|
Highway
Safety Improvement Program |
Fair
Share for Safety Fact Sheet |
|
Overview:
SAFETEA-LU
breaks highway safety funds out into a new and larger program named
the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), with funding
authorized at about $5 billion over four years. This new stand-alone
safety program should provide new opportunities to fund bicycle and
pedestrian safety projects. The former safety set-aside program did
not adequately address non-motorized safety; less than 2 percent of
these funds went to bicycle or pedestrian safety despite the fact
that an average of 13 percent of traffic fatalities are pedestrians
or bicyclists. A
Fair Share for Safety provision that would have required states
to address bicycle and pedestrian safety more equitably was included
in the Senate bill for reauthorization but was removed in the final
days of the conference committee.
The new
program provides an opportunity to work at the state level for
getting a fair share for safety. It requires states to create a new
Strategic Highway Safety Plan in order to be eligible for full
funding of |
all types of
projects. The law specifies that the plan be “developed after
consultation with:
(i) a highway safety
representative of the Governor of the State;
(ii) regional
transportation planning organizations and metropolitan planning
organizations, if any;
(iii) representatives
of major modes of transportation;
(ix) other major State and local safety stakeholders.
The new program
gives a list of activities that qualify as highway safety improvement
projects, and several relate quite specifically to bikes: (roman
numerals appear in text of bill):
(i) An intersection
safety improvement.
(ii) Pavement and
shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an
unsafe condition).
(iii) Installation of
rumble strips or another warning device, if the rumble strips or other
warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of
bicyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled.
(v) An improvement
for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of the disabled.
(ix) Construction of
a traffic calming feature.
(x) Elimination of a
roadside obstacle.
(xi) Improvement of
highway signage and pavement markings.
(xiii) Installation
of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high
accident potential.
(xv) Improvement in
the collection and analysis of crash data.
(xix) Installation
and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at
pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones.
(xx) Construction and
yellow-green signs at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones.
The funding is
available for use on any public road, so local governments may discover
and lobby for use of these funds to solve pressing safety problems in
their communities. In addition, the states will have to report back to
the federal government on how they are spending the money. All of these
factors represent opportunities to focus more safety dollars on
protecting people on foot and bicycle.
FHWA fact sheet
Location in
law: section 1401, (pg. 77) amends sec. 148 of US code 23
What’s New:
Federal Program Guidance:
Since it is a new
program, HSIP will require a formal rule-making process, which is
expected to begin in November or December. One of the tasks in the
rule-making process will be to set the standards for the reports that
states will be making to the federal government on their program’s
progress. This may be an opportunity to set a Fair Share for Safety
standard for these reports.
Who distributes
the money?
The rule-making
process will direct the states in the specifics of this process, but in
the past this funding has generally been distributed by a state safety
office. The federal share for this program is 90 percent, with certain
projects eligible for 100 percent funding.
Where can I learn
more?
State by State
funding chart
The
funding table gives annual average
funding levels expected to go to each state for HSIP.
The funding
actually distributed as a result of SAFETEA-LU will be higher than the
authorized level in most states because of the distribution of an
‘equity bonus,’ formerly known as the ‘Minimum Guarantee.’ The
Equity Bonus program is meant to ensure that each state receives a
minimum rate of return on contributions to the Highway Trust Fund, among
other considerations. Most of the funds from the Equity Bonus program
are distributed among many existing programs, and this distribution is
reflected in the funding table.
|
