C.F.R. » Title 23 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER J—HIGHWAY SAFETY › PART 924—HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

23 C.F.R. § 924.9

Planning

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The HSIP planning process shall incorporate:

(1) A process for collecting and maintaining safety data on all public roads. Roadway data shall include, at a minimum, the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements as established in § 924.17. Railway-highway crossing data shall include all fields from the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.

(2) A process for advancing the State's capabilities for safety data collection and analysis by improving the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of their safety data on all public roads.

(3) A process for updating the SHSP that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities in accordance with 23 U.S.C.148. A SHSP update shall:

(i) Be completed no later than 5 years from the date of the previous approved version;

(ii) Be developed by the State DOT in consultation with safety stakeholders;

(iii) Provide a detailed description of the update process. The update process must be approved by the FHWA Division Administrator;

(iv) Be approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible State agency official that is delegated by the Governor;

(v) Adopt performance-based goals that:

(A) Are consistent with safety performance measures established by FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; and

(B) Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;

(vi) Analyze and make effective use of safety data to address safety problems and opportunities on all public roads and for all road users;

(vii) Identify key emphasis areas and strategies that have the greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries and focus resources on areas of greatest need;

(viii) Address engineering, management, operations, education, enforcement, and emergency services elements of highway safety as key features when determining SHSP strategies;

(ix) Consider the results of State, regional, local, and tribal transportation and highway safety planning processes and demonstrate mutual consultation among partners in the development of transportation safety plans;

(x) Provide strategic direction for other State and local/tribal transportation plans, such as the HSIP, the Highway Safety Plan, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan; and

(xi) Describe the process and potential resources for implementing strategies in the emphasis areas.

(4) A process for analyzing safety data to:

(i) Develop a program of highway safety improvement projects, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of a comprehensive program of systemic and spot safety improvement projects.

(ii) Develop a Railway-Highway Crossings program that:

(A) Considers the relative risk of public railway-highway crossings based on a hazard index formula;

(B) Includes onsite inspection of public railway-highway crossings; and

(C) Results in a program of highway safety improvement projects at railway-highway crossings giving special emphasis to the statutory requirement that all public crossings be provided with standard signing and markings.

(5) A process for conducting engineering studies (such as road safety audits and other safety assessments or reviews) to develop highway safety improvement projects.

(6) A process for establishing priorities for implementing highway safety improvement projects that considers:

(i) The potential reduction in fatalities and serious injuries;

(ii) The cost effectiveness of the projects and the resources available; and

(iii) The priorities in the SHSP.

(b) The planning process of the HSIP may be financed with funds made available through 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) and 505, and, where applicable in metropolitan planning areas, 23 U.S.C. 104(d). The eligible use of the program funding categories listed for HSIP planning efforts is subject to that program's eligibility requirements and cost allocation procedures as per 2 CFR part 200.

(c) Highway safety improvement projects, including non-infrastructure safety projects, to be funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) shall be carried out as part of the Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR part 450.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1991–2010 · leading case: Hightower v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 2003 OK 45 (Okla. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hightower v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 2003 OK 45 (Okla. 2003). “" 23 C.F.R. § 924.9 (a)(4) (2002). In addition to this direction to the states, the FRSA also directs the Secretary of Transportation to "maintain a coordinated effort to develop and carry out solutions to the railroad grade crossing problem.”
Nancy Armijo, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Luz Armijo, Deceased v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 87 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 1996). “23 C.F.R. § 924.9 (a)(4) (1995). For all railroad grade crossings, the regulations require the states to use warning devices conforming with the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (hereafter “the Manual”).”
Hatfield v. Burlington N. R.R., 757 F. Supp. 1198 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 2× “” 23 C.F.R. § 924.9 (a)(4). In addition, to establish such priorities the program is to consider, among other things, “[t]he relative hazard of public railroad-highway grade crossings based on a hazard index formula.”
Long v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 916 So. 2d 87 (La. 2005). “23 C.F.R. § 924.9 and 23 C.F.R. § 924.13 .”
Long v. State Ex Rel. Dotd, 916 So. 2d 87 (La. 2005). “23 C.F.R. § 924.9 and 23 C.F.R. § 924.13 .”
Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R., 110 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (E.D. Ark. 2000). “See 23 C.F.R. § 924.9 (a)(4). Other regulations require States to use warning devices that conform to standards set out in the FHWA’s Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”).”
Gendler v. Batiste, 242 P.3d 947 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “23 C.F.R. § 924.9 (a)(3)(i)(A). *950 ¶ 10 In 1987, Congress passed 23 U.”
Armijo v. Atchison, Topeka (10th Cir. 1996). “23 C.F.R. § 924.9 (a)(4) (1995). For all railroad grade crossings, the regulations require the states to use warning devices conforming with the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (hereafter "the Manual").”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.