The Experts below are selected from a list of 1047 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Bryan K Allery - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
explicit consideration of safety in Transportation planning and project scoping
Transportation Research Record, 2004Co-Authors: Jake Kononov, Bryan K AlleryAbstract:The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 required explicit consideration of safety in the Transportation planning process. Although this government mandate is well intentioned, little is known about how to accomplish it. Despite 60 years of modern road building, there is still no consensus among Transportation professionals about how to quantify the degree of safety or lack of safety of an existing Transportation facility. It is even more difficult to anticipate the level of safety on highways not yet built. A methodology for the explicit consideration of safety in the Transportation planning process is presented, followed by a review of two case histories illustrating its application.
-
EXPLICIT CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY IN PROJECT SCOPING AND Transportation PLANNING
2003Co-Authors: Jake Kononov, Bryan K AlleryAbstract:Transportation Equity Act the 21st Century (TE-21) of 1998 requires explicit consideration of safety in the Transportation planning process. While this government mandate is well intention, little is known about how to accomplish it. Despite 60 years of modern road building there is no consensus among Transportation professionals as to how to quantify the degree of safety or un-safety of an existing Transportation facility. It is even more difficult to anticipate safety of highways not yet build. To address both of these questions this paper will introduce the concept of Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) in the framework of Safety Performance Function (SPF). Safety Performance Function reflects complex relationship between traffic exposure and safety. The Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) makes it possible to accomplish the following: Qualitatively describe the degree of safety or un-safety of a roadway segment Effectively communicate the magnitude of the safety problem to other professionals or elected officials Bring perception of roadway safety in line with reality of safety performance reflecting a specific facility Provide a frame of reference for decision making on non-safety motivated projects (resurfacing or reconstruction for instance) Provide a frame of reference from a safety perspective for planning major corridor improvements.
Martin T Pietrucha - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluation of effectiveness of the federal highway safety improvement program
Transportation Research Record, 2012Co-Authors: Scott Himes, Martin T PietruchaAbstract:The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users established the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which authorized about $1.3 billion/year from 2006 to 2009 for highway safety projects. The HSIP aims "to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads," and the number of national traffic fatalities seems to have decreased at about the same time. This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the HSIP in reducing fatal crashes in the United States. The study adopted fixed-effect panel models and multilevel mixed-effect models to deal with random fluctuations both before and after introduction of the HSIP and state-specific effects. The results show a drop of about 7.5% in national traffic fatalities since introduction of the HSIP compared with the average for 2001 to 2005, but the magnitude of reduction varied by state. States' safety-related spending did not increase after introduction of the HSIP. Increased feder...
Jake Kononov - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
explicit consideration of safety in Transportation planning and project scoping
Transportation Research Record, 2004Co-Authors: Jake Kononov, Bryan K AlleryAbstract:The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 required explicit consideration of safety in the Transportation planning process. Although this government mandate is well intentioned, little is known about how to accomplish it. Despite 60 years of modern road building, there is still no consensus among Transportation professionals about how to quantify the degree of safety or lack of safety of an existing Transportation facility. It is even more difficult to anticipate the level of safety on highways not yet built. A methodology for the explicit consideration of safety in the Transportation planning process is presented, followed by a review of two case histories illustrating its application.
-
EXPLICIT CONSIDERATION OF SAFETY IN PROJECT SCOPING AND Transportation PLANNING
2003Co-Authors: Jake Kononov, Bryan K AlleryAbstract:Transportation Equity Act the 21st Century (TE-21) of 1998 requires explicit consideration of safety in the Transportation planning process. While this government mandate is well intention, little is known about how to accomplish it. Despite 60 years of modern road building there is no consensus among Transportation professionals as to how to quantify the degree of safety or un-safety of an existing Transportation facility. It is even more difficult to anticipate safety of highways not yet build. To address both of these questions this paper will introduce the concept of Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) in the framework of Safety Performance Function (SPF). Safety Performance Function reflects complex relationship between traffic exposure and safety. The Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) makes it possible to accomplish the following: Qualitatively describe the degree of safety or un-safety of a roadway segment Effectively communicate the magnitude of the safety problem to other professionals or elected officials Bring perception of roadway safety in line with reality of safety performance reflecting a specific facility Provide a frame of reference for decision making on non-safety motivated projects (resurfacing or reconstruction for instance) Provide a frame of reference from a safety perspective for planning major corridor improvements.
United States. Government Accountability Office. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Highway Trust Fund: All States Received More Funding Than They Contributed in Highway Taxes from 2005 to 2009
United States. Government Accountability Office., 2011Co-Authors: United States. Government Accountability Office.Abstract:A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstrAct that begins "Federal funding for highways is provided to the states mostly through a series of grant programs known as the Federal-Aid Highway Program, administered by the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized $197.5 billion for the Federal-Aid Highway Program for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. The program operates on a "user pay" system, wherein users contribute to the Highway Trust Fund through fuel taxes and other fees. The distribution of funding among the states has been a contentious issue. States that receive less than highway users contribute are known as "donor" states and states that receive more than users contribute are known as "donee" states. GAO was asked to examine for the SAFETEA-LU period (1) how contributions to the Highway Trust Fund compared with the funding states received, (2) what provisions were used to address rate-of-return issues across states, and (3) what additional fActors affect the relationship between contributions to the Highway Trust Fund and the funding states receive. To conduct this review, GAO obtained and analyzed data from FHWA, reviewed FHWA and other reports, and interviewed FHWA and DOT officials.
-
Traffic and Vehicle Safety: Reauthorization Offers Opportunities to Extend Recent Progress
United States. Government Accountability Office., 2011Co-Authors: United States. Government Accountability Office.Abstract:Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstrAct that begins "Traffic fatalities and fatality rates have substantially decreased over the last 10 years, yet far too many people continue to be killed or injured on the nation's roadways. In addition, auto safety defect recalls are on the rise. On average, about 70 percent of vehicles subject to a recall are fixed, leaving the remainder to continue posing risks to vehicle owners, passengers, and pedestrians. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers programs that provide grants to states to improve traffic safety and oversees the identification and remedy of vehicle and equipment defects that could pose an unreasonable risk to safety. The upcoming reauthorization of surface Transportation programs affords Congress an opportunity to strengthen these grant programs in several ways and to address gaps GAO identified in NHTSA's auto recall process. This statement addresses (1) NHTSA's progress in improving oversight and performance measurement for traffic safety grant programs, (2) NHTSA's oversight of the auto safety defect process, and (3) issues for Congress to consider in reauthorizing funding for traffic and vehicle safety programs. This statement is based primarily on reports GAO has issued since enActment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) on issues related to traffic safety--including NHTSA's oversight of state traffic safety programs, traffic safety grants, and high-visibility enforcement--and NHTSA's auto recall process.
-
The Department of Transportation Found That It Improperly Obligated Motor Carrier Grant Funds
United States. Government Accountability Office., 2011Co-Authors: United States. Government Accountability Office.Abstract:Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstrAct that begins "In May 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) alerted your offices that it might have violated statutory restrictions when obligating funds to states for its Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) program. CVISN awards grants to state offices to support improved information technology exchanges between government agencies and the motor carrier industry to enhance motor carrier safety and other efforts. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provided $25 million annually in contrAct authority and established funding restrictions for CVISN awards. FMCSA temporarily shut down the CVISN program in May 2010 to determine whether it violated funding restrictions and to prevent exacerbating any problems; it has not determined when it will restart the program. In response to congressional request, this report addresses (1) whether FMCSA complied with statutory requirements when awarding CVISN grants to states and (2) Actions that the agency is taking to manage the award of CVISN grants effectively.
-
Highway Trust Fund: Nearly All States Received More Funding Than They Contributed in Highway Taxes Since 2005
United States. Government Accountability Office., 2010Co-Authors: United States. Government Accountability Office.Abstract:A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstrAct that begins "Federal funding for highways is provided to the states mostly through a series of grant programs known as the Federal-Aid Highway Program, administered by the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized $197.5 billion for the Federal-Aid Highway Program for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. The program operates on a "user pay" system, wherein users contribute to the Highway Trust Fund through fuel taxes and other fees. The distribution of funding among the states has been a contentious issue. States that receive less than their highway users contribute are known as "donor" states and states that receive more than their highway users contribute are known as "donee" states. GAO was asked to examine for the SAFETEA-LU period (1) how contributions to the Highway Trust Fund compared with the funding states received, (2) what provisions were used to address rate-of-return issues across states, and (3) what additional fActors affect the relationship between contributions to the Highway Trust Fund and the funding states receive. To conduct this review, GAO obtained and analyzed data from FHWA, reviewed FHWA and other reports, and interviewed FHWA and DOT officials. DOT reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
-
Highway Trust Fund Expenditures on Purposes Other than Construction and Maintenance of Highways and Bridges during Fiscal Years 2004-2008
United States. Government Accountability Office., 2009Co-Authors: United States. Government Accountability Office.Abstract:Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstrAct that begins "The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was created in 1956 to finance the construction of the Interstate Highway System. This system, built in partnership with state and local governments for over 50 years, has become central to Transportation in the United States. Over these 50 years, the federal role in surface Transportation has expanded to include broader goals and more programs. Although most surface Transportation funds remain dedicated to highway infrastructure, federal surface Transportation programs now serve additional Transportation, environmental, and societal purposes such as construction of pedestrian walkways and safety enforcement facilities along border regions. The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized $244.1 billion over 5 years for highways, highway safety, and public Transportation, with the HTF serving as the funding source for most of the Act's programs. In addition to authorizing funds for construction and maintenance of highways and bridges, the Act specifies other purposes for which funding must or may be used, including, but not limited to, safety; metropolitan planning; transit; and Transportation enhancement Activities, such as trails for Transportation purposes, pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes and parking, and related projects. Some of these Activities have elements related to, or that contribute to, construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. Within the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) are responsible for administering the grant programs funded by the HTF. In response to Congressional concerns regarding resource challenges facing the nation's current surface Transportation programs and policies, this report provides information on the amount of HTF monies the DOT agencies obligated for purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and bridges during fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
Scott Himes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluation of effectiveness of the federal highway safety improvement program
Transportation Research Record, 2012Co-Authors: Scott Himes, Martin T PietruchaAbstract:The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users established the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which authorized about $1.3 billion/year from 2006 to 2009 for highway safety projects. The HSIP aims "to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads," and the number of national traffic fatalities seems to have decreased at about the same time. This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the HSIP in reducing fatal crashes in the United States. The study adopted fixed-effect panel models and multilevel mixed-effect models to deal with random fluctuations both before and after introduction of the HSIP and state-specific effects. The results show a drop of about 7.5% in national traffic fatalities since introduction of the HSIP compared with the average for 2001 to 2005, but the magnitude of reduction varied by state. States' safety-related spending did not increase after introduction of the HSIP. Increased feder...
