The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 02-14-95 Meeting AgendaI COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II 14') RE: February Meeting and Agenda DATE: February 8, 1995 There will be a meeting of the Frederick County Transportation Committee at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 14, 1995, in the conference room of the Old Frederick County Court House, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. The Transportation Committee will discuss the following items: 1) 2) 3) 4) AGENDA Review of the 1995 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan. Information regarding the Fiscal Year 1996 Highway Safety 402 Funds. Information Regarding 1994 Highway Fatalities. Other. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 ITEM #1 1995 FREDERICK COUNTY PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN Each year, Frederick County Officials attend a preallocation hearing for the Staunton District. This hearing allows localities to inform VDOT officials of their various needs for primary road improvements. The proposed 1995 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County has been revised to eliminate the Route 522 South Improvement Project and the Interstate 81/Route 37/Martinsburg Pike Improvement Project that appeared on the previous plan. The Commonwealth Transportation Board Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 1994-1995 indicates that these two improvements will receive allocations necessary to complete preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors has endorsed the proposed Route 37 Eastern By-pass Alternative C. This alternative has been forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) for final disposition. It is anticipated that this alternative will receive approval by this Board; therefore, it is important to ensure that this project appears as the highest priority for Frederick County. Included with under this agenda item is the proposed 1995 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County and excerpts from the . CTB Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 1994-1995. Staff will provide a graphic display during the meeting which represents the proposed improvements. Staff asks that the committee review this information and provide a recommendation that will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1995 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1) Route 37 Eastern By-pass Alternative C From: Route 37 North at Stephenson To: Route 37 South at Kernstown Plan, engineer, acquire necessary right-of-way, and construct a by-pass to provide future additional limited access arterial capacity east of Winchester. This is needed to accommodate planned land use and economic development in Eastern Frederick County. This will include long term solutions to interchange areas at 1-81 /11 North/37/661 and 1-81/11 South/37/642. 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I-81/277/647 Intersection (South of Winchester) To: Route 340/522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Improve the existing two lane road facility by widening and straightening immediately. Conduct detailed studies to determine future needs for four lane improvements and improvements to the 1-81/11 South/277/647 intersection area. 3) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A. Valley Pike (Route 11 South) From: Middle Road To: 37 Interchange Widen and improve to five lanes. B. Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) From: Winchester City Limits To: 37 Intersection Widen and improve as necessary. Page -2- 1995 Primary Road Improvement Plan 4) I-81 (East of Winchester) From: Stephenson Interchange To: Middletown Interchange Study and improve to six lanes between Winchester exits if necessary. 5) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Conduct studies and utilize existing information from the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission to determine the location of needed facilities. 238 PRIMARY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (In Thousands PROGRAM of Dollars) STAUNTON DISTRICT FY95 thru FY00 ROUTE COUNTY/CITYADD'L TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST PREVIOUS FUNDING FUNDING REQUIRED /FUND SOURCE ACTUAL ALLOCATION 1994-95 PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS BALANCE TO COMPLETE PLANNING ENGINEER 1995-96 1996-97 7997-98 1998-99 1999 00 340 - Warren 2-Lane Reconstruction 0.1 Mile South Route 619 - 1.3 Miles South Route 619 PE 300 RW 1,000 CN 1,700 TO 3,000 3,000 - - 250 250 325 770 1,405 1.2 Mites STP 0340-093- 340/522 - Warren Provide 4-Lane Structure NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER: (At North Corporate Limits Front Royal) (Str. 1015) PE 260 RW. - CN 1,830 TO_ 2,090 100 1,990 160 (1) 600 _ 100 (1) 121 160 (1) 340 125 (1) 384 12825 BR/STP 0340-093-V20 PE101,C501,6 07 522 Frederick and Clarke Parapet Lane (2 to 4 lanes) 2.4 Miles 0.3 Mile North Route 277/340 at Double Toll Gate - 4.7 Miles South Route 50/17 PE 666 RW 2,548 CN 3,859 TO 7,073 2561 11611 6,108 965 STP CONSTRUCTION PE101,RW201,C501,D621,D62 UNDER WAY - 0522-021-V - 3,PE101,RW20 ,C501 965 0522-034-V10 522 - Frederick Parallel bane (2 to 4 Lanes) 4.7 Miles South Route 50/17 - 2.3 Miles South Route 50/17 PE 595 RW 1,695 CN 5,708 TO 7,998 3,063 (1) 900 4,035 2,495 (1) 100 1,180 (1) 260 2.4 Miles 8432 STP 0522 034 V14 PE101,RW201, 501,6620 522 Frederick Widen from 2 to 5 Lanes 2.3 Miles South Route 50/17 - 0.1 Mite South Route 50/17 PE 700 RW 1,890 CN 4,288 i0 6,878 1,339 (1) 464 5,075 1,150 (1) 100 1,585 - 2,140 (1) 100 2.3 Miles 2578 STP 0522-034-Vll PE101,RW201, 501 Rockingham Construct Bridge At James Madison University over Route 81 PE 125 RW CN 1,700 TO 1,825 200 8E5- (1)800 100 (1) 400 (1) 32512845 S-101 PE101,C501,B O1 (1) STP Statewide Cooperative Project Allocations with Urban Division 238 PRIMARY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STAUNTON DISTRICT (In Thousands of Dollars) FY95 thru FY00 ROUTE ADD'L COUNTY/CITY ESTIMATED COST FUNDING ACTUAL PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS TYPE DESCRIPTION BALANCE PREVIOUS REQUIRED ALLOCATION LENGTH TO FUNDING /FUND COMPLETE PLANNING ENGINEER SOURCE 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 37 - Route 81 South - PE Frederick Route 11 & 81 North RW 4 Lanes on CN New Location TO - _ - FUNDS TO BE ADVANCED BY F EDERICK COUW Y 14.0 Miles 11725 S 0037.034-102 PE100 37 - At Interchange PE 200 Frederick Route 11 North RW 200 Interchange CN 1,250 Modifications TO 1,650 50 1,600 150 475 500 475 - - 12822 S 6037-034-103 PE101,RW201, 501 39 - 0.7 Mile West PE 10 Rockbridge Route 750 - RW - Improve Sight 0.8 Mile West CN 90 Distance and Route 750 TO 100 - 100 40 60 Trench Widen ' Pavement 0.1 Mile S 0039-081-112 PE10 ,RW202, 502 42 - TOWN OF CRAIGSVILLE PE 25 Augusta RW . CN - TO 25 - 25 25 - - (PE Only) - TO UPDATE DRAINAGE STUDY S 0042-007- 42 - 5.3 Miles North PE 453 Rockingham North Corporate RW 856 Develop from Limits Harrisonburg CN 4,528 2 to 4 Lanes 3.4 Miles South TO 5,837 4,562 1,275 1,275 - - Intersection ' 2.2 Miles Route 259 (Broadway) 2534 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE F 0042-082-106 PE104,RW204,C5O4,D617 55 - 0.3 Mile East PE - Shenandoah Route 81 RW . Improve Riding (At CSX Railroad) CN 15 Surface TO 15 15 13550 CONSTRUCTION UNDER WAY RRP 0055-085-VO4 C501 233 ITEM #2 HIGHWAY SAFETY 402 FUNDS AND PROGRAMS Frederick County has received information pertaining to the 1996 Highway Safety 402 Funds that are available for localities throughout the state. This Federal funding source provides "seed program monies" for the creation of new educational programs or the purchase of equipment that will assist in reducing the loss of life, injury, and property damage due to highway crashes. Please review the information included with this agenda item. Staff is interested in ideas that the Transportation Committee may have regarding this funding source. Staff asks that the committee prepare comments or questions regarding the 402 Program that may be addressed by Mr. Bushman and Mr. Copp. li COMMONWEALTH of V1RQ1N1A Department of Motor Vehicles RICHARD D. HOLCOMB MAIL'4DDRESS COMMISSIONER 2300 West Broad Street ONNDD. VIRGINIAI 3269-0001 January 30, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Applicants for Highway Safety 402 Funds FROM: Donald F. Michael, Acting Deputy Commissioner 4V u SUBJECT: FY 1996 GUIDELINES FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY 402 FUNDS c: The Honorable Robert E. Martinez Mr. Richard D. Holcomb Mr. Eugene Peterson Preliminary data indicates that 924 Virginians died on our roadways last year providing a 1.36 death rate. Virginia achieved a 71.8% usage of occupant safety devices representing 185 lives saved. To continue to reduce crashes on Virginia's highways, the Department of Motor Vehicles needs your assistance. Please review the attached copy of the fiscal year funding guidelines for the upcoming fiscal year for Virginia highway safety projects. If you wish to request federal highway safety funds for the next federal fiscal year (October 1 through September 30), you should carefully study the enclosed guidelines and complete the requirements accurately and within the indicated time periods. Experiences from prior years indicate that we will receive requests for far more federal funds than we have available. All approved projects will be monitored on a quarterly basis and the final vouchers for approved projects will need to be submitted by November I. A Partnership With the Public January 30, 1995 Page 2 By necessity, funding decisions will be based on those requests that have the greatest potential for reducing the loss of life, injury, and property damage due to highway crashes in the Commonwealth. Special attention will be given to those requests for funds in the following categories: o Projects that identify problems by high emphasis communities. High emphasis communities are defined as local political sub -divisions having the highest ratio of crashes. o Projects that creatively incorporate "alcohol awareness and occupant protection safety" aspects regardless of the primary focus of the project. o Innovative projects with potential statewide applications or ability to transfer to other jurisdictions. o Projects from state agencies that have statewide significance and address the federal program areas under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) or identified in the enclosed guidelines. o Projects that indicate strong public/private partnerships where the 402 funds leverage private resource to accomplish tasks. Applicants should also note that federal 402 funds are "seed program monies" and may not be used to pay for recurring costs associated with ongoing operations of the political subdivision or state agency. We are soliciting proposals that are new and innovative and fit within our funding limitations. Specific questions from local political subdivions relative to the enclosed guidelines should be addressed to the Department of Motor Vehicles' Transportation Safety Field Representatives in your area, as noted on the attached list. You are strongly encouraged to contact your field representative concerning your proposals. Questions from state agencies should be addressed to the Department of Motor Vehicles' State Transportation Planner and Manager of Reporting and Evaluation. Thank you for your continued interest and support of Virginia's Highway Safety Program. January 30, 1995 Page 3 Enclosures: o Fiscal Year Guidelines For The Submission of Highway SafM Proposals and Applications Under United States Department Of Transportation Highway Safety 402 Funds: Federal Program Number 20.600 o List of Transportation Safety Field Representatives o Application For Highway Safety Project Grant (Form TSA -10) o Annual Highway Safety Questionnaire (Form TSA -18) o Budget Projection Sheet o Submission Dates For Questionnaires and Grant Applications FISCAL YEAR 1996 GUIDELINES For the Submission of Highway Safety Proposals and Applications Under United States Department of Transportation Highway Safety 402 Funds Federal Program Number 20.600 Issued By Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Transportation Safety Administration P. 0. Box 27412 Richmond, Virginia 23269 January, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose Of This Document 1 1.2 Organization Of This Document 2 1.3 Allowable and Non -Allowable Items for 402 Funding 2 2.0 NHTSA AND FHWA PROGRAM AREAS 5 2.1 NHTSA PROGRAM AREAS 5 2.1 A OCCUPANT PROTECTION 5 2.1 B ALCOHOL IN RELATION TO HIGHWAY SAFETY 6 2.1 C TRAFFIC RECORDS 7 2.1D EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES g 2.1 E POLICE TRAFFIC SERVICES 9 2.1F PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 10 2.1G MOTORCYCLE SAFETY 11 2.2 FHWA PROGRAM AREA 12 2.2A ROADWAY SAFETY 12 3.0 COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSAL ("HIGHWAY SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE") AND THE GRAFT APPLICATION 14 3.1 Who May Submit A Proposal? 14 3.2 What Should Be Included In A Proposal? 14 3.3 Deadlines And Procedures For Proposal Submission 16 3.4 Deadlines And Procedures For Grant Application Submission 16 3.5 Procedures To Follow Once A Project Is Approved 19 3.6 Appeal Procedures If A Project Is Not Approved 19 3.7 Project Administration 20 4.0 LISTING OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY FIELD REPRESENTATIVES 21 1.0 INTRODUCTION The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) is the federal agency responsible for the promotion of highway safety activities throughout the United States. As part of its responsibility, USDOT provides federal monies (402) to states for the purpose of adopting and improving projects/programs designed to reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities on the highways within their boundaries. In Virginia, the State Highway Safety Agency is the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with the Commissioner of DMV serving as the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety. The federal funds are administered by DMV's Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) under the advice of the Virginia Transportation Safety Board, appointed by the Governor and are provided to state agencies and political subdivisions of the state for the development and continuation of highway safety projects. At the onset of the federal fiscal year (October 1 through September 30), monies are apportioned by the U.S. Congress to each state for the purpose of funding individual highway safety projects. The amount of money available each year varies and is, in part, determined through the submission to USDOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of an annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP) by the individual states. Virginia's HSP identifies the state's traffic safety problems and describes the programs and projects that propose to correct these problems. Submitted annually on August 1, Virginia's HSP is developed through the analysis of Highway Safety Questionnaires and Budget Projection Sheets submitted by state agencies and local political subdivisions and associated highway safety data. The Questionnaires specify a program plan for addressing a highway safety problem. Budget Projection Sheets specify anticipated costs in excess of available funds to support the plan. 1.1 Purpose Of This Document It is the intent of this document to solicit highway safety project proposals from State Agencies and Political Subdivisions of the state. The federal program areas for which funds are available and proposals are being solicited are enumerated and defined in Section 2 of this document. Information presented in the proposals will be considered in the preparation of Virginia's Highway Safety Plan (HSP) to be submitted to USDOT by DMV/TSA. In these guidelines, information is presented that will: (1) assist applicants in identifying projects to be proposed for consideration; and, (2) direct applicants in the preparation of their proposals. (3) Provide an outline of items that are fundable using federal 402 funds. 1.2 Organization Of This Document Section 2 of the document (NHTSA AND FHWA PROGRAM AREAS) identifies the federal program areas under the statutory provisions of NHTSA and FHWA for which federal funds are available. (NOTE: Proposals that do not fall within the federal program areas will require extensive justification and direct approval by USDOT prior to consideration for funding.) Section 3 (COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSAL ["HIGHWAY SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE"] AND THE GRANT APPLICATION) specifies the procedures for submitting proposals and grant applications to DMV. Appropriate forms are provided as separate enclosures. Section 4 (LISTING OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY FIELD REPRESENTATIVES) provides a listing of DMV'S Transportation Safety Field Representatives, their addresses and telephone numbers, and political subdivisions within their Districts. 1.3 Listing Of Items Allowable or Unallowable For 402 Funding A. Facilities 1. The cost of land is not allowable. 2. The cost of construction or reconstruction of driving ranges, towers, and skid pads are not allowable. 3. Costs are not allowable for construction, rehabilitation, remodeling, or office urnishings and fixtures for state, local, or private buildings. B. Equipment 1. Cost of major equipment (equipment costing over $5,000.00) purchases or replacement equipment must be an integral part of the highway safety plan and are only allowable through specific prior approval of the NHTSA Regional Administrator. 2. Traffic radar and other speed measuring devices and costs for recertification of such devices are allowable. 3. Alcohol/drug testing devices and costs for recertification of such devices are allowable. 2 4. Cost of ambulances are only allowable under the following requirements: A. 402 funding shall not exceed 25 percent unless there is supporting documentation outlining a higher percentage of usage for highway safety. B. Equipped in accordance with the essential equipment recommended by the American College of Surgeons. C. Contain space for (2) patients and 60 inch headroom for EMTs. D. Manned by a minimum of one basic level EMT. E. Sufficient exterior vehicle lighting for identification as an ambulance. 5. Purchase of both fixed and portable truck scales are not allowable. 6. Traffic signal preemption systems are not allowable. C. Travel 1. International travel is only allowable with prior written approval. 2. Costs are not allowable for states that pay expenses of out-of-state individuals when such expenses are not for specific services or benefits of the paying state. D. Training 1. Costs of training are allowable when approved as an integral component of the highway safety plan. 2. Costs of training courses are allowable when using DOT-NHTSA developed, equivalent, or endorsed curricula. 3. Development costs of new training curricula and materials are allowable if they will not duplicate materials already developed for similar purposes by DOT/NHTSA or by other states. 4. Costs are not allowable to pay an employee's salary while pursuing training or to pay the salary of the employee's replacement, except where the employee's salary is supported with highway safety funds under an approved project. 3 E. Public Communications 1. Purchase of program advertising space in the mass communication media are no allowable. 2. Costs of preparation of materials for public service use is allowable. 3. Costs are allowable for leasing of conference/convention exhibit and display spaces for public information and education purposes. 4. Costs associated with planning, purchase, printing and distribution of public information materials arela lowable when it is an integral part of an approved highway safety plan. F. Program Administration 1. Funds are only allowable to finance P&A activities attributable to NHTSA activities. 2. Costs are allowable for highway safety consultant or personnel from non-government organizations/individuals for specific services or products if in accordance with State procurement procedures. 3. Costs are allowable to support promotional activities or give-away specialty items to influence the general public to adopt highway safety practices if in accordance with state statues and policies. 4. Funds are allowable in support of police directed operations to uncover unlawful practices associated with minimum drinking age laws. ii 2.0 NHTSA AND FHWA PROGRAM AREAS This section of the document identifies the NHTSA and FHWA Program Areas for which proposals are being solicited for federal funding. The objective of each Program Area is stated with accompanying examples of fundable projects. Applicants are encouraged to become familiar with each Program Area before preparing proposals and grant applications. NHTSA Program Areas are presented in Section 2.1. Section 2.2 presents FHWA Program Areas. 2.1 NHTSA PROGRAM AREAS 2.1A OCCUPANT PROTECTION OBJECTIVE: To initiate programs and activities that will contribute to an increased usage of occupant protection devices (i.e., Safety Belts, Airbags and Child Safety Seats). EXAMPLES -OF FUNDABLE COMPONENTS: Management - (Coordinator, other personnel) Child Restraint Programs - (Loaner/rental programs, enforcement, and public information/education) Corporate/Employer Programs - (Incentives and public information/education) Community Programs - (Child restraints, corporate/employer, preschool/ school age, enforcement, and public information/education) Enforcement - (Training, equipment, operations, and public information/education) Survey - (Opinion, observation, and accident reports) PROGRAM COMPONENT EVALUATION MEASURES: A. Fatalities and injuries (except pedestrian and motorcycle/bicycle). Head injuries and fatalities related to occupant usage and non -usage. B. Occupant protection usage for children and adults. C. Child Restraint and Corporate Employer Programs - Number and types of programs (loaner, rental, etc.) and percent of target population being reached by program. 5 2.113 ALCOHOL IN RELATION TO HIGHWAY SAFETY OBJECTIVE: To broaden the scope and number of activities directed toward reducing traffic accident loss arising in whole or in part from persons driving under the influence of alcohol. EXAMPLES OF FUNDABLE COMPONENTS: Management - (Coordinator, other personnel) Enforcement - (Training, equipment, operations, and public information/education) Prosecution - (Training and equipment) Adjudication - (Training and equipment) Screening/Referral/Probation - (Training, equipment, and driver licensing) Prevention/Intervention - (Training, equipment, and public information/education) Public Information/Education - (Media materials and personnel) EXAMPLES OFF PROGRAM EVALUATION MEASURES: A. Alcohol-related fatal and injury crashes. B. Nighttime fatal and injury crashes, e.g., 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. C. Community Programs - Number and comprehensive of program and number and percent of target population being reached by program. D. Enforcement - Number and percent of officers trained, units of equipment, total DUI arrests, DUI arrests per shift/unit/hour, 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. weekdays, weekends, other hours. E. Percent of licensed drivers arrested for DUI, and total processing time per arrest. 2.1C TRAFFIC RECORDS OBJECTIVE: Develop a systematic process that has the goal of reducing the number and severity of traffic crashes by ensuring that all opportunities to improve highway safety are identified, considered, implemented as appropriate, and evaluated in all phases of highway planning, design, maintenance, operations, and by providing information for selecting and implementing effective highway safety strategies and projects. EXAMPLES �F FUNDABLE COMPONENTS: Management - (Coordinator, other personnel) New Technology - (Software development, surveys, personnel, equipment, studies, and travel) Personnel - (Training, travel, maintenance of existing equipment and software) Public information/education - (Personnel and media materials) EXAMPLES OF PROGRAM EVALUATIONS MEASURES: A. Number of personnel trained, type of training and cost per individual. B. Units and type of equipment purchased, purpose of equipment. C. Type of study/survey and study/survey results. D. Agencies participating in project. E. Number and types of materials distributed, frequency of distribution, public knowledge, number and percent of target population receiving messages. 7 2.1 D EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES OBJECTIVE: To develop methods of responding to accidents and transporting persons injured on Virginia's highways and developing automated systems to assist in identification and solutions of highway safety related problems. EXAMPLES OF FUNDABLE COMPONENTS: Management - (Coordinator, other personnel) Personnel - (Training) Equipment - (Communications, ambulances, and helicopters) EXAMPLES OFF PROGRAM EVALUATION MEASURES: A. Fatalities/injury ratio. B. Average response time from accident scene to dispatch, dispatch to emergency unit, emergency unit to accident scene and accident scene to hospital. C. Emergency Medical Coverage - number of types of units, units per population and units per square mile. D. Number and type of communication equipment, coverage as a percent of area served by system. E. Number and categories of personnel, development and implementation of an EMS plan. F. Costs per fatality/injury averted, average cost of each EMS response, cost per type of EMS unit, and cost per category of EMT trained. 2.1 E POLICE TRAFFIC SERVICES OBJECTIVE: To increase safety on Virginia's highways through selective enforcement, training, equipment and programs. EXAMPLES OF FUNDABLE COMPONENTS: Enforcement - (Training, equipment, detection/testing devices, operations, and management personnel) Public Information/Education - (Personnel and media materials) EXAMPLES QF PROGRAM EVALUATION MEASURES: A. Fatality and injury crashes. B. Average BAC levels and average speeds. C. Number and percent of police officers trained, units of equipment, arrests per shift/unit/hour (by type, e.g., DUI, speeding, etc.), percent of DUI arrests where BAC determined. D. Number and types of materials being distributed, frequency of distribution, public knowledge, attitudes about programs, and number and percent of target population receiving message. E. Cost per fatality/injury averted, average cost per arrest, average cost per person trained, cost per type of public information/education materials distributed. 9 2.1 F PEDESTRIAN SAFETY OBJECTIVE: To enhance safety initiatives in Virginia by focusing on the identification of pedestrian safety problems in jurisdictions and the subsequent development and implementation of solutions. EXAMPLES OF FUNDABLE COMPONENTS: Enforcement - (Personnel, equipment, operations, studies/surveys and programs) Public Information/Education - (Personnel and materials) EXAMPLES OF PROGRAM EVALUATION MEASURES: A. Pedestrian fatalities and injuries. B. Number and types of programs and percent of target population being reached by programs. C. Number of arrests per unit by time and type of violations. D. Number and types of educational programs, number and types of materials distributed, frequency of distribution, public knowledge and attitudes about program, and number and percent of target population receiving messages. 10 2.1G MOTORCYCLE SAFETY OBJECTIVE: Under the new Surface Transportation Appropriations afety has been designated as one of the areasta en'eed ocadd address. Theycle majorpurpose of this area is to assure that motorcycle operators and their passengers meet standards which contribute to safe operation and protection from injuries. EXAMPLES OF FUNDABLE COMPONENTS: Training - (Train riders, equipment, and management) Public Information/Education - (Media materials and personnel) EXAMPLES OF PROGRAM EVALUATION MEASURES: A. Motorcycle fatalities and injuries, motorcycle head injuries and fatalities. B. Motorcycle helmet usage. C. Type of education course, number trained for each educational program, and percent of target population trained. D. Number and types of materials distributed, frequency of distribution, public knowledge and attitudes about program, and number and percent of target population reached. E. Cost per motorcycle fatality/injury averted, cost per head injury and head injury fatality averted, cost per rider trained by program type, cost per type of public information/educational materials distributed. 11 2.2 FHWA PROGRAM AREA 2.2A ROADWAY SAFETY QBJECTIVE: To accurately identify specific locations/sections of streets and highways that have high or potentially high accident experience, as a basis for establishing priorities for improvement, selective enforcement, or other operational practices that will eliminate or reduce the hazards at the location/section identified. EXAMPLES OF FUNDABLE PROJECTS: Develop/improve computerized accident locator and surveillance systems Identify, investigate, and evaluate intersections or sections of highway with high accident rates and develop a program to reduce hazards Create multidisciplinary teams to: (1) Investigate accidents in order to determine those designs and operating features with which high accident frequencies or severities are associated; and, (2) To make recommendations for implementation based on findings in (1) above. Innovative programs designed to address identified problems in the areas of identification and surveillance of accident locations, highway design, and construction and maintenance; Railroad Grade Crossing - Inventory and study the feasibility of upgrading; determine deficiencies, identify hazards, and develop corrective measures Lighting - inventory, evaluate, determine deficiencies, and develop upgrading program and lighting policies Fixed Objects And Roadside Hazards - -- Study single vehicle/fixed object accidents and develop corrective measures -- Develop guidelines for urban streets relating to fixed object placement and accident potential -- Identify high and potentially high fixed object accident locations and recommend countermeasures -- Conduct roadside hazard inspection to develop severity index for establishment of priorities for improvement -- Provide Training In Highway Safety -Related Design -- Studies of selected highway corridors 12 Skid Resistance - Study skid resistance of streets/highways and establish priorities for improving skid resistance Engineering and accident evaluation studies Replacement parts for impact attenuators (one-time purchase for each installation) inventory, inspection and classification of bridges off the state system Training of traffic engineers/engineering technicians at short courses/seminars in safety-related curricula Studies of pedestrian -vehicle conflicts at selected intersections with recommendations for increased control Innovative programs designed to address identified problems in the area of traffic engineering services Equipment such as traffic counters etc., Directly related to inventories and studies Inventory traffic control devices in a locality, establish needs and deficiencies, and establish improvement program including preventive maintenance Traffic engineering study of signalized intersections in localities to determine improvements that can be implemented to increase safety Upgrading of warning and regulatory signs off federal aid system to conform with approved standards Studies of selected intersections in a locality to determine where signal installations might contribute to increased safety Automation of recordkeeping and data retrieval procedures for inventory traffic control devices 13 3.0 COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSAL ("HIGHWAY SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE") AND THE GRANT APPLICATION This section addresses the following topics and explains the policies and procedures associated with each: o Who May Submit A Proposal? o What To Include In A Proposal o Deadlines For Submission Of Proposal o Deadlines For Submission Of Grant Application o Procedures To Follow Once A Project Is Approved o Appeal Procedures If A Project Is Not Funded o Project Administration 3.1 Who May Submit A Proposal? Proposals are solicited from the following organizations: 0- Political Subdivisions of The Commonwealth of Virginia (i.e., cities, towns, counties, and any subunit of government); o State Agencies 3.2 What Should Be Included In A Proposal? Enclosed with this document is the ANNUAL HIGHWAY SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE (Form TSA -18) AND THE ACCOMPANYING BUDGET PROJECTIONS SHEET (Form TSA -10). The Questionnaire and Budget Projection Sheet are considered as a proposal once they have been completed and submitted to DMV/TSA. Instructions for their completion are included with the Questionnaire and the Budget Projection Sheet. The completion and submission of the Questionnaire and Budget Projection is considered the initial step in the application process and is required before grant applications are submitted to DMV/TSA for funding consideration. Applicants are encouraged to adhere to the following guidelines in preparing the Questionnaire: o Use statistical data rather than intuition in the problem identification; identify the problem in quantifiable, measurable terms; ideally, three years of baseline data documenting the extent of the problem should be provided; EXAMPLE: During the three year period from 1988 through 1990, Anytown, Virginia, experienced a 10 percent increase in alcohol-related fatalities on its highways (from 50 fatalities in 1988 to 55 in 1990). 14 o In your proposed solution, specify the activities you intend to accomplish which will help to solve the problem; EXAMPLE: (1) Conduct sobriety checkpoints monthly on highways where alcohol-related fatalities occur most frequently. (2) Conduct public information campaign monthly on effects of drinking and driving through print and electronic media. o State the goal of the project in quantifiable, measurable terms and relate the goals to your proposed solution and identified problem; EXAMPLE: Through the use of public information and sobriety checkpoints, reduce by "x" percent the fatality figure (55) in Anytown for 1991. o Specify (1) the cost to your agency/political subdivision, (2) the amount of federal funds requested, and (3) the total of both amounts; the Budget Projection Sheet must be completed to show the Line items associated with these costs. o You are provided space for three proposals on the Questionnaire; if you are submitting a request for more than one project, list your requests in DESCENDING ORDER OF PRIORITY. 15 3.3 Deadlines And Procedures For Proposal Submission of Questionnaire and Budget Projection Sheet STATE AGENCIES The Questionnaire and Budget Projection Sheet are due into DMV no later than March 31. State Agencies are directed to submit their completed Questionnaires and Budget Projections to: Reporting and Evaluation Manager Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Room 406 P. O. Box 27412 Richmond, Virginia 23269-0001 POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS Questionnaires and Budget Projection Sheets from Political Subdivisions are due into Transportation Safety Field Representative no later than March 31 and are to be submitted in accordance with the following procedures: o Submit both WHITE and YELLOW COPIES of the Questionnaire and the original Budget Projection Sheet to the Transportation Safety Field Representative in your District (Reference Section 4.0 for a listing of Coordinators in your political subdivision) no later than March 31; o Retain PINK COPY of the Questionnaire and a duplicated copy of the Budget Projection Sheet for your records: o Coordinators will submit WHITE COPY of the Questionnaire and the original Budget Projection Sheet to Transportation Planner, DMV/TSA Headquarters, no later than April 15. 3.4 Deadlines And Procedures for Grant Application Submission Enclosed with this document is the formal APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT (Form TSA -10). STATE AGENCIES State agencies are directed to submit their Applications no later than June 1 to: Programs -Manager Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Room 405 P. O. Box 27412 Richmond, Virginia 23269-0001 POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS Political Subdivisions are directed to submit their Applications to the Transportation Safety Field Representative in their Districts for review no later than June 1 . The Representatives will submit applications to Program Manager, DMV/TSA Headquarters, no later than June 17. Special attention should be paid to the Instructions on page 4 of the Application. Applications that do not meet the following criteria will receive less favorable consideration for funding than those that more closely meet the criteria: o Precise definition of ,She highway safety problem (1) The problem should be defined in highway safety terms, such as "crashes" or some other direct or indirect measure of the highway safety problem; (2) The problem should be stated in quantifiable terms; (3) Three years of data should be provided as documentation of the extent and duration of the problem; (4) In applications addressing crashes, the statistics should reflect crash severity and not just total crashes; (5) Problem definition should describe the current level of activity that is ongoing - e.g., applications for enforcement should specify the current number of patrol officers; (6) If the application is for a support function (e.g., training), the specific problem must be stated in a manner that indicates that training is not available and is needed; (7) For Impact Projects (e.g., selective enforcement), applicants must state specific locations at which crashes occur; the establishment of priorities through the identification of high accident locations is essential and resources are expected to be targeted to these locations; (8) Accurate information, specifically addresses project funding year and dates for duration of project. o Quantifiable, measurable, clearly -stated Proiect objectives (1) Objectives should be measurable and attainable; (2) Objectives should relate directly to the identified problem and proposed solution. 17 o Description of the proposed solution in sequential and logical time -frames, with performance indicators and estimated costs specified (1) All tasks directed toward problem resolution should be stated in the order in which they will occur; (2) An anticipated completion date for each task should be specified; (3) Each project task should be accompanied by an estimate of associated costs; (4) Cost estimates should be realistic and practical; (5) The methods for measuring task completion should be specified; (6) Performance indicators should be expressed in terms of the identified problems; (7) Selected speed enforcement projects should include some indicator of arrests per patrol hour or arrests per licensed drivers; (8) DUI selective enforcement projects should include some indicator of arrests per patrol hour or arrests per licensed drivers. o A plan fQr cost assumption pf the project by to state agency/political subdivision (1) A plan for long-term support of the project when 402 funds are exhausted should be specified; (2) Indicators of cost assumption include, among others, hard match and local/state funding of staff once 402 funds are exhausted. o A description of how the proposed proiect fits into the total highway safety problem experienced by the state agency/political subdivision (1) The project should include a description of a complete program or an indication that the project is one phase in the creation of a complete program; (2) Complete programs are suggested by user groups for traffic records projects, integration with existing programs, development of a complete long-term program, and establishment of a coordinator position; public information campaigns and multiple countermeasures are indicators of a broad programmatic approach; (3) The project should be large enough to represent a meaningful assault on the highway safety problem; (4) If a project is in the comprehensive community-based area, there must be an agreement to cooperate actively with other projects in the area. o Project designed SQ lend i self to an administrative evaluation. (1) The measurement of actual tasks compared with planned levels of performance established for that task should be possible; (2) The assessment of unit cost and other aspects of operational efficiency should be possible; (3) Achievements/results made possible by the use of Federal Highway Safbty Funds should be clearly stated. r: State Agencies and Political Subdivisions are directed to adhere to the following procedures when submitting Applications: o A total of three Applications will be submitted(one with original signatures and two photocopies of original); o A Letter of Approval from the Transportation Safety Commission listing the last four meeting dates should be attached to the Applications (Applicable to Political Subdivisions only). Applicants from Political Subdivisions are advised to contact their appropriate Transportation Safety Field Representative for additional copies of applications; State Agencies should contact the Programs Manager at DMV Headquarters for additional copies. 3.5 Procedures To Follow Once A Project Is Approved Applicants will be notified in writing by DMV as to the status of their applications subsequent to the September Transportation Safety Board meeting. If a Project is approved for funding, the following criteria are applicable: o Project is funded for one year duration only; o A DMV Safety Project Agreement must be executed prior to expenditure of funds; o Written approval from the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety or his designee (DMV Commissioner) must be received before expenditure of funds; o All public information released in respect to a federal highway safety grant must be coordinated with DMV's Public Information Office. o Political subdivisions receiving at least $25,000 in federal funds from any sources will be required to follow the provisions of the Single Audit Act. o State agencies and political subdivisions must have a mandatory on the job seat belt use policy. 3.6 Appeal Procedures If A Project Is Not Approved If a Project is not approved for funding by the Transportation Safety Board, the applicant will be notified in writing by DMV. STATE AGENCIES Applicants may appeal the decision within 30 days of the date of notification. Requests for appeals should be in writing and submitted to DMV's Deputy Commissioner for Transportation Safety, at DMV Headquarters. Wo: POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS Applicants may appeal the decision within 30 days of the date of notification. Requests for appeals should be written and submitted to the Transportation Safety Field Representative for the Subdivision's District. 3.7 Project Administration The following guidelines apply to the administration of funded projects: o A Project Monitoring Report must be completed by the Project Director and Transportation Safety Field Representative (Political Subdivisions) and submitted to DMV/TSA Headquarters by April 30, July 31, October 31; o The Project Director is responsible for supplying and insuring that all records and documents are maintained to insure proper reimbursement and to establish audit trails; o The Project Director is responsible for insuring that the project is proceeding according to plans and is on schedule; o Funds may be expended by the State Agency/Political Subdivision upon receipt of approval; Monthly reimbursement vouchers should be prepared by the Project Director and submitted to the Transportation Safety Field Representative (Political Subdivisions) or DMV's Programs Manager (State Agencies); o Transportation Safety Commissions (Political Subdivisions) must meet four times annually. WE 4.0 LISTING OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY FIELD REPRESENTATIVES District 1 CTSP Supervisor DMV/Wytheville 800 East Main Street Wytheville, VA 24382 (703) 228-8698 COUNTIES TOWNS: Bland Buchanan Carroll Dickenson Floyd Giles Grayson Lee Abingdon Appalachia Big Stone Gap Blacksburg Bluefield Cedar Bluff Chilhowie Christiansburg Cleveland Clinchport Clintwood Coeburn Damascus Dublin Duffield Dungannon Montgomery Pulaski Russell Scott Smyth Tazewell Washington Wise Wythe Floyd Fries Gate City Glade Spring Glen Lyn Grundy Haysi Hillsville Honaker Independence Jonesville Lebanon Marion Narrows Nickelsville Pearisburg 21 Transportation Safety Commissions 21 Transportation Safety Coordinator DMV/Galax 968 E. Stuart Drive Galax, VA 24333 (703) 236-0520 CITIES Pembroke Pennington Gap Pocahontas Pound Pulaski Rich Creek Richlands Rural Retreat St. Charles St. Paul Saltville Tazewell Troutdale Weber City Wise Wytheville Bristol Galax Norton Radford District 2 CTSP Supervisor Fincastle DMV/Roanoke Amherst Crossroads Mall Ridgeway 5010 Airport Road NW Roanoke, VA 24012-1627 Rocky Mount (703) 561-7408 Gretna COUNTIES: Alleghany Franklin CITIES: Amherst Halifax Appomattox Henry Bath Patrick Bedford Pittsylvania Botetourt Roanoke Campbell Rockbridge Charlotte Craig Pamplin TOWNS: Altavista Fincastle Phenix Amherst Glasgow Ridgeway Appomattox Goshen Rocky Mount Boones Mill Gretna Scottsburg Brookneal Halifax Stuart Buchanan Hurt Troutville Charlotte Courthouse Iron Gate Vinton Chatham Keysville Virgilina Clover New Castle Drakes Branch Pamplin 27 Transportation Safety Commissions 22 Bedford Buena Vista Clifton Forge Covington Danville Lexington Lynchburg Martinsburg Roanoke Salem South Boston District 3 Transportation Safety Coordinator DMV/Waynesboro 998 Hopeman Parkway - P.O. Box 985 Waynesboro, VA 22980 (703) 949-7584 COUNTIES: Towns: 24 Albermarle Augusta Clarke Culpeper Fauquier Frederick Greene Highland Madison Berryville Boyce Bridgewater Broadway Craigsville Dayton Edinburg Elkton Front Royal Gordonsville Grottoes Luray Nelson Orange Page Rappahannock Rockingham Shenandoah Spotsylvania Stafford Warren Madison Middletown Monterey Mt. Crawford Mt. Jackson New Market Orange Remington Scottsville Shenandoah Stanardsville Stanley Transportation Safety Commissions 23 CITIES: Charlottesville Fredericksburg Harrisonburg Staunton Waynesboro Winchester Stephens City Strasburg The Plains Timberville Toms Brook Warrenton Washington Woodstock District 4 CTSP Supervisor DMV/Franconia 6306 Grovedale Drive Alexandria, VA 22310 (703) 313-9443 COUNTIES: Arlington CITIES: Alexandria Fairfax Fairfax Loudoun Falls Church Prince William Manassas Manassas Park TOWNS: Clifton Hillsboro Purcellville Dumfries Leesburg Quantico Hamilton Lovettsville Round Hill Haymarket Middleburg Vienna Herndon Occoquan 9 Transportation Safety Commissions 24 District 5 CTSP Supervisor DMV/Chesterfield 610 Johnston -Willis Drive Richmond, Va 23236 (804) 378-3425 COUNTIES: TOWNS: 37 Amelia Brunswick Buckingham Caroline Charles City Chesterfield Cumberland Dinwiddie Essex Fluvanna Goochland Greensville Hanover Henrico King George King Willam King & Queen Lancaster Louisa Alberta Ashland Blackstone Bowling Green Boydton Brodnax Burkeville Chase City Claremont Clarksville Colonial Beach Columbia Crewe Culpeper Lunenburg Mecklenburg Middlesex New Kent Northumberland Nottoway Powhatan Prince Edward Prince George Richmond Surry Sussex Westmoreland Dendron Dillwyn Farmville Irvington Jarratt Kenbridge Kilmarnock La Crosse Lawrenceville Louisa McKenney Mineral Montross Port Royal Transportation Safety Commissions 25 CITIES: Colonial Heights Emporia Hopewell Petersburg Richmond South Hill Stony Creek Surry Tappahannock Urbanna Victoria Wakefield Warsaw Waverly West Point White Stone District 6 CTSP Supervisor DMV/Virginia Beach 3551 Buckner Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23456 (804) 363-3930/3929 COUNTIES: Accomack Gloucester Isle of Wight James City Mathews Northampton Southampton York TOWNS: Accomac Belle Haven Bloxom Boykins Branchville Cape Charles Capron Cheriton Chincoteaque Transportation Safety Coordinator DMV/Virginia Beach 3551 Buckner Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23456 (804) 363-3923/3929 CITIES: Chesapeake Franklin Hampton Newport News Norfolk Poquoson Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach Williamsburg Courtland Onancock Eastville Onley Exmore Painter Hallwood Parksley Ivor Saxis Keller Smithfield Melfa Tangier Nassowadox Wachapreague Newsoms Windsor 18 Transportation Safety Commissions 26 ITEM #3 SPECIAL REPORT ON 1994 HIGHWAY FATALITIES IN VIRGINIA Included under this agenda item is information pertaining to highway fatalities in the state of Virginia. This information indicates that Frederick County ranked 25th in the number of fatal traffic accidents out of the 136 counties and independent cities in Virginia. The final page of this report provides recommendations that may be implemented by Frederick County to reduce the amount of lost lives involved in automotive accidents. COMMON WE. LTH a f VIRQ11NIA Department of Motor Vehicles COMMISSIONER RICHARD B 2300 West BroadStreet SONER January 20, 1995 %WL ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 27412 RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 2326 0001 TO: All Virginia Chief Law Enforcement Officers, Local Transportation Safety Commissions and Recipients of Crash Investigation Team Reports. FROM: Crash Investigation Teao,,,.L?-+ `� r<� SUBJECT: Special Report on 1994 Preliminary Highway Fatalities One of the primary goals of the Department of Motor Vehicles is to help promote transportation safety throughout the Commonwealth. To assist in this goal and for your information, we have compared significant fatal highway statistics for 1994 versus 1993. Although this information only sheds light on some aspects of crash causation, it does reflect some of the general trend analyses which might be useful in a remedial attempt to prevent future crashes from occurring. This data is presented for your consideration and to be used for any actions you feel are appropriate. Preliminary 1994 highway fatality statistics indicate that 50 more deaths occurred on the Commonwealth's roadways than in 1993. This tragic loss of2255 lives represents a 5.7% increase over the 875 highway deaths reported in 1993. The last year in which more than 900 deaths occurred in Virginia was 1991 when 938 persons lost their lives on Virginia's roadways. However, because 1994 traffic volumes increased by about 3 %, the "mileage death rate" per 100 million vehicle miles traveled was 1.36 vs 1.34 in 1993. This represents the third lowest mileage death rate in Virginia's history. In an historical perspective, the 875 highway deaths reported during 1993 were the second lowest recorded in Virginia in 31 years. Therefore, an increase in 1994 was not totally unexpected. However, it is significant to note that it was not until September 20, 1994, that Virginia first experienced an increase over 1993's figures. As late as June, 1994, highway fatalities were 40 below this same date for 1993. The most noteworthy highway fatality comparisons between 1994 and 1993 include: The 16-20 year-old age group is up 45%. 146 young adults were killed in highway crashes during 1994; whereas, 101 died in 1993. 65% of the fatalities 1 A Partnership With the Public in this age group were unbelted. Alcohol use by 16-20 year-olds was reported in 21 % of the fatal crashes. While the 16-20 year-olds comprise only about 6% of Virginia's licensed drivers, they were involved in 16% of the total reported fatal crashes. Remarkably, male fatalities are over -represented in these statistics; 71 % of the youth deaths aged 16-20 were males. Interstate deaths are up 17%. The 144 reported interstate deaths (vs the 123 in 1993) represents the highest ever reported in Virginia. The next highest number was 137 in 1988, the first year the speed limit on rural interstate highways was raised to 65 mph. Non -interstate deaths rose by 3.7% in 1994 to 780 from the 752 reported in 1993. 467 motor vehicle occupants who lost their lives in 1994 were not wearing safety belts. This represents 65% of the total occupants killed and is 35 more than in 1993 when 432 or 71 % of the total occupant fatalities were not belted. Non -Virginia residents killed on Virginia highways during 1994 increased by 33% over 1993. The 139 deaths represent nearly 15% of the total highway deaths in 1994 compared to 14% during 1993. Interestingly, nearly 49% of the total interstate fatalities occurring in Virginia in 1994 were out-of-state motorists. The number of fatalities for children under the age of four riding in motor vehicles doubled during 1994. Of the 18 children who died, 10 were not secured in approved child safety seats. The remaining 8 were in child safety seats; however, at least 3 (and possibly more) were improperly secured. Recent studies indicate that as many as 90% of children riding in child safety seats are not properly secured. The 18 children who died represent the highest number killed during any single year since the passage of the child safety seat law in 1983. (The second highest year was in 1990 when 16 child occupants died in highway crashes.) Fatal crashes are up by 4% over 1993, 824 vs 792. However, one of the most lethal types of crashes, those with fixed objects (usually as a result of run -off -the - road mishaps) are up by nearly 23%. Alcohol related fatal crashes dropped by 18% in 1994 to 288 verses 352 in 1993. However, the total of all highway fatalities resulting from alcohol use still remains high, estimated at about 45 % of a1 highway fatalities. Pedestrians and motorcycle deaths dropped in 1994 by 13% and 6%, respectively. Bicycle deaths rose by 36% (19 vs 14 fatalities). The 149 - pedestrians, motorcycle and bicycle deaths reported in 1994 represent 16% of the total highway deaths; whereas, during 1993, this category represented about 18% of the total reported deaths. Pickup/van and large truck occupant deaths accounted for 26% of the total highway deaths in 1994 versus 23% in 1993. Large truck occupant deaths, however, increased by nearly 85% over 1993 (24 vs 13). Fatal highway crashes involving large trucks during 1994 increased 27% (to 116 from 91 occurring in 1993). Also, fatal crashes involving large trucks represent 15% of all reported fatal crashes during 1994, up from 12% in 1993. One of the most significant findings in the analysis is that nearly 58% of all the reported fatal crashes occurred in 30 of the 136 jurisdictions reporting. Also, these localities accounted for 56% of Virginia's total fatali ' . As can be seen from the accompanying graphics, most of these locations are of high vehicular density and/or interstate areas which shows a high correlation between traffic volumes and crashes. The most remarkable violations occurring in the 1994 fatal crashes were exceeding speed limits, driving too fast for conditions, driver inattention, failure to yield the right of way, and disregard for traffic signs/signals. October was the deadliest month for 1994 when 116 motorists died on Virginia highways. Saturday, August 27 and Sunday, November 6 were the two deadliest days during 1995. 10 motorists died on each of these days. Of Virginia's neighboring states, all but two experienced decreases in highway fatalities between 1994 and 1993. Virginia had the largest increase of any of these states. Preliminary nationwide totals (through November) for 1994 indicate a nationwide dr .p in highway fatalities between 1994 and 1993. Total Deaths (1993 vs 1994) States Surrounding Virginia 3 1993 1994 (Difference) Percent Change North Carolina 1384 1408 (+24) + 1.7% Tennessee 1170 1188 (+18) + 1.5% Maryland 672 651 (-21) -3.1% Pennsylvania 1530 1424 (-106) - 6.9% Kentucky 871 774 (-97) -11.1% West Virginia 429 355 (-74) -17.1% Virginia 875 925 (+50) + 5.7% Total USA (Jan -Nov) 33,490 38,030 (-460) L-1.2% 3 Virginia Localities With Highest Reported Fatal CRASHES First Second Third Fourth Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter TOTAL Percent 94/93 94/93 94/93 94/93 94/93 Change Fairfax Rockingham 13 1 9 3 1 1 16 14 16 19 20 15 65 57 + 14� 2 4 10 3 9 2 24 10 +140% Va. Beach City 5 5 11 7 3 8 4 10 23 30 - 23% Henrico 4 6 9 4 4 6 6 4 21 20 + 5% Prince William 5 6 8 5 2 3 5 3 20 17 + 18% Chesterfield 5 3 3 2 3 2 7 0 18 7 +157% Montgomery 2 4 4 3 2 1 10 1 3 18 11 + 64% Norfolk City 2 4 5 5 7 6 4 8 18 23 - 22% Louisa 5 2 2 1 6 1 4 1 17 5 +240% Mecklenburg 2 1 1 2 7 1 6 2 16 6 +167% Fauquier 5 1 2 1 5 3 3 4 15 9 + 67% Hanover 4 2 3 5 7 3 1 2 15 12 + 25% Spotsylvania 0 1 3 6 8 4 3 5 14 16 - 13% Accomack 1 1 4 2 5 4 3 1 13 8 + 63% Albemarle 0 1 6 5 4 5 3 3 13 14 - 7% Brunswick 2 5 5 4 3 2 3 2 13 13 0 Pittsylvania 1 2 7 3 3 4 2 4 13 13 0 Suffolk City 2 5 1 3 4 0 6 2 13 10 + 30% Chesapeake City 3 1 4 6 2 4 4 3 13 14 - 7% Richmond City 7 7 0 1 1 3 4 6 12 17 - 29% Franklin 5 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 12 8 + 50% Henry ? 2 2 1 3 5 5 7 12 15 - 20% Southampton 1 4 4 2 3 3 2 2 10 it - 9% Caroline 0 1 4 2 1 4 5 2 10 9 + lit Frederick 2 0 2 5 4 1 2 3 10 9 + lit Loudoun 0 1 1 3 4 5 1 2 1 10 7 + 43% Sussex 3 3 3 2 2 0 2 2 10 7 + 43% Botetourt 0 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 9 7 + 29% Prince George 2 0 2 3 1 1 4 1 9 5 + 80% Tazewell 2 3 3 3 1 5 3 3 9 14 - 36% if the localities with the highest number of DEATHS are considered, HALIFAX and WISE counties would be included in this list. V EIR(O-31s, 1A LOCIAML1 a iES VVI -Ir -His 11''HE �I NUMBER OF FATAL CRASHES (Highest to Lowest) 1. Fairfax 16. Brunswick 2. Rockingham 17. Pittsylvania N 3. Va„ Beach City 18. Suffolk City 4. Henrico 19. Chesapeake City 5. Prince William 20. Richmond City 6. Chesterfield 21. Franklin 4A V 7. Montgomery 22. Henry 8. Norfolk City 23. Southampton 9. Louisa 24. Caroline 10. Mecklenburg 25. Frederick 11. Fauquier 26. Loudoun 25 12, Hanover 27. Sussex 26 COLUMBIA OF 13. Spotsylvania 28. Botetourt 1 14. Accomack 29. Prince George 11 14. 15. Albemarle 30. Tazewell 2 5 , -1;)- 13 g)- 13 0 24 X 9 cn 15 �, WEST VIRGINIA 112mrt 4 28 6 KENTUCKY 30 7 29 21 27 8 ATLANTIC 17 16 3 OCEAN A 10 23 18 19 TENNESSEE NORTH CAROLINA U, REC®I)ATIONS Final year-end motor vehicle crash statistics which will include all reported data (including non-fatal information) will not be available for several months. Although limited, the current anlayses still reveal important trends which hopefully can be used to improve highway safety within the Com-, onwealth. Among the many ideas that can be implemented, the Crash Investigation Team recommends: 1. Individuals or^,roups concerned with high way safety should continue to inform the motoring pubic about the high number of crashes and fatalities occurring in Virginia. A high degree of awareness will foster a more positive approach to reducing highway crashes on our roadways. 2. The 30 localities incurring the highest frequencies should consider appropriate actions where necessary. These might include increased selective enforcement at certain locations, additional public information/education programs in problem areas, and possible changes in legislation. (Remaining localities within Virginia should also consider these actions in an attempt to improve transportation safety statewide.) 3. Specific problem areas such as 16-20 year-old drivers (especially male drivers), run- off-the-road un- offthe-road crash occurrences, incorrect child safety seat use and rural interstate crash rates should be targeted by appropriate authorities for needed improvement. 4. The motoring public should continually be advised to heed the basics of sound highway safety principles. Among these are: obey all speed limits; drive defensively; correctly wear safety belts at all times; stay alert and remain attentive to the driving task; don't drink and drive; and be aware of the dangers of fatigued/sleepy driving. 5. The Commonwealth of Virginia should continue to keep highway safety as a high priority and continue to communicate, educate, promote, and research safety awareness programs with other state, federal and local groups that will, hopefully, help to reduce crash frequencies and rates. * All highway statistics included data from Daily Activity Reports, Virginia Traffic Crash Facts, Fatal Accident Reporting Systems (FARS) and National Safety Council sources. 19,