult to
distinguish between urban and rural benefits of many efforts, such as
drunk driving television or radio spots or billboard ads.

22For fiscal year 2003, NHTSA provided about $671 million to states for
these behavioral programs.

Figure 6: How NHTSA Provided $2.7 Billion of Safety Program Funding to
States under TEA-21, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003

Alcohol penalty transfers

FHWA and NHTSA Provide Technical Guidance and Support for State Safety
Programs that Include Rural Road Projects

FHWA provides safety training and technical assistance to state and local
governments, some of which pertains to rural road safety. For example,
FHWA's National Highway Institute offers training for state transportation
department staffs. Some training focuses on rural road safety issues, such
as the 3-day course entitled "Safety and Operational Effects of Geometric
Design Features on Two-Lane Rural Highways," which addresses the safety
impacts of highway features like lane and shoulder width, curves, and
intersection designs. FHWA also offers training and technical assistance
to states and others through its Resource Center offices in Baltimore,
Chicago (Olympia Fields), Atlanta, and San Francisco. For example, in
2003, the Safety and Design National Technical Service Team from the
Chicago center conducted 23 different workshops, some of them multiple
times, for state and local officials. An example of a Resource Center
activity that pertained to rural roads was a 1-day workshop on low-cost
safety improvements. The workshop addressed more than 40 improvement
measures and how they might reduce crashes.

FHWA also offers training to local communities through its Local Technical
Assistance Program. Under this program, FHWA established a center in every
state to provide technical assistance to local highway program managers.
In addition, seven centers have been established to provide technical
assistance for tribal governments. The centers provide training

                                 Formula grants

                                Incentive grants

                    Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.

courses, outreach visits, newsletters, and technical resources to local
highway managers. Program officials said they have a constant demand for a
number of safety-related courses. Examples of course topics include road
safety fundamentals, road safety audits, data collection, safety
management systems, and construction zone flagger training. In addition,
FHWA, along with the Federal Transit Administration, has funded a Safety
Conscious Planning training course offered to state DOT officials and
others that helps them integrate safety as a key planning factor. Lastly,
FHWA provides guidance to states by issuing standards for traffic signs
and signals in a publication called the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. The manual sets minimum standards for topics like traffic sign
size, placement, support, and nighttime visibility. In 2000, FHWA revised
the manual and included a new section called "Traffic Control Devices for
Low-Volume Roads."

NHTSA provides technical assistance to state traffic safety programs
through its 10 regional offices. This assistance does not have a focus on
rural road safety but rather is intended to help states identify their
most important traffic safety problems, establish goals and performance
measures, and review annual safety plans and reports. NHTSA regional
offices provide training programs for state safety officials and encourage
them to participate in national programs like the "Click It or Ticket"
safety belt campaign.23 NHTSA staff from the regional offices and
headquarters also provide technical assistance to rural and other areas of
the states by participating in or supporting state assessments and forums
on safety topics like safety belt use, impaired driving, or data
improvements. For example, NHTSA's Region III provided local governments
in their five states and the District of Columbia with a communication kit
for conducting a sobriety checkpoint campaign. It included background
information on drinking and driving, suggestions for core messages that
the localities could share with news organizations, sample news releases
for increasing public awareness of drunk driving and the checkpoint
campaign, and suggestions for preparing op-ed articles in local
newspapers. In addition, NHTSA published "Partners for Rural Traffic
Safety Action Kit" in 2001, in conjunction with the National Rural Health
Association. This action kit is based on the experience of 15 rural
community demonstration sites that conducted 30-day campaigns to increase
safety belt use. The association developed, tested, and revised a

23"Click It or Ticket" is a highway safety program that uses increased
enforcement along with a media campaign to encourage safety belt use.

step-by-step guide based on a community development process model and
created the Action Kit, which is available online and through NHTSA's
resource center.

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Congress also provided NHTSA $3 million
to support state efforts to increase safety belt use in minority, teen,
and rural populations. Two initiatives to address rural populations are
under way. One involves a 3-year demonstration program that tests
communitybased infrastructure development and delivery systems to increase
rural safety belt use. Demonstration projects are being conducted in
Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The second is a 2-year
program designed to demonstrate the impact of various strategies to
increase safety belt use in pickup truck occupants, with concentrated
activities in rural areas. This demonstration program includes Arkansas,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Indian Nations.

NHTSA has also been involved with the "First There, First Care" program to
increase bystander care for the injured. NHTSA, the Department of Health
and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, and the
American Trauma Society developed this program to give motorists
information, training, and confidence to provide basic lifesaving care at
the scene of a crash, increasing the chances of survival for crash
victims. Distribution of the program and its material to states and others
has focused on rural implementation.

FHWA and NHTSA Conduct Research That Includes Rural Road Safety Issues

In 2003, FHWA budgeted $10.9 million, or about 12 percent of its research
budget, for highway safety research and technology. This research
addressed four key safety topics: run-off-the-road crashes, intersection
crashes, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and speed management. From a
rural roadway perspective, research on run-off-the-road and speed-related
crashes is particularly relevant. Over 70 percent of single-vehicle
run-offthe-road fatalities occurred on rural roadways, and, according to a
NHTSA official, in 2001 over 80 percent of fatalities at speeds of 55
miles per hour or higher occurred in rural areas. Many safety research
efforts apply to both rural and urban roads, but FHWA's work on the
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model specifically addressed two-lane
rural roads. This computer model provides a means of measuring the safety
and operational impacts of various design decisions that might be used in
stretches of twolane roadway. It is anticipated that state and local
highway planners and designers will use the model to help them evaluate
various construction and improvement options.

FHWA also provides funding for highway research by others. For example,
under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, FHWA
provided states $3.1 billion for Statewide Planning and Research. Under
this program, TEA-21 required that the states use at least 25 percent of
these funds, or $769 million, for transportation research, which includes
conducting research on improving highway safety. Two of the states we
visited provided examples of such research. For example, Texas sponsored
research into crashes on low-volume rural two-lane highways and potential
alternatives to avoid them, and Minnesota sponsored research on driver
response to rumble strips and innovative research to address lane
departures and intersection collisions, both safety issues on the state's
rural roads.24 FHWA has also provided funding through the states for the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the National
Research Council, which has been working on a safety design model for
multilane rural roads and a Highway Safety Manual that would provide
commonly accepted safety guidance on rural and urban highway design.

NHTSA conducts research that addresses both driver behavioral and vehicle
safety issues. NHTSA's behavioral highway safety research program had a
2003 budget of $7.4 million. It focused on areas such as impaired driving,
occupant protection, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcycle riders.
According to NHTSA officials, their research generally addresses safety
problem areas rather than rural or urban localities, but the results may
be applicable to both rural and urban areas. Furthermore, in 2003, NHTSA's
vehicle safety research program received $69 million to, among other
things, collect and analyze crash data. The Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) tracks fatality data at a cost of about $5.7 million per
year, and the General Estimates System provides descriptive statistics
about traffic crashes of all severities at a cost of up to $3 million per
year, according to NHTSA officials.

24Rumble strips are grooves rolled or ground into the centerlines, edges,
or shoulders of roads. They are designed to alert drivers when they drift
out of the traffic lane and thereby prevent head-on and run-off-the-road
crashes.

States Are Responsible for Identifying and Implementing Improvements to
Rural Road Safety

While DOT provides states with funding, research, oversight, and guidance,
ultimately states are responsible for identifying and addressing their
roadway safety problems. The five states we visited had plans and
initiatives that addressed what they determined to be their most important
safety problems on all roadways, including rural roads. State efforts to
improve rural road safety include eliminating rural roadway hazards
through construction projects to widen lanes and shoulders and through
lower-cost approaches, such as adding shoulder and centerline rumble
strips, expanding clear zones along the roadways, installing intersection
beacon lights, and improving signage and road markings. In addition, each
state had programs that attempted to alter driver behavior through such
efforts as increasing enforcement of traffic laws and conducting community
awareness campaigns that include the use of paid advertising on television
and radio. Two states also increased enforcement by conducting sobriety
checkpoints. All but one of the states could not provide details on all
the funds used to address rural road safety because data were not
collected and maintained in that way. Most state officials we spoke with
supported the current flexibility they have to use the funds provided in
areas they determine are the most important and did not favor having a
separate rural road program or initiative. One official in Pennsylvania
told us that having a separate rural road program would help bring needed
attention to rural road safety.

The following are examples of rural-related projects supported in the five
states we visited. Appendix II has additional information on the funding
received by these states and the activities they support.

o 	California-The California Highway Patrol is leading a task force that
is examining the safety of all state corridors based on fatality and
accident data. This effort has identified 20 high-risk corridors in the
state, of which 16 were two-lane roads with a majority of the corridors in
rural areas. The task force is responsible for making both infrastructure
and behavioral improvement recommendations to address the safety issue
with these high-risk corridors. In addition, California is supporting a
Traffic Collision Reduction on County Roads Project. For this effort, the
Highway Patrol received $1.9 million from the California Office of Traffic
Safety to reduce crashes on county roads by increasing enforcement of
traffic violations that often lead to collisions: speeding, right-of-way
violations, failing to drive on the right half of the road, improper
turning, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. California
also uses sobriety checkpoints to discourage drinking and driving.

o 	Georgia-Using FHWA hazard elimination funding, the state has undertaken
several roadway improvement programs that address aspects of rural road
safety. For example, Georgia identified four problem areas that it focused
on in 2003-run-off-the-road crashes, intersection crashes, car-train
crashes, and animal crashes. A Georgia official said that the
run-off-the-road and animal crashes were particularly prevalent in rural
settings. A Georgia official said that the state is adding shoulder rumble
strips and centerline reflectors to help reduce the run-off-the-road
crashes, and, to reduce animal crashes, the state is expanding the
recovery zone beyond the clear zone along some roads, culling deer herds,
and researching light and sound devices to warn drivers of deer presence.

o 	Minnesota-State traffic safety officials have implemented several
construction and behavioral initiatives to improve rural road safety. The
"Towards Zero Deaths" initiative, for example, is an ongoing collaborative
program among the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Public Safety,
State Patrol, and local safe community organizations to provide grants to
localities that work with safety officials to develop a plan to reduce
traffic fatalities. In addition, the state Department of Transportation
completed a statewide audit of intersections and corridors in 2003. The
audit identified and ranked the top 200 intersections and 150 corridors
with the highest crash costs. Rural areas accounted for 54 of the
intersections and 53 of the corridors. The Department of Transportation's
goal is to address 40 of these high crash cost intersections and corridors
for safety improvements each year in the State Transportation Improvement
Plan. Further, the Department of Transportation has made extensive use of
shoulder rumble strips and is beginning to use centerline rumble strips on
twolane roadways.

o 	Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania has installed 300 miles of centerline rumble
strips on rural roadways in an effort to help warn drivers that they have
strayed from their lane. State transportation officials estimated that
rumble strips could reduce vehicle run-off-the-road crashes by 25 percent.
In addition, Pennsylvania implemented a Tailgating Treatment program in
which dots are painted on the state's rural roadways to help drivers
determine a safe following distance.25

25The state painted "dots" on the pavement, along with guide signs, to
help motorists maintain safe following distances in areas with high levels
of aggressive-driver crashes.

Pennsylvania officials told us they also funded over 100 rural projects
that focused on improving occupant protection, reducing impaired driving,
and supporting community traffic safety efforts, and they conducted 722
sobriety checkpoints and DUI roving patrols during fiscal year 2002.

o 	Texas-For fiscal year 2004, the state identified 235 hazard elimination
projects that it plans on undertaking, most of which were on rural roads.
These $43.4 million in projects include such things as adding intersection
beacon lights, widening lanes, and adding rumble strips to roadways. In
addition, district engineers assessed 30,000 miles of rural two-lane
highways in 2003, checking the appropriateness of speed limits and the
condition of signs and pavement markings and assessing pavement edge
drop-offs and curve warnings. Based on these assessments, changes will be
made to address the most important findings.

Many Challenges Hinder Efforts to Improve Rural Road Safety

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety. For example,
some states have not adopted the most effective safety belt use and
impaired driving laws. In addition, the sheer volume of rural roads and
the low volume of traffic on some of them, combined with the high cost of
major construction improvements makes it difficult to rebuild rural roads
with safer designs. Also, while states can use federal highway funds
provided for hazard elimination and rail-highway crossing safety
improvements on any public roads or public crossings, most of the
federalaid highway funds cannot be used on certain rural roads-the rural
minor collector and rural local roads. In addition, most rural roads are
not state owned but rather are the responsibility of municipalities,
counties, or townships, which may have limited resources. Further, some
states lack information upon which to make informed decisions on potential
road safety solutions, regardless of whether the road is rural or urban.
Lastly, reducing fatalities on rural roads is also made more difficult
because of limitations in emergency medical services in rural areas.
Several proposals that the Congress is considering could potentially
improve rural road safety.

Some States Have Not Enacted Laws on Safety Belt Use and Drinking and
Driving

While the Congress has provided incentives and penalties to encourage
states to pass various laws to increase safety belt use and reduce
drinking and driving, many states have not done so. These two factors are
particularly important given that, in more than 36,000 rural fatalities
due to passenger car, light truck, or van crashes, victims were not using
safety belts, and more than 27,000 rural fatalities were identified as
alcohol related, from 2000 through 2002. While these laws are not directed
specifically to rural road safety, the issues they address are applicable
to all types of roadways. According to a report by the Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, as of January 1, 2004:

o 	Thirty states have not enacted primary safety belt laws, which allow
police officers to pull over and cite motorists exclusively for the
infraction of not using their safety belts.26 Twenty-nine of these states
have enacted secondary safety belt laws. Secondary belt laws allow police
to issue a safety belt citation only if the motorist is pulled over for
another infraction, such as speeding or an expired license tag. One state
allows occupants over 18 to not use safety belts. As noted in our prior
report, states with secondary enforcement laws can increase safety belt
use, but their success is limited by the difficulty in effectively
enforcing the law.27

o 	Fourteen states have not enacted laws consistent with federal
requirements for prohibiting open alcohol container in motor vehicles.
Open container laws prohibit the possession of any open alcoholic beverage
container or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage in the passenger
area of a motor vehicle. In addition, 14 states have not enacted laws
consistent with the federal requirement for penalizing repeat drunk
driving offenders.28 Taken together, 23 different states have

26NHTSA officials told us that states enacting the primary safety belt
laws have experienced an 8 to10 percent increase in safety belt use.

27Motor Vehicle Safety: Comprehensive State Programs Offer Best
Opportunity for Increasing Use of Safety Belts, GAO/RCED-96-24 (Washington
D.C.: Jan. 3, 1996).

28To comply with federal program requirements, a repeat offender statute
must include the following: (1) a minimum 1-year license suspension; (2)
impoundment, immobilization or installation of an ignition interlock
device on all vehicles owned by the offender; (3) assessment of alcohol
abuse by the offender and an authorization of the appropriate treatment;
and (4) a mandatory minimum sentence.

not enacted laws that are consistent with at least one of these two
program requirements.

o 	Three states have not established .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
as the legal limit for drunk driving.29 In 2000, the Congress provided
that states that did not do so would have 2 percent of their federal-aid
highway funds withheld in 2004. The penalty grows to a high of 8 percent
in 2007. States adopting the standard by 2007 would be reimbursed for any
funds withheld.

Safety Improvements to Rural Roads Limited by the Combination of the
Millions of Miles of Rural Roads, Low Volume of Traffic, and High Cost of
Construction

Due to the extensive size of the rural highway system, the low volume of
traffic on many rural roads and the high costs that would be incurred to
make major safety changes, state and local governments find it difficult
to undertake major safety construction programs on some rural roads. As a
result, lower-cost alternatives are pursued to improve rural road safety
in many situations.

Of the 3.9 million miles of the nation's road system, rural roads account
for about 3 million miles (about 77 percent). In addition, most of the
rural mileage is on the lowest functional class of rural roads-local rural
roads- that account for about 68 percent of the rural roads (about 2.1
million miles). While making up three-fourths of the nation's road system,
rural roads overall carry only about 40 percent of the traffic, with the
rural local roads carrying about 5 percent of the traffic.

29According to a NHTSA official, the Colorado General Assembly has
recently passed a bill that, if enacted, would appear to meet federal
program requirements, and this would reduce the number of states that have
not established 0.08 BAC as the legal limit for drunk driving to two.

Although use of rural roads is low, the costs associated with major
construction projects on rural roads are high. For example, FHWA's Highway
Economic Requirements System model estimates the cost of widening 11-foot
lanes to 12-foot lanes at about $186,000 per mile-over five times the cost
of resurfacing the 11-foot lanes.30 In addition, an official from FHWA's
Kentucky Division Office told us it would cost about $200,000 to $250,000
per mile to widen low-volume rural roads by 1 foot. Further, a
Transportation Research Board report noted that providing wider
crosssections (wider lanes, wider full-strength shoulders, and enabling
100 percent passing sight-distance) on a two-lane roadway could cost from
about $1 million to $3 million per mile.31 As a result, low-cost
improvements are an option to be considered for many rural roads. For
example, FHWA has identified more than 40 low-cost improvements that
states can use on rural roads at high-crash locations. Examples include
installing rumble strips to roadways, moving trees or utility poles away
from the roadway, adding or improving roadside signs, and adding lighting
or flashing beacons to intersections and rail-highway grade crossings. See
appendix III for more information on the low-cost alternatives.

States Are Limited in Using Federal Aid Highway Funds for Certain Rural Roadways

Because of program requirements, states cannot use all categories of
federal-aid highway funds for certain rural roads. These limitations
specify that funds used for constructing new roadways or conducting major
renovations of roadways cannot be used for rural local roads, rural minor
collectors, or for urban local roads. These program restrictions were made
to ensure that the interstate highway system and other roads with higher
expected traffic have adequate funds to meet the transportation needs of
the public, according to a FHWA official. While some other federal-aid
highway funds are available for all rural roads, such as the Hazard
Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs within the Surface
Transportation Program, these roadways receive significantly less funding
per mile than urban counterparts.32 As shown in table 1, of the $30
billion

30Costs are default values for minor widening of a rural minor collector
on flat terrain used in FHWA's Highway Economic Requirements System model.

31Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, NCHRP Report
500, Volume 4: A Guide for Addressing Head-On Collisions, 2003.

32States must set aside at least 10 percent of the State Transportation
Program funds to support the Hazard Elimination and Highway-Rail Crossing
Programs and can be used on any roadway for safety purposes.

provided to states in fiscal year 2002, about $12.1 billion went to all
rural roads, with $541 million going to rural local roads.

Table 1: State Use of Federal Highway Funds by Road Type, Fiscal Year 2002

Federal-aid highway funding Functional roadway class (in thousands) Road
miles

Urban roads Rural roads

                             Urban interstate        $5,186,072        13,491 
                     Urban freeway/expressway           990,277         9,323 
               Urban other principal arterial         4,904,704        53,439 
                         Urban minor arterial         2,474,298        90,411 
                              Urban collector           836,543        89,247 
                             Urban local road           580,367       638,813 
                                  Urban other         2,127,437 
                                  Total urban    $17,099,698          894,724 

                              Rural interstate       2,726,350         32,992 
                Rural other principal arterial       4,220,132         98,853 
                          Rural minor arterial       1,697,189        137,568 
                         Rural major collector       1,582,700        430,946 
                         Rural minor collector         243,670        270,700 
                              Rural local road         541,219      2,100,702 

             Rural other                      1,135,292 
             Total rural                    $12,146,552          3,071,761 
          Unclassified other                  1,555,771 
                Total                       $30,802,021          3,966,485 

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.

Note: This analysis includes only funding administered by FHWA and does
not include funding from other federal agencies, state and local
governments, or other sources. Fiscal year 2002 is the most current data
regarding this information available from FHWA. Figures may not total
precisely due to rounding.

States are also challenged in making improvements in rural road safety
because, in most states, large portions of rural roads are not directly
under the responsibility of the state but rather fall under the
jurisdiction of counties, municipalities, or townships. Nationwide, about
78 percent of all rural roads (2.4 million of the nation's 3.1 million
rural miles) are not owned by the states. About 93 percent (about 2.0
million miles) of the rural local

roads are not under state jurisdiction. In 45 states, jurisdictions other
than the state own 75 percent or more of their rural local roads. (See
fig. 7.)

Figure 7: Portion of Rural Local Roads Not under State Jurisdiction, 2002

Number of states

                                       45

                            0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Percentage of rural local roads not owned by a state

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.

Some local officials in states we visited said they were challenged to
make costly rural road construction improvements without finding other
sources of funds to supplement those provided by states, such as issuing
bonds or increasing local taxes. In addition, a study for the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program noted that many of the roads most in
need of roadside safety improvements are under the control of local
governments that have the least amount of resources to address the
needs.33

33R.G. McGinnis, Strategic Plan for Improving Roadside Safety, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, February 2001.

Information Lacking on Crashes and the Effectiveness of Countermeasures
Used

Accurate, timely crash data are important for planning future urban and
rural highway safety programs and assessing the impacts of recent projects
or programs to improve safety. States rely on crash data from fatality
crashes, injury crashes, and property-damage-only crashes to identify
safety problems and plan safety improvements. Some states we visited
identified problems with their crash data system and were trying to
improve their crash data to make them more accurate, complete, and timely.
For example, Texas is about 2  1/2 years behind in entering crash data
from police accident reports into its data system. State officials pointed
out that without timely data, it is difficult to determine if the actions
taken on a stretch of road had the intended effect. To make the data
timelier, Texas plans to have a new system in place by fiscal year 2005,
at a cost of $14 million. The new Texas system would encourage local law
enforcement agencies to collect, validate, and report crash data
electronically. It would also provide centralized analysis, review, and
data reporting to agencies that plan and conduct state highway safety
programs. Georgia modified its crash data processing in 1998, but the
changes were not successful, according to a Georgia State Auditor's
report. In 2001, a new agency took over the crash data system and, after a
data recovery effort, eliminated a multi-year backlog of crash data
reporting by 2003. In addition, California is testing a system that would
allow data recorded by police to be directly reported into a database
through handheld electronic systems, thereby speeding the availability of
the information. The information would be recorded in the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Reporting System database that is used to help traffic
safety officials select safety initiatives.

Difficulties in Providing Adequate Emergency Medical Services

Reducing rural road fatalities is also hampered by the difficulty of
providing prompt emergency medical services in rural settings. For
example, we reported in 2001 that state and local officials told us that
rural areas are less likely than urban areas to have 911 emergency
dialing, and their communication between dispatchers or medical facilities
and emergency vehicles are more likely to suffer from "dead spots"-areas
where messages cannot be heard.34 The report also found that rural areas
are more likely to rely on EMS volunteers rather than paid staff, and
these volunteers may have fewer opportunities to maintain or upgrade their
skills with training. In addition, the report noted that officials from
national associations representing EMS physicians have indicated that long
distances and potentially harsh weather conditions in rural areas can
accelerate EMS vehicle wear and put these vehicles out of service more
often. Survivability after a crash decreases as the time required for an
injured person to receive medical treatment increases. Further, according
to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, a lack
of rapid trauma treatment is critical during the seconds and minutes that
immediately follow a crash.35 The report noted that the risk of dying
before medical attention can be provided increases as the crash location
is further removed from trained rescue staff and trauma medical
facilities. A study of fatalities in Michigan also highlights the impact
of providing emergency care in rural areas. The study found that of 155
fatalities in 24 Michigan rural counties in 1995, 12.9 percent of the
fatalities were definitely preventable or possibly preventable if rapid
and appropriate emergency treatment had been available.36

              Proposals Being Considered to Improve Roadway Safety

Congress is considering legislation that includes proposals to improve
highway safety, including safety on rural roads. The proposals include two
bills for the reauthorization of TEA-21: (1) the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFETEA), S.
1072, passed by the Senate in February 2004, and (2) the Transportation
Equity

34Emergency Medical Services: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With A
Growing Focus on Lack of Data, GAO 02-28 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001).

35Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Safety Strategies
for Rural Roads, 1999.

36R.F. Maio, R.E. Burney, M.A. Gregor, and M.G. Baranski, "A Study of
Preventable Trauma Mortality in Rural Michigan," July 1996. Trauma
fatalities were not necessarily due to traffic crashes.

Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), H.R. 3550, passed by the House in April
2004. Each of these proposals has features that could impact highway
safety and, in some cases, directly address rural roads.

o 	Incentives for Enacting Stronger State Traffic Safety Laws. Safety belt
use and impaired driving are important factors in rural road fatalities.
S. 1072 would provide grants to states for enactment of primary safety
belt laws and would reward those states that already have this law. The
proposal offers a maximum of $600 million in potential grants to states
that enact and retain primary laws. H.R. 3550 requires states that do not
meet federal open-container laws or federal requirements for penalizing
repeat drunk driving offenders to transfer 3 percent of certain federalaid
highway program funds to their Section 402 State and Community Grants
Program.37 H.R. 3550 requires the transfer of 3 percent of certain
federal-aid highway funds to Section 402 programs in states that have not
enacted a primary seat belt law or achieved 90 percent belt usage.38 H.R.
3550 also includes a penalty provision that requires the withholding of 2
percent to 8 percent of certain federal-aid highway funds if a state has
not enacted a law establishing .08 blood alcohol content as the legal
limit for drunk driving.39 Finally, H.R. 3550 provides 1 year of
additional funding for seat belt and drunk driving incentive grants. In
addition, S.1072 proposes to withhold 2 percent of certain highway
construction funds to those states that have not enacted open-container
laws for fiscal years 2008 to 2011.

o 	Direct Funding for High-Risk Rural Roads. Poor roadway design can
contribute to rural road fatalities. H.R. 3550 would authorize $675
million over 6 fiscal years for safety projects on high-risk rural roads.
States could use federal funding to improve the safety of rural major
collectors, rural minor collectors, or rural local roads that have, or
that

37FHWA's federal-aid highway program provides funds to states for highway
construction and improvement projects, while NHTSA's Section 402 State and
Community Grants Program provides funds to states for a wide variety of
highway safety projects, such as projects to reduce alcohol-impaired
driving and increase safety-belt use. Transfers under this provision would
come from Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and Surface
Transportation Program funds.

38Transfers under this provision would come from National Highway System,
Surface Transportation Program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
funds.

39Under this provision, funds would be withheld from the National Highway
System, Surface Transportation Program, and Interstate Maintenance
programs.

are expected to have, higher than average statewide fatality and
incapacitating injury rates.40

o 	New Highway Safety Improvement Program. Both S. 1072 and H.R. 3550
contain provisions for a new highway safety improvement program to replace
the current statutory requirement that states set aside 10 percent of
their Surface Transportation Program funds for carrying out Hazard
Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. S. 1072 would authorize
$8.2 billion over 6 years for the program and H.R. 3550 proposes a level
of $3.3 billion over 5 years. S. 1072 requires states to have crash data
systems and the ability to perform safety problem identification and
countermeasure analysis to use safety improvement funds. Both bills
maintain state flexibility to use safety improvement funds for safety
projects on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian
pathway or trail or public surface transportation facility. In both bills,
states must identify roadway locations, sections, and elements that
constitute a hazard to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other
highway users and develop and implement projects to address the hazards
identified.

o 	Enhanced Federal Funding for State Safety Data. Some of the states we
visited had identified weaknesses in their highway data systems. S. 1072
and H.R. 3550 would each create a new State Traffic Safety Information
System Improvement grant. Funding would be authorized at $45 million per
year under S. 1072 and $24 million to $39 million per year (for 5 fiscal
years-2005 through 2009) under H.R. 3550. Larger states could qualify for
larger grants, but the minimum grant amount would be $300,000 per year. By
comparison, federal funding for data improvement grants under TEA-21 was
never more than $11 million per year and was only available in fiscal
years 1999 through 2002. H.R. 3550 also allocates $4 million from NHTSA
research authorizations to further develop a transportation safety
information management system to provide for the collection, integration,
management, and dissemination of safety data for state and local safety
agencies.

40Another proposal to advance rural road safety was recently
introduced-H.R. 3743, which would authorize $1 billion per year to improve
safety on rural roads. States utilizing this funding would be obligated to
conduct and systematically maintain an engineering survey of all two-lane
rural roads classified as minor and major collectors and minor arterials.
The survey would identify dangerous locations, assign priorities for the
correction of such locations, and establish and implement a schedule of
projects for improvement of such roads.

o 	Proposals for New Safety Research. S. 1072 and H.R. 3550 would fund
strategic highway research programs. S. 1072 would provide $450 million
for this purpose and H.R. 3550 would provide $329 million. According to
the related NCHRP planning study, 40 percent of the funds-$180
million-would support safety research.41 The goal of this safety research
is to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through more
accurate knowledge of crash factors and of the costeffectiveness of
selected countermeasures in addressing these factors. The research plan
focuses on road departure and intersection collisions, which represent 58
percent of traffic fatalities.

o 	Comprehensive Highway Safety Planning. S. 1072 requires states to
develop and implement strategic highway safety plans that are
comprehensive, data driven, and based on a collaborative process involving
state and local safety stakeholders. The plans must be comprehensive,
including all aspects of highway safety-infrastructure, driver behavior,
motor carrier, and emergency medical services. They must be based on
improved crash data collection and analysis. While not directed
specifically at rural road safety, the collaborative process required by
this provision provides an opportunity for local rural officials and
leaders to participate in developing the goals and investments included in
the plan. H.R. 3550 would encourage comprehensive safety planning for both
behavioral and construction safety programs.

o 	Flexibility in Moving Funds between FHWA and NHTSA Programs. S. 1072
allows states to use up to a quarter of their Highway Safety Improvement
Program funds for behavioral projects, if the projects are included in a
state comprehensive highway safety improvement plan.

o 	Improving Emergency Medical Systems. The presence of timely competent
medical attention has been shown to reduce rural and other traffic
fatalities. S. 1072 would create an Emergency Medical Services grant
program to provide state EMS offices funds for conducting coordinated EMS
and 911 programs. S. 1072 would provide $5 million annually and would
create a Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services that
would coordinate federal agencies'

41Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program, NCHRP
Report 510, 2003.

 involvement with state, local, tribal, or regional emergency medical services
         and 911 services and to identify the needs of those entities.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. The department generally agreed
with the report's contents and provided some technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate. In discussing this report, agency
officials noted that safety should be part of every project designed and
built with federal-aid funds.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation,
the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and to interested
congressional committees. We will also provide copies to others on
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's
Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about the report, please contact
me at (202) 512-2834. Key contributors to this report were Samer Abbas,
Rick Calhoon, Colin Fallon, Sara Moessbauer, Stacey Thompson, and Glen
Trochelman.

Katherine Siggerud Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Appendix I

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Conference Report accompanying the 2003 Consolidated Appropriation
Resolution directed us to review aspects of rural road safety and report
to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To meet this
requirement, we identified (1) factors contributing to rural road
fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the
nation's rural roads, and (3) challenges that may hinder making
improvements in rural road safety.

To identify the factors contributing to rural road fatalities, we
supplemented an earlier GAO report, Highway Safety: Research Continues on
a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes (GAO-03-436,
March 2003), with information from the Federal Highway Administration, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other organizations
with knowledge of this issue, such as the National Association of Counties
and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. We also reviewed studies identifying factors that contribute to
rural road fatalities. For each of the selected studies that are used in
this report, we determined whether the study's findings were generally
reliable. To do so, we evaluated the methodological soundness of the
studies using common social science and statistical practices. For
example, we examined each study's methodology, including its limitations,
data sources, analyses, and conclusions.

In addition, we updated the earlier report by obtaining more current
information on traffic deaths by using data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS). This database provides information on all
traffic-related fatalities. Each state provides NHTSA fatality data in a
standardized format. To be included in the database, a crash must result
in the death of an occupant or nonmotorist within 30 days of the incident.
The states obtain this information from such sources as police reports,
vehicle registration files, state driver licensing files, death
certificates, coroner or medical examiner reports, and hospital records.
It should be noted that while fatality data is useful in understanding
crashes, other factors in addition to those involved in causing the crash
might have contributed to the fatality. This would include whether safety
belt or other occupant protection measures were used and functioned
properly. Before using this data, we assessed the reliability of the FARS
data by reviewing the data for obvious errors in accuracy and
completeness, reviewing existing information about the data, and
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined
that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Further, in providing information on factors contributing to rural road
fatalities, we identified fatalities per million miles traveled. To do so,
we used vehicle miles traveled data maintained by FHWA in its Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). This system is a national-level
highway information system that includes data on the extent, condition,
performance, use, and operating characteristics of the nation's highways.
In general, HPMS contains administrative and extent of system information
on all public roads. The HPMS obtains vehicle-miles-traveled data from
each state, and states have different methods for collecting certain
travel information. We assessed the reliability of the HPMS data by
reviewing it for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, reviewing
existing information about the data, and interviewing agency officials
knowledgeable about the data. There are certain limitations associated
with using these data. For example, the quality of the data in the system
relies on state data collection techniques. HPMS guidance is flexible so
that each state has its own approach, and some approaches do not require
annual revisions. In addition, vehicle-miles-traveled data may not be
comparable from state to state. However, we determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To identify federal and state efforts to improve rural road safety, we
interviewed and obtained documentation from officials in the Federal
Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. In addition, we reviewed state use of safety funds by
meeting with safety officials in five states. We selected Minnesota, which
DOT officials recommended as having a good rural road safety program, and
the four states with the highest rural vehicle miles traveled: California,
Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In each of these locations we met with
state officials responsible for the FHWA and NHTSA programs, as well as
some officials at the local level. We also reviewed recently issued
guides, models, and training programs intended to help traffic safety
officials improve their rural road safety programs, such as the
Transportation Research Board's National Cooperative Highway Research
Program 500 Report series that serves as guidance for implementing the
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials' Strategic
Highway Safety Plan.

To identify challenges that hinder making improvements in rural roads, we
interviewed federal and state officials identified above and contacted
experts from academia and advocacy groups. In addition, we attended a
Rural Road Safety Roundtable in West Virginia at which participants
discussed challenges facing rural road safety. We relied on NHTSA and a

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

report by the Advocates for Highway Safety to identify the status of the
50 states' compliance with various federal highway safety statues. We also
reviewed various legislative proposals that may help address the issues.
The legislative proposals included bills for the reauthorization of
TEA-21: (1) the Senate passed S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFETEA) and (2) the House
passed H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(TEA-LU). We also reviewed the administration's proposal, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003;
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation bill S. 1978,
the Surface Transportation Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003; and the
House Committee on Science bill H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation
Research and Development Act of 2004. However, the Senate and House passed
S. 1072 and H.R. 3550, respectively, so we did not include them in the
report.

We performed our review from July 2003 through April 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve Rural Road Safety

We obtained information from five states (California, Georgia, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, and Texas) on the number of fatalities on their roadways,
the federal funding they receive for safety purposes, and a description of
the types of projects these funds support.

California	During 2002, 1,713 people were killed on rural roads in
California-the second-highest total in the nation. When adjusted for miles
traveled, California's fatality rate on rural roads is about 2.67
fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled-greater than the
national average of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 42
percent of all state roadway fatalities in 2002.

In fiscal year 2003, California was provided over $2.5 billion in
federal-aid highway funds. About $60.5 million of these funds were
provided for Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing programs. These
programs provided construction-related safety improvements on public
roads, transportation facilities, bicycle or pedestrian pathways or
trails, and for rail-highway crossing safety programs. California also
received about $100.4 million in fiscal year 2003 to improve roadway
safety through a variety of activities designed to influence driving
behavior. About $47.5 million of the funds California received were
transferred from the state's federal-aid highway program because the
state's repeat offender law did not meet federal standards.1

California officials told us that they estimate they spent about $69.5
million on 58 rural road hazard elimination-related projects in 2003.
Examples include:

o 	The 2-3 Lane Safety Program. The California Department of
Transportation uses past crash analysis to identify cross-centerline crash
locations on two-and three-lane roadways for safety investigations. The
agency then attempts to utilize the most costeffective solutions to make
these roadways safer. In 2002, the agency identified 50 areas, 47 of which
were located in rural locations.

1Under 23 USC, section 164, states are required to have a repeat offender
law that includes such things as a 1-year license suspension for a second
offense; the impoundment, immobilization, or installation of an ignition
interlock on an offender's vehicle; an assessment of the individual's
degree of alcohol abuse and appropriate treatment; and specified minimum
jail or community service sentences. California's impaired driving law
does not impose all these sanctions on repeat offenders.

                                  Appendix II
                    Examples of State Activities to Improve
                               Rural Road Safety

o 	Run-Off-the-Road Task Force. The California Department of
Transportation currently has a task force examining locations where a
number of run-off-the-road crashes are occurring. The agency then attempts
to utilize cost-effective strategies to reduce the number or severity of
these types of collisions. In 2003, about 73 percent of the locations
identified were in rural areas. The agency hopes to proceed with the
run-off-the-road monitoring program by the end of 2004.

California is also using about $48 million of the NHTSA provided funds to
support 732 behavioral programs in fiscal year 2004. Of these funds,
California officials identified about $9.9 million being used to support
80 rural road-related programs. These projects include emergency medical
initiatives such as the "First There, First Care" program, which will
train young drivers in 54 schools in 11 counties on providing basic first
aid at the scene of a motor vehicle crash. In addition, California's
Office of Traffic Safety has worked with the California Highway Patrol to
implement two programs that have rural road safety impacts:

o 	Corridor Safety Project. The California Highway Patrol is leading a
task force that is examining the safety of all state corridors, based on
fatality and accident data. This effort has identified 20 high-risk
corridors in the state, of which 16 were two-lane roads, mostly in rural
areas. The task force is responsible for making both behavioral and
infrastructure improvement recommendations to address the safety issue
with these high-risk corridors.

o 	Traffic Collision Reduction on County Roads Project. For the 2004
fiscal year, the Highway Patrol received $1.9 million from the Office of
Traffic Safety to reduce crashes on county roads by increasing enforcement
of traffic violations that often lead to collisions: speeding,
right-of-way violations, failing to drive on the right half of the road,
improper turning, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Georgia	During 2002, Georgia had 902 fatalities on its rural roadways.
When adjusted for miles traveled, Georgia's fatality rate on rural roads
was 1.81 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled-below the
national average of 2.29 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 59 percent of all
state roadway fatalities in 2002.

In fiscal year 2003, Georgia received $975 million in federal-aid highway
funds. About $25.3 million of these funds were provided for the Hazard

                                  Appendix II
                    Examples of State Activities to Improve
                               Rural Road Safety

Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. Using these funds, the
state has undertaken several roadway improvement programs that address
aspects of rural road safety. For example, Georgia identified four problem
areas that it focused on in 2003-run-off-the-road crashes, intersection
crashes, car-train crashes, and animal crashes. A Georgia official said
that the run-off-the-road and animal crashes were particularly prevalent
in rural settings. He said that they are adding shoulder rumble strips and
centerline reflectors to help reduce the run-off-the-road crashes, and to
reduce animal crashes they are expanding the recovery area along some
roads, culling deer herds, and researching light and sound devices to warn
drivers of deer presence. In addition, Georgia is developing a Lane
Departure Strategic Action Plan with the goal of reducing the lane
departure serious injury and death rate from 4.93 per 100 million miles
traveled in 2003 to 3.29 in 2008 and preventing 750 serious injuries and
deaths annually. A draft of this plan recognizes that roadway departures
on rural highways are a predominate concern. To meet this goal, Georgia is
developing an approach that will use low-cost construction improvement;
corridor enforcement, education, and engineering enhancements; local lane
departure safety initiatives, targeted use of medium-to high-cost
improvements at high-crash locations, and statewide initiatives to improve
safe driver behaviors.

According to Georgia officials, the state has also replaced its safety
data system. It hopes to upgrade the current system of recording crash
locations by use of more accurate global positioning technology at the
crash scene, which would help them better identify problem areas
throughout the state. In addition to these state initiatives, FHWA
officials said Georgia is participating in AASHTO research projects that
address run-off-the-road crashes and comprehensive state strategic highway
safety plans.

The state has also participated in two major NHTSA-sponsored behavioral
programs: the eight-state evaluation of the "Click It or Ticket" safety
belt campaign in 2001 and the current impaired driving strategic
evaluation study, according to NHTSA officials. Georgia identified a need
to increase use of safety belts, booster seats, and child safety seats
among rural and minority populations statewide, so it initiated efforts to
involve rural and minority communities in local initiatives to increase
safety belt usage rates. Under the impaired driving study, enforcement
agencies conduct at least one sobriety checkpoint per month in every
county.

Minnesota	In 2002, 479 people were killed on Minnesota's rural roads. When
adjusted for miles traveled, Minnesota's fatality rate on rural roads was
about 1.8 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled-less than the national
average of

Appendix II
Examples of State Activities to Improve
Rural Road Safety

2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 73 percent of all state
roadway fatalities in 2002.

In 2003, Minnesota received about $395 million in federal-aid highway
funds. About $12.1 million of these funds were provided for hazard
elimination projects, for construction-related safety improvements, and
for rail-highway crossing improvements. The state also received about
$14.7 million for NHTSA programs designed to improve behavioral
activities. State officials could not provide a breakdown of how much of
these funds was used for rural road safety projects.

While the state does not have a specific rural road safety program, state
traffic safety officials have implemented several construction and
behavioral initiatives to improve rural road safety. The "Towards Zero
Deaths" initiative, for example, is an ongoing collaborative program among
the state department of transportation, public safety, state patrol, and
local "safe community" organizations to reduce highway fatalities. The
program provides grants to localities that work with safety officials to
coordinate a plan to reduce traffic fatalities. Other behavioral
initiatives include the following:

o 	NightCAP is a program involving concentrated alcohol patrols scheduled
in conjunction with local events that serve alcohol, for example, music
festivals that attract big crowds and where alcohol is sold or allowed to
be consumed. Local, county, and state law enforcement patrol roads to look
particularly for drivers showing signs of impairment. Releases are sent
out to local press and broadcast media informing the local population that
enforcement will be present during the event. In fiscal year 2003,
$615,000 of federal funding was spent on the NightCAP program. About 50
percent of the events were in rural areas of Minnesota.

o 	Safe & Sober is a project involving municipal and county law
enforcement agencies that target impaired driving and occupant protection
issues through a combination of enhanced law enforcement and publicity.
According to state officials, in fiscal year 2003, $1,335,600 in federal
funding was spent on the program. Approximately 50 percent of this program
is carried out in rural areas of the state.

In addition, in 2003 the state Department of Transportation completed a
statewide audit of high crash cost intersections and corridors. The audit
ranked the top 200 intersections and 150 corridors with the highest crash

                                  Appendix II
                    Examples of State Activities to Improve
                               Rural Road Safety

costs. Of the top 200 intersections identified, 54 were located in rural
areas; of the top 150 corridors identified, 53 were located in rural
areas. The Department of Transportation's goal is to address 40 of these
high crash cost intersections and corridors for safety improvements each
year in the State Transportation Improvement Plan. Further, according to
state officials, the Department of Transportation has made extensive use
of shoulder rumble strips and is beginning to use centerline rumble strips
on two-lane roadways.

Approximately $9 million in federal funds was transferred from
construction to safety activities in 2003 because Minnesota's laws in
regards to repeat drunk drivers did not meet federal requirements.2
Officials at the state Department of Public Safety said that they plan to
use half of those funds for hazard elimination projects such as replacing
twisted-end guardrails and researching the visibility effects of
installing wider edge lines and reflective wet pavement markings.
Officials believe that this will have a major impact on preventing or
reducing the severity of run-off-the-road crashes. The Department of
Public Safety plans to use the other half to address impaired driving.
Specifically, Minnesota plans to upgrade its driver license information
system to improve the tracking of problem drivers, focusing on impaired
driving. The state also plans to implement traffic safety programs
promoting safety belt use and discouraging drinking and driving among 21
to 34 year olds. To improve emergency medical services in rural areas,
Minnesota plans to reduce the amount of "dead spots"-areas where messages
cannot be heard-so that law enforcement, emergency medical services, and
transportation officials can communicate with each other in more remote
areas of the state.

Pennsylvania	In 2002, there were 1,001 fatalities on Pennsylvania's rural
roads. When adjusted for miles traveled, Pennsylvania's fatality rate on
rural roads is 2.15 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled-less
than the national

2Under 23 USC, section 164, states were required to have a repeat offender
law that included such things as a 1-year license suspension for a second
offense; the impoundment, immobilization, or installation of an ignition
interlock on offender's vehicle; an assessment of the individual's degree
of alcohol abuse and appropriate treatment; and specified minimum jail or
community service sentences. States that do not meet the repeat offender
requirement will have a percentage of funds transferred from their
federal-aid highway program to their State and Community Grants programs.
States may use the transferred funds for alcohol-related programs or they
may allocate funds back to the federal-aid highway program where they are
to be used for highway construction projects that address safety concerns.
Minnesota does not have an impaired driving law that imposes the sanctions
listed above on repeat offenders.

Appendix II
Examples of State Activities to Improve
Rural Road Safety

average of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 62 percent
of all state roadway fatalities in 2002.

Pennsylvania received about $1.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds in
fiscal year 2003. Of these funds, about $21.4 million were provided for
hazard elimination projects for construction-related safety improvements
and for improving safety at rail-highway crossings. During fiscal year
2003, Pennsylvania received about $11.6 million in NHTSA funding designed
to improve behavioral activities. State officials could not provide a
breakdown of how much of these funds were used for rural road safety
projects.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has a goal of reducing road
fatalities by 10 percent between 2002 and 2005. The department has begun
several engineering and behavioral improvement initiatives to help reach
this goal. For example, to maximize safety in the design and construction
of highway projects, the department performs Roadway Safety Audits. These
audits are formal examinations of roadways by an independent team of
trained specialists that assess their crash potential and safety
performance. The team identifies safety problems so that project officials
can evaluate, justify, and select appropriate design changes. In 1997, the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation was the first transportation
agency in the United States to pilot the program. Since its inception,
about 40 audits have been completed. According to the state department of
transportation, the audits have prevented undesirable changes during
design or construction, maximized opportunities to enhance safety, and
minimized missed opportunities to enhance safety.

Pennsylvania has introduced two other infrastructure safety modifications
aimed at improving rural road safety. First, the state installed 300 miles
of centerline rumble strips in an effort to help warn drivers that they
have strayed from their lane. State transportation officials estimated
that rumble strips could reduce vehicle run-off-the-road crashes by 25
percent. In addition, Pennsylvania implemented a "dot" tailgating
treatment program in which dots are painted on the state's roadways,
including rural two-lane roads, to help drivers determine a safe following
distance. The spacing of the dots is based on the roadway's speed limit.
Each vehicle is expected to maintain a distance equal to at least two dot
lengths from the vehicle ahead of it.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation also has several initiatives
to modify unsafe driving behavior to help reach its 2005 goal. Sobriety

                                  Appendix II
                    Examples of State Activities to Improve
                               Rural Road Safety

checkpoints, roving patrols, and mobile awareness patrols have been
implemented to combat drunk driving. In 2002, 129 mobile awareness patrols
were conducted. The state also has a program to install ignition interlock
devices on the vehicles of those convicted of second or subsequent
driving-under-the-influence offenses. The device must remain in the
vehicle for 1 year following a 12-month suspension of driving privileges.
Since its inception in 2000, the state reports the program has stopped
10,142 attempts to operate a vehicle on the state's roadways when the
operator had a blood-alcohol content equal to or greater than .025
percent. The state also has several initiatives to improve safety belt
use. Although the state has a secondary safety belt law, it received
approval to use the "Click It or Ticket" initiative encouraged by NHTSA.3
Transportation safety officials are also involved in increasing safety
belt use among middle and high school students and in improving the use
and incidence of child passenger seats through educational and training
programs. State traffic safety officials also informed us of programs
targeting increased safety belt use among light truck and pickup truck
drivers who state officials believe are more prevalent in rural areas and
generally decline to wear safety belts.

Texas	During 2002, 2,096 people were killed on rural roads in Texas-the
highest total in the nation. When adjusted for miles traveled, the
fatality rate on rural roads in Texas is about 2.68 fatalities per 100
million vehicle miles traveled-greater than the national average of 2.29.
Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 56 percent of all state
roadway fatalities in 2002.

In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided Texas with about $2.2 billion in
federalaid highway funds. About $57.6 million of these funds were provided
for Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. The state's
safety funding under the Surface Transportation Program provided
construction-related safety improvements on public roads, transportation
facilities, bicycle or pedestrian pathways or trails, and for the
rail-highway crossing safety programs. Texas also received about $26.4
million of federal funds administered by NHTSA in fiscal year 2003, mainly
to improve roadway safety through activities designed to influence driving
behavior. Texas has appropriated $40 million in state funds to supplement
FHWA

3Secondary seat belt laws allow police to issue a safety belt citation
only if the motorist is pulled over for another infraction, such as an
expired license tag.

Appendix II
Examples of State Activities to Improve
Rural Road Safety

funding for the Hazard Elimination Program, according to Texas Department
of Transportation officials.

Texas officials identified several intiatives being undertaken to reduce
fatalities on the state's rural roads:

o 	Texas Department of Transportation officials identified 235 hazard
elimination projects that they plan on undertaking in fiscal year 2004.
These $43.4 million in projects, most of which are on rural roads, include
adding intersection beacon lights, widening lanes, adding rumble strips,
and removing trees near roads.

o 	Due to concerns about high fatality rates on narrow rural two-lane
highways, particularly those with limited or no shoulders, district
engineers assessed 30,000 miles of rural two-lane highways in 2003,
checking the appropriateness of speed limits, the condition of signs and
pavement markings, and assessing pavement edge drop-offs or curve
warnings. Based on these assessments, changes will be made to address the
most important findings.

o 	The state is installing shoulder rumble strips on all rural four-lane
divided highways and researching the use of edgeline and centerline rumble
strips on other roads.

o 	Because the state's alcohol-related crashes were the leading cause of
motor vehicle fatalities in Texas during 2001, state officials told us
they have worked with NHTSA and others to identify the nature of the
problem and assess programs that could reduce impaired driving. As part of
this effort, the state funded 13 projects aimed at reducing impaired
driving in rural areas through increased enforcement and education
programs.

o 	The state has initiated programs to aid rural crash victims, including
new training for emergency medical technicians and first-aid training for
police officers and bystanders.

o 	Texas is in the process of upgrading its crash data system to make data
more timely. Texas is about 2  1/2 years behind in entering crash data
from police accident reports into its data system. State officials pointed
out that without more timely data, it is difficult to determine if the
actions taken on a stretch of road had the intended effect. Texas plans to
have a new system in place by fiscal year 2005, at a cost of $14 million.
The new

Appendix II
Examples of State Activities to Improve
Rural Road Safety

Texas system will encourage local law enforcement agencies to collect,
validate, and report crash data electronically. It will also provide
centralized analysis, review, and data reporting to agencies that plan and
conduct state highway safety programs.

Appendix III

                          Low-Cost Safety Improvements

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified more than 40
low-cost best practices as alternatives to capital construction at
high-crash locations. These improvements are presented to state and local
traffic engineers in FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements Workshops. In
addition, FHWA has qualified the strategies as proven, tried, or
experimental. Proven include those strategies that have been used in one
or more locations and for which properly designed evaluations have been
conducted that show them to be effective. Tried countermeasures are those
that have been implemented in a number of locations and that may even be
accepted as standards or standard approaches but for which there have not
been found valid evaluations. Experimental strategies are those that have
been suggested and that at least one agency has considered sufficiently
promising to try on a small scale in at least one location. Table 2
summarizes the low-cost alternatives and identifies potential safety
impacts that were identified in the course materials and whether the
countermeasure is proven, tried, or experimental.

Table 2: FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements

                        Roadside hazards Countermeasure

Trees	Remove or relocate trees near roadway. Cited accident reductions as
a function of proximity to roadway ranging from 22 percent for a 3-foot
increase to 71 percent for a 15foot increase. Proven.

Utility poles	Relocate utility poles away from the roadway. Cited 32
percent reduction in fatalities and 45 percent reduction in nonfatal
injuries by relocating or installing breakaway utility poles. Proven.

Sign supports	Clear or relocate sign supports and obstacles away from
roadway. Cited a range of reduction in obstacle crashes from 14 to 40
percent by moving the obstacles 3 feet to 10 feet, respectively. Proven.

Mail boxes Ensure mailboxes comply with breakaway provisions of the postal
services. Tried.

Single vehicle run-off-the-road	Install rumble strips and rumble stripes
to address inattentive, drowsy, and drunk drivers. Cited crash reduction
by using rumble strips of from 15 percent to 70 percent on interstates
(proven) and 20 percent to 49 percent on two-lane roads (tried).

                              Signing and marking

Warning signs	Add signs that call attention to unexpected conditions and
situations that might not be readily apparent to road users. Cited
reduction of fatalities by 39 percent and injuries by 15 percent. Tried.

Special emphasis signs Enhance signage (color or size) to call attention
to driver. Tried.

Right-of-way signs Install more visible right-of-way controls to enhance
effectiveness. Tried.

Guide signs	Install street name signs with adequate-sized lettering in
rural areas to identify important roads. Tried.

Lane use signs Install clear lane use signage, such as "Left Turn Only."
Tried.

                   Appendix III Low-Cost Safety Improvements

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

                        Roadside hazards Countermeasure

Safety message signs	Include safety messages such as "Targeted Enforcement
Area" or "Be Alert Heavy Truck Traffic." Tried.

Centerline and edge markings	Add centerlines and edge lines to roadways.
Cited a reduction of 29 percent in crashes by adding centerlines and an
additional 8 percent with edgelines. Tried.

Innovative roadway markings	Add innovative markings to roadways for such
items as advisory speed markings, left-turn lane markings, and roadway
parking space markings. Tried. Also noted adding markings to roadways to
help inform drivers about adequate following distances. Cited a 60 percent
reduction in rear-end crashes on main line with use of this roadway
marking. Experimental.

Roadway delineation	Use pavement markings to reduce incidence of crashes.
Cited reductions of 15 percent in fatalities and 6 percent in injuries.
Tried.

Innovative curve treatments Pave inside shoulder on curves and add
pavement markings to help guide drivers. Tried.

Intersections

Configuration	Address configuration features related to safety at
intersection including presence of left turn lanes, number of legs,
intersection sight distance, angle of intersection, and intersection form.
Proven.

Access management	Improve access management as a key to improving safety
at, and adjacent to, unsignaled intersections. Tried.

Traffic control	Install all-way stop control to reduce right-angle and
turning movement crashes. Cited reductions of 53 percent in total crashes
with conversion from two-way to four-way stop control. Tried.

Signing	Use warning signs, such as changing yield to stop, or warning
signs, for intersections to reduce incidents of crashes. Cited traffic
signs as reducing fatalities by 39 percent and injuries by 15 percent.
Tried.

Flashing beacons	Install flashing beacons to alert drivers to approach
with caution or stop. Cited California study that found, among other
things, that total crashes were reduced 43 percent and single vehicle
crashes by 67 percent. Tried.

Sight distance	Improve sight distance at intersections. Cited 5 percent
reduction in total intersectionrelated crashes per intersection quadrant
in which limited sight distance restrictions are eliminated. Tried.

Turning lanes	Add left-turn lanes to reduce rear-end crashes. Cited an
expected 28 and 48 percent reductions, respectively, in total crashes from
installation of a left-turn lane on one or both major-road approaches to a
four-leg stop-controlled intersection and 14 and 26 percent reductions
from installation of a right-turn lane on one or both major-road
approaches. Proven.

Shoulder widening	Widen the shoulder at rural intersections. Cited crash
reductions of 2.8 percent per foot of shoulder widening at rural
intersections. Tried.

Transverse rumble strips	Install rumble strips going across the traffic
lane to alert drivers in advance of intersection. Cited up to 50 percent
reduction in rear-end and stop violation crashes. Tried.

Lighting	Install lighting at rural intersections. Cited study that found
43 percent reduction in fatalities and 17 percent in injuries. Proven.

Innovative techniques	Add innovative items at intersections such as right
turn lanes (proven), dynamic activated flashers (tried), and the median
inside an acceleration lane (tried).

                   Appendix III Low-Cost Safety Improvements

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

                        Roadside hazards Countermeasure

Traffic signals

Yellow light clearance timing	Update yellow clearance timing of traffic
signals to allow more time for traffic to clear intersection. Tried.

All-red light clearance phase	Add an all-red clearance interval. Cited 15
percent to 30 percent crash reduction by adding an all-red clearance
interval. Tried.

Visibility	Improve visibility of traffic signals. Cited 33 percent to 47
percent reduction in crashes from using 12-inch lens and additional signal
units (or heads). Tried.

Back plates	Install back plates behind the traffic signal to improve its
visibility. Cited report of 25 percent reduction in red light running and
32 percent reduction in related crashes. Tried.

Left turn signals	Change left turn signals to allow only turning with
specific left turn green light. Cited a report of 97 percent reduction in
left-turning crashes. Tried.

Yield on green sign	Add activated "Yield on Green" signs to better inform
drivers wishing to turn. One city reported a 22 percent reduction in
permissive left turn crashes. Experimental.

Advance warning signs with active flashers	Add signs with flashers to warn
driver, such as "Be Prepared to Stop." Cited several reports ranging from
29 to 67 percent reduction in crashes from this measure. Tried.

Supplemental signal heads Add additional traffic signals units (or heads)
to intersections. Tried.

Overhead red "T" heads	Use overhead red "T" heads on traffic signals.
These types of signals have two red lights next to each other to increase
their visibility. Tried.

Late-night traffic signals	Remove late-night use of signals that flash
yellow on the main road and red on the side street and replace with
full-time traffic signals. Cited 78 percent reduction in right angle
collisions and 32 percent reduction in all collisions during time of
operations. Tried.

Coordination of signals	Coordinate traffic signals. Noted very few reports
on safety benefits, but cited one report showing 12 percent reduction in
crashes during peak morning and evening driving periods. Tried.

Signal controller	Upgrade signal controller to allow for traffic actuated
rather than pretimed operations. Cited 28 percent reduction in all
collisions. Tried.

                            Railroad grade crossings

Stopping sight distance	Provide adequate ability to see a train and/or the
traffic control device at the crossing in sufficient time for the driver
to safely stop if necessary. Tried.

Signing	Use appropriate signing at crossings including Cross Buck signs,
signs in advance of the crossing, and yield and stop signs. Tried.

Sight distance visibility	Provide adequate visibility by such things as
removing obstructions, reducing posted speed, reconfiguring or relocating
the crossing or grade separating the crossing. Tried.

Lighting	Add lighting at and adjacent to the rail crossing to increase
visibility. Cited a reduction in nighttime crashes by more than 50 percent
at rural and urban crossings. Proven.

Innovative measures	Adopt innovative measures to increase safety at rail
crossings such as providing an emergency escape lane out of the crossing
area for trapped vehicles. Tried.

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA information.

GAO's Mission	The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htmWaste, and Abuse in E-mail:
[email protected] Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                               Presorted Standard
                              Postage & Fees Paid
                                      GAO
                                Permit No. GI00

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***