.

Technical Report Document Page

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-11-36

2. Government Accession No.3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Analysis: A Primer for 

Safety and Environmental Professionals

5. Report Date

July 2011

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-05-D-00026-T-08-004

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA: Jennifer Warren, Office of Safety (COTM); Susan Grosser, Office of Planning

16. Abstract

This primer presents an introduction to the topic of addressing safety as part of the environment analysis 

process, as directed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It presents practitioners with basic 

concepts for including meaningful, quantitative analysis of project safety issues and for taking advantage of the 

latest tools, research, and techniques for improving road safety within a project scope. The primer highlights 

the opportunity and benefits of linking safety planning to the environmental analysis at every stage of the 

NEPA process. The primer contains the following sections:

• Considering Safety Prior to the NEPA process;

• NEPA Overview and Levels of Documentation;

• Public and Stakeholder Outreach;

• Purpose and Need Statements;

• Alternatives Analysis;

• Defining the Affected Environment; and

• Analysis of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation.

Appendix A contains related resources, including links to on-line courses, tools, and research documents 

covering topics such as the basics of the NEPA process, road safety analysis, and safety countermeasure 

selection. Appendix B contains case studies illustrating best practices in incorporating safety into the 

NEPA process.

17. Key Words

safety, NEPA, environmental assessments, 

environmental impact statements , purpose and 

need statements, alternatives analysis

18. Distribution Statement

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

85

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
.
report

Integrating Road Safety into NEPA 

Analysis

A Primer for Safety and Environmental 

Professionals

Federal Highway Administration

June 2011

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government 

assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. 

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. 

Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality

information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that 

promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and 

maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes for 

continuous quality improvement.



i

Table of Contents

Quality Assurance Statement....................................................................................i

Table of Contents.........................................................................................................i

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................. v

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... vii

Preface .....................................................................................................................ix

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Primer Organization.................................................................................. 2

1.2 Using the Primer........................................................................................ 2

2.0 NEPA Overview and Levels of Documentation........................................... 3

2.1 NEPA Overview ........................................................................................ 3

2.2 Classes of Action........................................................................................ 4

3.0 Considering Safety Before the NEPA Process.............................................. 9

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 9

3.2 Linking the NEPA Process to Safety Planning.................................... 10

3.3 Transitioning into the NEPA Process ................................................... 11

4.0 Public and Stakeholder Outreach................................................................. 13

4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 13

4.2 Scoping ...................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Who to Contact......................................................................................... 14

4.4 Questions to Ask...................................................................................... 18

5.0 Purpose and Need Statements ....................................................................... 21

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 21

5.2 Defining the Safety Problem .................................................................. 21

5.3 Considering Multimodal Safety ............................................................ 25

5.4 If Safety is Not Part of the Purpose and Need..................................... 27

5.5 Summary................................................................................................... 27
ii 

6.0 Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................... 29

6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 29

6.2 Developing Alternatives......................................................................... 29

6.3 Screening Alternatives ............................................................................ 31

7.0 Defining the Affected Environment............................................................. 35

7.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 35

7.2 Project Contexts and Safety Considerations ........................................ 35

8.0 Analysis of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation................................. 39

8.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 39

8.2 Construction Impacts .............................................................................. 40

8.3 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.......................................................... 41

8.4 Mitigation and Enhancements ............................................................... 42

8.5 Safety After the NEPA Process .............................................................. 42

A. Resources ........................................................................................................... 43

A.1 NEPA Training......................................................................................... 43

A.2 Safety Training ......................................................................................... 43

A.3 References for NEPA Regulation and Guidance................................. 44

A.4 Analytical Tools and Resources for Identifying and Addressing 

Project-Level Safety Issues...................................................................... 45

B. Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 51

B.1 Colorado DOT: East Eagle Interchange – Innovative Process for 

Including Safety in Alternatives Analysis................................................. 51

B.2 Colorado DOT: Central Park Boulevard – Safety Analysis 

Techniques.................................................................................................. 54

B.3 Washington DOT: SR 502 – Using Proven Safety Countermeasures.... 57

B.4 District of Columbia DOT: South Capitol Street – Addressing 

Safety for Multiple Modes.......................................................................... 59

B.5 Wisconsin DOT: U.S. 8 – Public Involvement and Safety...................... 61

B.6 Tennessee DOT: Expediting Road Safety Improvements ....................... 63
iii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Potentially Interested Stakeholders .................................................... 17

Table 5.1 Information and Data to Include in Purpose and Need 

Statements for Safety Focused Projects .............................................. 27

Table 7.1 Summary of Characteristics and Considerations in Special 

Contexts .................................................................................................. 38

v

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 NEPA Decision-making Process Levels of Documentation.................. 4

Figure 2.2 Integrating Safety into NEPA Analysis................................................ 7

Figure 3.1 Integrating SHSP Priorities into other Plans and Programs ........... 10

Figure 5.1 Nominal and Substantive Safety......................................................... 23

Figure B.1 Alternatives Analysis Summary Sheets ............................................. 53

Figure B.2 Colorado DOT LOSS Model for Total Crashes in Study Area ....... 56

Figure B.3 Build – No-build Alternative............................................................... 58

Figure B.4 Streetscape Concept for South Capitol Street.................................... 60

vii

Abbreviations

AASHTO – American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

CE – Categorical Exclusions 

CSS – Context Sensitive Solutions

DEIS – Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EA – Environmental Assessments 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statements 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration

FONSI – Finding of No Significant Impact

HSIP – Highway Safety Improvement Program 

IHSDM – Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NCHRP – National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

PEL – Planning and Environmental Linkages

ROD – Record of Decision

RSA – Road Safety Audits

SAFETEA-LU – Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users

SHSO – State Highway Safety Office

SHSP – Strategic Highway Safety Plan

TIP – Transportation Improvement Programs

ix

Preface

This primer presents strategies to 

capitalize on the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process as an effective tool for maximizing the safety benefits of transportation projects. It describes how to 

take advantage of the latest safety 

research and analysis techniques at 

every stage of the NEPA process, and 

how to link these to safety planning. 

It is one of a series of primers covering integration of different elements 

of safety into the transportation planning process.

The NEPA process provides a unique opportunity to apply the latest research 

and analytical techniques for project-level safety analysis. These techniques are 

becoming more sophisticated as the field of transportation safety advances. 

Crash data collection techniques have improved, new tools and protocols for 

analyzing crash data are available, and research on the effectiveness of safety 

improvement strategies has expanded. Furthermore, all states have a multidisciplinary transportation safety planning process in place.

However, not every stage of transportation project development fully reflects 

these advancements. This raises the question, has the NEPA process reached its 

potential value for shaping project-level decision-making? Few NEPA documents contain scientific safety analysis or reference research demonstrating that 

planned improvements will have a safety benefit. This document is intended to 

improve the consideration of safety issues in the NEPA process and documents.

www.pedbikeimages.org/danburden

1

1.0 Introduction

This primer presents techniques to 

address safety in the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process. It is designed with two 

audiences in mind: NEPA practitioners interested in learning the 

basics of how to incorporate 

scientific safety analysis into NEPA 

documents; and safety professionals 

(planners and engineers) interested 

in understanding the basics of the 

NEPA process and where safety 

consideration can be incorporated.

The primer is intended to educate 

practitioners on ways to incorporate 

meaningful consideration of safety 

impacts in NEPA documents, and 

to avoid cursory or simplistic treatment of safety. For example, NEPA 

analysis frequently assumes safety 

will be maximized solely through 

adherence to roadway design standards. Yet traffic crashes continue to be a frequent occurrence, even on newly constructed roadways; and nationally, tens of 

thousands die each year in traffic crashes. Addressing this problem requires 

considering more than standards to maximize the safety of new transportation 

projects.

The NEPA process provides a unique opportunity to improve safety for new 

roadway projects. The process should:

• Include a safety analysis commensurate with the complexity of the project as 

part of the review process;

• Utilize the best available safety data specific to the project location in the review 

process;

• Involve safety analysis using the best available information and tools;

• Promote dialogue with the general public and key stakeholders about the 

safety aspects of the project;

• Address potential safety issues associated with construction; and

The Importance of Improving Road Safety

Traffic crashes have an enormous impact on 

human society, causing suffering, death, 

disability, and associated economic impacts. 

According to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration’s 2008 Traffic Safety Facts 

Report, about 37,000 individuals died in traffic 

crashes in 2008 and about 2.3 million were 

injured in the United States. In 2000, NHTSA 

estimated the annual economic cost of crashes at 

$230 billion.

Given the enormity of the problem, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 

considers safety its primary focus. Former U.S. 

DOT Secretary Rodney Slater stated, “Safety is 

our North Star by which we in DOT will be 

guided and judged.”

The agency’s mission includes the guidance that 

“Safety should be considered first, every time, 

and at every stage of a project.” This directive 

inspires work throughout the agency and is a 

leading motivator of this report.
2 

• Incorporate innovative educational and enforcement techniques to address 

issues, such as speeding or impaired driving.

1.1 Primer Organization

The primer contains the following sections:

• Considering Safety Prior to the NEPA process;

• NEPA Overview and Levels of Documentation;

• Public and Stakeholder Outreach;

• Purpose and Need Statements;

• Alternatives Analysis;

• Defining the Affected Environment; and

• Analysis of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation.

Appendix A contains related resources, including links to on-line courses, tools, 

and research documents covering topics such as the basics of the NEPA process, 

road safety analysis, and safety countermeasure selection. Appendix B contains 

case studies illustrating best practices in incorporating safety into the NEPA 

process.

1.2 Using the Primer

The primer is intended to provide basic information to help practitioners get 

started in understanding how to improve consideration of safety in NEPA analysis. References to more comprehensive resources are provided, where appropriate.

Practitioners can use this primer to:

• Link safety planning processes to NEPA analysis;

• Identify and gain input from safety stakeholders during public outreach and 

scoping;

• Understand the value of using safety analysis techniques to identify and 

address substantive safety problems, and to compare project alternatives; and

• Identify opportunities for safety mitigation and going above and beyond 

required mitigation to enhance safety.

Note that this document serves two audiences – NEPA and safety practitioners – 

in an effort to inform both groups on safety-NEPA process linkages. Those with 

NEPA training may wish to skim over information on the basics of the NEPA 

process; similarly, those with safety background may wish to skim information 

on the fundamentals of safety science and planning.
3

2.0 NEPA Overview and Levels of 

Documentation

2.1 NEPA Overview

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires examination of potential 

impacts to the social and natural environment when considering proposed transportation projects involving Federal funds or 

approval action. Supporting the Act, the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

adopted the policy of managing the NEPA 

project development and decision-making 

process as an “umbrella,” under which all 

applicable environmental laws, executive 

orders, and regulations are considered and 

addressed prior to the final project decision 

and document approval. This umbrella includes laws relating to historic preservation, endangered species, wetlands, and others.

Safety considerations can arise in many stages of the NEPA process. Safety concerns may be part of the impetus for the transportation project (the project purpose and need). Safety issues may arise during public outreach as a community 

concern; or may be a concern held by agency stakeholders, such as engineers, 

local government officials, public health professionals, law enforcement, emergency medical services professionals, and others. Project alternatives may 

include safety-related improvements or mitigation strategies to address negative 

safety-related consequences.

Although safety can be a central focus for some NEPA documents, it is more frequently one of several factors considered during the project development 

decision-making process. Other project goals may include enhanced mobility, 

environmental protection, historic preservation, community livability, and other 

factors deemed important by the project’s stakeholders. Practitioners must balance competing objectives to best meet the needs of the community as appropriate for the context. The context sensitive solutions (CSS) approach discussed in 

Section 5.3 can help practitioners address the need to balance competing priorities.

FHWA’s Role in the NEPA Process

As lead Federal agency in the NEPA 

process, the FHWA is responsible for 

scoping projects, involving relevant 

agencies, developing consensus 

among a wide range of stakeholders 

with diverse interests, resolving 

conflict, and ensuring that quality 

transportation decisions are fully 

explained in the environmental 

document.

Source: FHWA Environmental Toolkit.
4 

2.2 Classes of Action

The first major step in conducting NEPA analysis is to determine the potential 

environmental resource impacts resulting from a proposed action. This review 

determines the type of the class of action that prescribes the appropriate level of 

documentation. The three classes of action are: Categorical Exclusions (CE), 

Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). 

This primer focuses primarily on integrating safety into the steps involved in 

preparing EAs and EISs. However, practitioners also can incorporate safety into 

Categorical Exclusions; in fact, consideration of safety in CEs is critical to integrating safety and the NEPA process given that the vast majority of NEPA 

documentation is completed as CEs. Figure 2.1 illustrates the process of deciding 

on and carrying out the appropriate level of documentation.

Figure 2.1 NEPA Decision-making Process

	 Levels of Documentation

Categorical Exclusions

Categorical Exclusions are appropriate for projects that individually or cumulatively do not have significant environmental impacts. They are the most frequently used NEPA documentation. Many small-scale safety projects are likely 

to qualify as a CE, as indicated in the text box on page 6.
5

Although CEs by definition do not require extensive analysis and do not have 

significant impacts, safety-related considerations may still arise. Appropriate 

questions to ask include:

• Will the project have any implications for safety?

• Were existing safety conditions examined?

• Even if no potential safety impacts are identified, is it still possible to 

improve safety, taking each type of user (e.g., vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists) 

into consideration?

• Does the project design incorporate best practices for safety?

Even if the project qualifies as a CE, safety can still be improved in most cases. 

The following examples show how to consider safety in projects likely to qualify 

as categorical exclusions:

• Roadway resurfacing and rehabilitation projects. Roadway resurfacing 

presents an opportunity to make the roadway safer (i.e., elimination of 

hazardous edge drop-offs or installation high-visibility pavement markings). 

Refer to the FHWA guidebook on incorporating safety into roadway resurfacing projects.1

• Landscaping projects. Practitioners can consider road safety in landscaping 

projects by ensuring, at a minimum, landscaping does not obscure sight distances (the ability of road users to see one another and fixed objects along the 

roadway) and enhances safety where possible. Landscaped medians, for 

example, can help slow vehicles as they enter commercial areas,2

 thereby, 

reducing the risk of a crash with pedestrians, bicyclists, or other vehicles.

• Downtown revitalization projects. Downtown revitalization projects provide an opportunity to incorporate proven safety countermeasures, such as 

exclusive pedestrian signal phasing at areas with high concentrations of 

pedestrians, median islands, or traffic calming to slow vehicles.

Design stage Road Safety Audits (RSA) are a useful tool for identifying opportunities to enhance the safety of any project regardless of the level of NEPA 

documentation (see the discussion of RSAs in Section 5.0 of this document).

1 FHWA, 2006, Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects,

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/strat_approach/fhwasa07001/

fhwasa07001.pdf.

2 FHWA, 2009, Engineering Countermeasures for Reducing Speeds: A Desktop Reference of 

Potential Effectiveness, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/.
6 

Environmental Assessments and Environmental 

Impact Statements

Environmental Assessments (EA) are appropriate when the significance of an 

environmental impact is unknown. EAs result in either a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI), or the determination that the preparation of an EIS is required.

EISs are the appropriate level of documentation for projects with significant 

environmental impacts. These projects make up a small percentage of NEPA 

documents prepared, but contain the highest level of detailed analysis.

Figure 2.2 illustrates the major stages of an EIS, (including scoping, development 

of the purpose-and-need statement, alternatives analysis, defining the affected 

environment, analysis of environmental consequences, and mitigation); and 

summarizes how safety considerations can be incorporated into each part (for 

example, by soliciting input from safety professionals during project scoping).

EAs have the same components, but require far less detail than EISs, and do not 

require a formal project scoping process. The inputs for safety, however, remain 

the same.

Example Projects Likely to Qualify as Categorical Exclusions

• Activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction (e.g., planning and research 

activities).

• Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities.

• Activities included in the state’s highway safety plan under 23 U.S.C. 402.

• Landscaping.

• Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, 

and railroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption 

will occur.

• Improvements to existing rest areas and truck weigh stations.

• Promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.

• Deployment of electronics, photonics, communications, or information processing (e.g., 

traffic control and detector devices, lane management systems, dynamic message signs).

• Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, 

adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).

• Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects, including the installation of 

ramp-metering control devices and lighting.

• Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement; or the construction of grade 

separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.

• Approvals for changes in access control.

A complete list of projects likely to qualify as CEs can be found under 23 CFR, § 771.117 Categorical 

Exclusions.
7

Safety considerations, which are shown to the right of Figure 2.2 in the blue 

boxes, are best addressed in early steps (scoping and development of purposeand-need statement) through initial input from safety stakeholders and transparent discussion of safety issues, including linking back to the safety planning 

process. Inclusion of safety in the alternatives analysis is based on evaluating 

safety performance as part of a comprehensive assessment of potential project 

alternatives. During the impact assessment portion of the environmental process 

(Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences), it is important to 

describe the environment from a safety context, and to assess the potential safety 

impacts of project development. Finally, mitigation should also include mitigation of any potential safety impacts.

The coordination and consultation, or public involvement, portion of the NEPA 

process is represented by the blue box to the left of Figure 2.2. Safety stakeholders, including public officials and private citizens, represent an important constituent group to include in both EISs and EAs. Their comments should be 

solicited at key NEPA milestones, as should comments from a broad public. In 

addition, the public should be provided with safety analyses and data for review 

and comment.

Figure 2.2 Integrating Safety into NEPA Analysis

The following sections provide further detail on integrating safety into the NEPA 

process, beginning with establishing a connection with safety before the formal 

NEPA process even begins, and then throughout the steps in the NEPA decision-
8 

making process. Although the sections are organized around the steps involved 

in preparing EAs and EISs, much of the information speaks to how to improve 

the safety of all types of transportation projects through rigorous safety analysis 

and use of proven countermeasures, and is therefore relevant to CEs as well.
9

3.0 Considering Safety 

Before the NEPA Process

3.1 Introduction

The passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005 opened a new era for transportation safety planning. SAFETEA-LU established a core highway program 

focused on safety and required all states to develop a Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP). The SHSP identifies the top priority road safety issues in the state, 

and describes strategies for addressing the problem, including education, 

enforcement, engineering, and emergency response.

SHSPs do not typically contain lists of specific safety projects for implementation, 

and thus do not link directly to project development and NEPA review. Rather, 

they are intended to be implemented through linkage to other planning 

processes, specifically state and regional transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIP), and other planning processes (pedestrian, bicycle, 

commercial motor vehicle safety, freight, Highway Safety Program, and Highway 

Safety Improvement Program). Figure 3.1 illustrates how these linkages are 

intended to occur. This integration advances the safety agenda because it reflects 

statewide priorities, provides a blueprint for action for key agencies, and influences resource distribution. Examples of how plan integration is accomplished 

include:

• Explicitly addressing transportation safety within the scope of statewide and 

metropolitan planning organization (MPO) long-range transportation planning 

(LRTP) process integrates the SHSP into the LRTP.

• S/TIPs, developed by the states and MPOs, are capital programming documents. These programs are resource constrained, and identify projects and 

funding that reflect society’s mobility, operational, and safety needs. Therefore, they should support the emphasis areas and strategies in the SHSP. 

SHSP emphasis area strategies and actions can be used as tools for selecting 

and prioritizing HSIP investment decisions.

• Consistency between Highway Safety Plans (HSP) and SHSP emphasis areas 

will better channelize the Federal funds targeting identified highway safety 

problems.

• The Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) aims to reduce the number and 

severity of crashes and hazardous materials incidents involving commercial 

motor vehicles (CMV) through consistent, uniform, and effective CMV safety 
10 

programs. CVSPs may also address some of the behavioral safety elements 

of the SHSP. Note: Many, if not most, states continue to work on developing 

these linkages.

Figure 3.1 Integrating SHSP Priorities into other Plans and Programs

Note:	 State safety-related plans are shown in grey; state nonsafety-related plans are shown in white; and

metropolitan transportation plans are shown in light blue.

3.2 Linking the NEPA Process to Safety

Planning

Begin consideration of safety prior to the NEPA process, particularly during 

safety planning processes. Linking safety planning to project development 

processes helps in:

• Reducing roadway-related fatalities and injuries;

• Making individual projects consistent with (or supporting) regional- or statelevel safety goals and plans;

• Integrating safety to the project purpose and need;

• Facilitating safety stakeholders to provide early input into the project; and

• Including safety considerations during the design, construction, and operation phases.

The degree of linkage may depend on whether the project is safety-focused and 

the amount of public engagement that has occurred. Safety-focused projects 

should directly support specific strategies listed in the SHSP. For example, if 

analysts identify run-off-road crashes as an issue at the project site, they should 

reference the SHSP and incorporate strategies identified in the SHSP to address 

run-off-road crashes. If the project is funded with Federal Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) funds, it should be included in the HSIP project 
11

list, as well as in both a long-range plan (LRP) and a program document (TIP); 

and the NEPA document should reference any safety analysis conducted to 

demonstrate the existence of a safety problem at the project site (e.g., results of 

network screening to identify high-crash concentration locations).

For both safety projects and nonsafety projects, check to ensure the project is consistent with the overall safety goals listed in the SHSP, which should integrate 

with state and regional planning goals.3

 For example, if the SHSP sets a goal of 

reducing crashes by 50 percent, regional transportation plans could incorporate 

at least the same crash-reduction goal, and include safety benefits as a project 

prioritization factor. Individual projects competing for funding in the region 

should be able to reference this goal and demonstrate whether they support it. 

Finally, projects should incorporate any systemic safety improvements identified 

in the SHSP or other safety plans. Systemic safety improvements are safety 

countermeasures appropriate for deployment on most or all facilities prone to 

certain types of crashes, as opposed to targeted deployment only at safety “hotspots” (locations where an unusually high number of crashes has occurred). 

Examples of systemic safety countermeasures could include:

• Improved delineation and installation of rumble strips on all rural roads to 

prevent run-off-road crashes;

• Installation of cable median barriers on all major highways to prevent crossmedian head on collisions;

• Installation of high-visibility crosswalk markings and pedestrian countdown 

signals at all urban intersections; and

• Use of oversized, high-visibility signage in all areas where older drivers are 

prevalent.

Incorporating systemic safety features into projects recognizes the fact that while 

crashes may historically occur more in some places than others, this is in part 

due to random chance. Future crashes can occur in any place at any time.

3.3 Transitioning into the NEPA Process

The results of safety planning and traditional transportation planning processes 

may be very useful in NEPA analysis. However, this information is frequently 

lost or disregarded during the transition to NEPA review, if it is collected at all. 

When initiating the NEPA process, consult with transportation planners and 

safety professionals for collection and use of relevant materials and data. Examples of useful information might include:

3

 As per CFR 924.9(J).
12 

• State, regional, or project analysis of high-crash locations. Analysts can use 

this information to demonstrate the existence of a safety issue at the project 

site, and can cite it during the development of the project purpose and need 

statement (see Section 5.0).

• Results of corridor planning studies. Major corridor studies conducted in 

advance of the NEPA process may contain crash data analysis, public input, 

or other safety-related data practitioners can reuse during the NEPA 

process.4

 The Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) initiative

promotes the use of the information developed in corridor and other 

planning studies to inform the NEPA process. See the FHWA’s Planning and 

Environmental Linkages web site: http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/

integ/index.asp.

• Input from safety experts. Safety experts may have examined conditions at 

the project site during an RSA, or during investigations of fatal crashes in the 

project corridor. NEPA practitioners can collect and reuse this information 

during NEPA analysis.

4

 As per 23 CFR 450.212.
13

4.0 Public and Stakeholder 

Outreach

4.1 Introduction

This section describes techniques for incorporating safety into public involvement activities related to NEPA. Public involvement requirements under NEPA 

are summarized in the text box below. In addition, SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 

requires that lead agencies establish a plan for coordinating public and agency 

participation and comment during the environmental review process.

The extent to which public involvement activities focus on safety is partially a 

function of the main purpose of the project (safety-focused or nonsafety-focused) 

Public Involvement Requirements

Each state must have procedures approved by the FHWA to carry out a public 

involvement/public hearing program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 128 and 40 CFR 

Parts 1500 through 1508. State public involvement/public hearing procedures must 

provide for:

1. Coordination of public-involvement activities and public hearings with the entire 

NEPA process.

2. Early and continuing opportunities during project development for the public to 

be involved in the identification of social, economic, and environmental impacts, 

as well as impacts associated with relocation of individuals, groups, or 

institutions.

3. One or more public hearings or the opportunity for hearing(s) to be held by the 

state highway agency at a convenient time and place for any Federal-aid project 

which requires significant amounts of right-of-way, substantially changes the 

layout or functions of connecting roadways or of the facility being improved, has 

a substantial adverse impact on abutting property, otherwise has a significant 

social, economic, environmental or other effect, or for which the FHWA 

determines that a public hearing is in the public interest.

4. Reasonable notice to the public of either a public hearing or the opportunity for a 

public hearing. Such notice will indicate the availability of explanatory 

information. The notice shall also provide information required to comply with 

public involvement requirements of other laws, Executive Orders, and 

regulations. 

Source: FHWA Environmental Toolkit, Public Involvement Overview, 

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpubinv2.asp.
14 

and the potential level of impact. Identify safety-focused projects through analysis, community input, safety plans, or more traditional planning processes. Introduce the topic of safety early in coordination, public involvement, and project 

development activities, such as advisory committees and stakeholder interviews.

4.2 Scoping

The scope of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) refers to the range of 

actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. The scope is determined by the 

lead agency, preparers of the EIS, and the public, including other agencies. 

Scoping is the process of determining the scope of an EIS. It is a unique NEPA task 

that is required only for EISs. Part of the scoping process includes obtaining the 

public’s opinion on what important issues, including safety, should be addressed, 

and what project alternatives should be included in the EIS.

While not required for CEs or EAs, the concept of scoping has merit for any NEPA 

class of action. Soliciting comments early in the project development process elevates stakeholder input and allows it to help shape the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be addressed. This focus on scoping-oriented outreach can 

also facilitate early and effective consideration of safety as well. The techniques 

described in the rest of this chapter apply to public involvement activities during 

scoping, as well as other stages of the NEPA process.

4.3 Who to Contact

Many individuals and groups can 

provide valuable input into the safety 

aspects of a project. Three important 

groups to consider include safety specialists, affected agencies and community groups, and facility users 

(discussed below).

Outreach to safety stakeholders does 

not eliminate the need for required 

outreach to other types of stakeholders, including low-income and 

minority populations protected by 

Title VI and related statutes.

Safety Specialists 

Safety specialists possess unique knowledge of how to diagnose safety problems 

and address them using proven safety countermeasures. Drawing professionals 

from a range of backgrounds increases the likelihood that safety problem is 

diagnosed accurately, and a range of possible solutions is investigated. For 

www.pedbikeimages.org/danburden
15

example, the following describes types of input that could be provided by 

different types of safety specialists:

• Engineers with safety training can analyze crash data; determine which types 

of crashes are most prevalent; and identify changes to the roadway geometry, 

roadside features, signing, striping, or operations to address the identified 

issues. Engineers also may have knowledge of safety treatments to benefit 

specific users (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, and older road users); and knowledge of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or MUTCD.

• Representatives of the Governor’s Highway Safety Office have knowledge of 

driver behavior issues.

• Maintenance crews have firsthand knowledge of the types of safety issues 

occurring on the facility (e.g., identifying locations where damaged roadside 

hardware may suggest a pattern of run-off-road-crashes).

• Local law enforcement officials may be aware of infrastructure and behavioral issues contributing to an identified crash problem (e.g., high incidence 

of late night crashes involving college students driving home after drinking).

• Emergency response personnel may be able to identify the degree to which 

poor response times are contributing to a high incidence of injuries and fatalities and suggest solutions. They also sometimes are the first to recognize a 

hot spot, or wet weather problem area because of multiple responses to the 

same location.

Incorporate the input of these professionals early in the project development 

process. Ideally, consult with them prior to initiation of the NEPA process (see 

Section 2.0) during safety planning processes. If this did not occur, consult with 

them during the early stages of developing the project purpose and need statement (see Section 5.0 for more detail). RSAs, also discussed in Section 5.0, are a 

tool for engaging safety professionals in diagnosing safety problems on an 

existing or planned facility.

In addition to contributing to problem diagnosis, safety professionals can contribute to or comment on the development of alternatives and the selection of mitigation strategies. For example, they may be able to suggest proven safety 

countermeasures to include in project alternatives, or to mitigate any expected 

safety impacts. Document all feedback so it can be used to meet NEPA outreach 

requirements. Documentation also is important to create a record of decisions 

(ROD) and commitments made during the NEPA process, so these can be communicated during project development and construction.

Affected Agencies and Community Groups

Public agencies affected by the project may have special concerns or knowledge 

regarding the project’s safety impact. Transit agencies may suggest improvements to pedestrian safety around transit stations. Officials from local public 

schools may be concerned about ensuring child safety to and from school.
16 

Community groups and the general public will also likely have opinions or concerns regarding the safety of the facility. Local merchants may voice concerns 

regarding any roadway changes that affect access to their property. Community 

groups representing specific interests (bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups, 

freight community, older drivers, disabled individuals, etc.) will advocate for 

consideration of all users.

In considering outreach targets, first investigate the context and the specific type 

of safety problem at hand. Is the project near a school, a major bicycle route, a 

downtown area, or a freight corridor? Does the safety problem particularly 

affect bicyclists, pedestrians, or older residents? The context and the nature of 

the problem should inform the selection of stakeholders. Refer to Section 7.0, 

Defining the Affected Environment, for how context-specific factors may influence 

safety.

Facility Users

Outreach activities also provide an opportunity to gain insight from members of 

the general public who use the facility. Regular users of a transportation facility 

may be aware of problems missed by transportation engineers or other safety 

specialists. Reaching out to a range of users (vehicles, freight, pedestrians, 

bicyclists, etc.) will provide a more balanced perspective.

Facility users or members of the general public also may suggest solutions to 

identified safety problems. However, they may not be aware of the research 

regarding the likely safety benefits of their suggestions. It is, therefore, critical to 

use public outreach as an opportunity to educate the public and elected officials 

about the true safety impacts of certain types of project features. For example, if 

several crashes have occurred at a stop-controlled intersection, community 

members might advocate for installing a traffic signal to reduce crashes. However, research has shown that installing a traffic signal may actually increase the 

Case Study: Safety and Public Outreach

A 40-mile stretch of U.S. 8 in western Wisconsin has been of interest to a coalition of 

county and local officials concerned with safety and congestion along the corridor. 

Input from the coalition has played a significant role in the selection of the preferred 

corridor for the eventual construction of a multilane facility. The coalition established 

a close working relationship with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to study corridor safety and congestion, participated in public forums, and held 

meetings. High fatalities on a particular segment prompted them to request a Road 

Safety Audit that will inform selection of the preferred alternative. Appendix B.5 

provides more detail on this case study.
17

frequency of crashes.5 Use simple educational materials to communicate to the 

public the likely impacts of their requests and the safety benefits of alternatives.

Table 4.1 lists possible stakeholders organized by context. It does not list all 

possible stakeholders.

Table 4.1 Potentially Interested Stakeholders

Stakeholder Specialized Knowledge/Concerns

Safety Specialists

Safety engineers Safety problem diagnosis; knowledge of proven safety

countermeasures and best practices.

Maintenance crews Personal experience and data reflecting safety issues on the facility. 

Awareness of areas that need safety improvement.

Traffic operations center personnel Knowledge and data regarding incidents, crashes, and other issues

on highway facilities. Familiarity with issues relating to incident

response.

Law enforcement Personal experience and data regarding safety issues on the facility. 

Awareness of behavioral safety issues (intoxication, speeding, etc.)

affecting the facility.

Incident response teams Knowledge of poor incident response times contributing to degraded

trauma care outcomes; knowledge of hot spots on facility.

Affected Agencies and Community Groups

School representatives Child safety/school access.

Transit agency representatives Impact of safety features on transit operations/safe pedestrian

access to transit stations.

Local merchants Impact of safety features on access to their business.

Bicycle and pedestrian advocacy

groups

Bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns and solutions.

Facility Users

Drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians,

delivery trucks

Personal experience with safety and mobility issues on the facility.

5 Transportation Research Board, 2003, NCHRP 500 Volume 5, A Guide for Addressing 

Unsignalized Intersection Collisions, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/

nchrp_rpt_500v5.pdf.
18 

4.4 Questions to Ask

Gather input on safety-related questions during each stage of the NEPA process, 

as required by Federal regulations (see box). The following sections list possible 

questions to ask during each major stage.

Purpose and Need Statement

Whether or not the project is safety focused, early dialogue about the project 

purpose and need statement should address safety. Sample questions for the 

public might include:

• What safety problems or issues have you experienced in this area/facility/

corridor?

• What safety problem or issue do you think this project should address? 

What is your vision for improving safety in this corridor/area/project?

• Which types of road users (e.g., elderly, pedestrians, transit, and commercial 

vehicles) require special consideration?

• Are there special features of the proposed project and its surrounding environment that might have safety implications? If yes, what are the features 

and what are the safety implications?

Range of Alternatives

During development of project alternatives, stakeholders traditionally give input 

on how well each alternative meets the purpose and need of the project. To 

expand this discussion, provide stakeholders with meaningful information and 

analysis about the safety characteristics of each alternative so they can offer 

informed input on the alternatives. (See Section 6.0, Alternatives Analysis, for a 

discussion of how safety analysis tools can be used to provide quantitative 

information regarding the expected safety performance of different alternatives.)

Topics to be Covered During Public Involvement – 23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(v)

State public involvement/public hearing procedures must provide for explanation at 

the public hearing of the following information, as appropriate:

• The project’s purpose, need, and consistency with the goals and objectives of any 

local urban planning;

• The project’s alternatives and major design features;

• The social, economic, environmental, and other impacts of the project;

• The relocation assistance program and the right-of-way acquisition process; and

• The state highway agency’s procedures for receiving both oral and written 

statements from the public.
19

Sample questions for this stage of public involvement may include:

• Have any existing safety problems been addressed by the alternatives shown?

• Have the alternatives created any new safety concerns?

• Has safety been sufficiently integrated into all alternatives?

• Do you see any potential safety issues that should be addressed?

• Do you have any concerns regarding the safety of proposed alternatives?

As stated earlier, it is important to educate the public on which project features 

have proven safety benefits versus those that do not.

Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts

Include safety topics in the discussion of project social, economic, and environment impacts. Questions may include:

• Have safety impacts been adequately addressed for all populations?

• Has the impact assessment missed anything or anyone?

• Are there any land uses or community features that create unforeseen safety 

implications?

• Have any potential safety concerns been avoided or mitigated in the preferred alternative?

Chapter 7 of the Highway Safety Manual (discussed in Appendix A.4) provides 

information on analyzing the economic and social impacts of highway crashes. 

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) is a definitive, science-based manual that 

takes the guess work out of safety evaluations. It provides tools to conduct 

quantitative safety analyses, allowing for safety to be quantitatively evaluated 

alongside other transportation performance measures, such as traffic operations, 

environmental impacts, mobility measures, or construction costs. The Highway 

Safety Improvement Program manual is another relevant reference document. 

Both of these resources can assist in generating additional questions to engage 

the public.

Document all feedback to ensure NEPA public outreach requirements are met 

and decisions are recorded for future reference.

21

5.0 Purpose and Need Statements

5.1 Introduction

The statement of the project purpose and need is the core component of the 

NEPA document. It describes the impetus for the project and serves as the 

benchmark against which project alternatives are evaluated.

Incorporation of safety into the 

project purpose and need statement 

involves several considerations, 

including:

• Linking the purpose and need 

statement to safety planning 

processes and documents. The 

process of defining the purpose 

and need for a project should flow 

from earlier planning activities, 

such as the development of metropolitan and state transportation 

plans and safety plans (discussed 

in Section 3.0).

• Linking the purpose and need to 

concerns and issues raised during 

public outreach (discussed in 

Section 4.0).

• Incorporating explicit justification 

of the extent and nature of the 

safety problem, if one exists.

• Incorporating safety issues for all 

modes of travel and vulnerable 

road users as appropriate, given 

the project context.

The latter two topics are discussed in more detail below.

5.2 Defining the Safety Problem

Safety is often included in the purpose and need statement for a project without 

sufficient analysis to define the problem. For example, the statement may cite the 

fact that road features are not up to the most recent design standards as justification 

Purpose and Need

The Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), the agency responsible for 

coordinating Federal environmental 

efforts, provides a brief description of the 

Purpose-and-Need: “The statement shall 

briefly specify the underlying Purpose-andNeed to which the agency is responding in 

proposing the alternatives, including the 

proposed action.” (40 CFR 1502.13).

The FHWA technical advisory T 6640.8A 

states that the Purpose-and-Need 

statement will: “Identify and describe the 

proposed action and the transportation 

problem(s) or other needs which it is intended 

to address (40 CFR 1502.13). This section 

should clearly demonstrate that a ‘need’ 

exists and should define the ‘need’ in terms 

understandable to the general public. This 

discussion should clearly describe the 

problems which the proposed action is to 

correct. It will form the basis for the ‘no 

action’ discussion in the ‘Alternatives’ 

section, and assist with the identification of 

reasonable alternatives and the selection of 

the preferred alternative.”
22 

that a safety problem exists. Defining the true safety performance of the roadway requires understanding the difference between substantive and nominal 

safety.

Substantive Safety versus Nominal Safety

Design standards provide a consistent, predictable roadway environment, but do 

not necessarily result in a safer roadway environment. Although uniform roadway designs may confer some safety benefit, few design standards have been 

rigorously evaluated to quantify their safety impact.

The concepts of “substantive” and “nominal” safety have been developed to help 

differentiate between design changes that improve safety and those that simply 

comply with standards. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

(NCHRP) 480, A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions, 

explains that nominal safety refers to a design or alternative’s adherence to 

design criteria and/or standards; whereas, substantive safety refers to the actual 

performance of a highway or facility as measured by its crash experience (number of crashes per mile per year, consequences of those crashes as specified by 

injuries, fatalities, or property damage). It notes that a road can meet all design 

standards and still have poor safety performance (substantive safety); conversely, a roadway can have design exceptions and still show good safety performance relative to similar roadways of its class. Tort liability concerns 

frequently lead designers to comply with nominal safety standards, unless substantial documentation is provided to support a deviation from those standards.

The FHWA’s report “Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions” illustrates the 

difference between nominal and substantive safety (Figure 5.1). Nominal safety 

(blue line) is an “either-or” —a design feature or roadway either meets minimum 

criteria or it does not. On the other hand, substantive safety (red line) is the 

actual long-term or expected safety performance of a roadway; determined by its 

crash experience measured over a long enough time period to provide a high 

level of confidence that the observed crash experience is a true representation of 

the expected safety characteristics of that location or highway. Figure 5.1 states 

that current understanding of the relationships among roadway elements, traffic, 

drivers, and other factors suggests the true safety risk is better represented by the 

red line (substantive safety). Incremental changes in design dimensions (typical 

of design exception decisions) may result in incremental changes in substantive 

safety. Designers should seek knowledge and data to establish the substantive 

safety of a contemplated design decision. In many cases, substantive safety can 

be maximized within the constraints of design standards, since many are written 

so as to permit a great deal of flexibility. Design exceptions can be pursued in 

cases where a substantive safety improvement would violate a design standard.
23

Figure 5.1 Nominal and Substantive Safety

Source:	 FHWA Technical Report, Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions.

Analysis Techniques

The challenge of evaluating substantive safety is that it requires detailed analysis; 

whereas, nominal safety involves a straightforward design check. Fortunately, 

many techniques and tools are available to assist in the identification of the magnitude and nature of a safety problem, ranging from simple to very 

sophisticated. Appendix A.4 lists these resources and tools, such as the HSM, the 

Safety Analyst Software tool, and the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 

software tool. The HSM, for example, provides a detailed analysis procedure 

and tools for identifying “sites with promise” or areas with potential for crash 

reduction. One tool identified in the HSM is the Levels of Service of Safety 

(LOSS) methodology (see box below).

For example, to review the substantive safety of a two-lane rural highway, an 

analyst could compare its safety performance with that of similar two-lane rural 

highways in the state (not to all highways or other highway types). It is important to compare a road to similar roads in its class, because the expected safety 

performance of the road is strongly related to its context (e.g., traffic volume, 

location, functional classification, terrain, etc.). If the roadway in question has a 

significantly higher incidence or severity of crashes than other roads of its kind, 

it may have a substantive safety problem.

The accuracy of safety analysis depends on the availability and quality of 

underlying crash and associated road network and exposure data (e.g., traffic 
24 

volumes). Crash records databases are frequently incomplete (for example, 

lacking complete crash records for nonfatal crashes or those occurring in rural 

areas) and are subject to error. Even if data is available, it can be inconclusive 

due to the strong influence of random chance on the incidence and location of 

crashes. A recent FHWA report6

 suggests addressing these issues:

• Is the data reasonable?

• Was the data collected consistently?

• Was quality control/quality assurance in place to verify the data?

• RSAs (discussed below) also can be used to incorporate the observations of 

skilled safety practitioners as a means to supplement safety analysis, particularly if safety data is inconclusive or of poor quality.

• The HSM provides a more complete discussion of data quality issues in road 

safety analysis.

Road Safety Audits

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are 

another tool used to identify and 

describe a safety problem to support 

development of a NEPA purpose and 

need statement. An RSA is a formal 

safety performance examination of an 

existing or planned road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. It estimates and reports 

qualitatively on potential road safety 

issues, and identifies opportunities for 

safety improvements for all road users.

Case Study – Safety Analysis Techniques

The Colorado DOT is studying a new six-lane bridge and highway interchange to 

connect the Stapleton Redevelopment Area and major interstates I-70 and I-270. For 

the original Draft EIS, the Colorado DOT used an LOSS approach to compare traffic 

safety under existing conditions and for future design alternatives. The LOSS uses 

qualitative measures to characterize the actual safety performance of a road segment 

compared to the expected safety performance. The LOSS analysis identified the need 

for safety improvements and informed the selection of appropriate countermeasures 

to remedy the issues. Appendix B.2 provides additional detail on this case study.

6 FHWA, 2010, Interstate System Access Information Guide, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

design/interstate/pubs/access/access.pdf.
25

RSAs help answer the following questions: 1) What elements of the road may 

present a safety concern – to what extent, to which road users, and under what 

circumstances? 2) What opportunities exist to eliminate or mitigate identified 

safety concerns?

RSAs can be helpful at multiple stages in the project development process, 

including planning, preliminary design, and final design. RSAs also can be conducted during construction to minimize the safety consequences of road 

construction. Given this flexibility, RSAs may be used at many stages of the 

NEPA process, including as a tool to define the purpose and need statement (see 

example below); to evaluate the safety performance of project alternatives while 

still in the design stage; and to identify opportunities to reduce constructionrelated safety impacts. RSAs can be particularly helpful in diagnosing safety 

problems or opportunities to improve safety when crash data is limited or 

requires careful interpretation. For example, an RSA team could identify cases 

where lack of pedestrian crossings inhibits pedestrian use resulting in low numbers of crashes.

5.3 Considering Multimodal Safety

When incorporating safety analysis into the project purpose and need, consideration should be given to all affected road users, including drivers, rail, transit, 

and particularly those likely to be more vulnerable in crashes, such as the elderly, 

children, disabled, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Specialized tools and resources are 

available to evaluate safety problems for a range of user groups. See Section 7.0, 

Defining the Affected Environment, for suggestions.

Case Study: Expediting Safety Improvements from RSAs

The Tennessee DOT has an extensive program to conduct Road Safety Audit Reviews 

(RSAR) that examine the need for safety improvements for existing road segments, 

intersections, corridors, and ramp queues. These types of activities include, but are 

not limited to, pavement markings, rumble strips, traffic lights and/or signs, guard 

rails, and concrete barrier end treatments. Tennessee DOT has prepared a 

Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for most of these types of projects, 

presuming they stay within existing right of way. In this manner, Tennessee DOT is 

able to expeditiously address safety problems as soon as they are evident. See 

Appendix B.6 for details.
26 

Identifying the safety problems experienced by a range of users is part of sensitivity to the project’s context and is consistent with the philosophy of Context 

Sensitive Solutions (CSS). However, a perception may exist that deviating from 

project design standards to adapt to the community context and the needs of 

multiple users may result in negative safety consequences (see box below).

Case Study: Addressing Multimodal Safety

The Washington, D.C. DOT developed a streetscape plan for redesigning South 

Capitol Street as part of a redevelopment project along the Anacostia River 

waterfront. As part of the assessment, D.C. DOT investigated and analyzed existing 

and future multimodal patterns and crash rates in the South Capitol corridor. The 

findings from this analysis were included in the Draft EIS detailing the safety issues 

that needed to be addressed. It was determined that transforming South Capitol 

Street from an expressway to an urban boulevard design and including numerous 

pedestrian and bicycle safety features would address these issues and contribute to 

the safety, accessibility, multimodal mobility, and economic development of the 

corridor. See Appendix B.3 for details.

Context Sensitive Solutions and Safety

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that 

involves all stakeholders in providing a transportation facility that fits its setting. CSS 

grew out of landmark Federal transportation policies (Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act and the National Highway System Designation Act) 

emphasizing the importance of flexible highway design.

A core principle of CSS is “exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective 

transportation solutions, while preserving and enhancing community and natural 

environments.” Applying this principle often means adapting road design standards, 

such as lane widths, turning radii, and design speeds, to match the community 

context.

Because of the belief that road design standards ensure safety, some assume that 

changing design standards to apply the philosophy of CSS will result in negative 

safety outcomes, and therefore, CSS and safety are incompatible. This is not the case, 

as design standards do not equate to safety, and many design standards have not 

been tested for their safety effects. To determine the true or “substantive” safety of 

design features, safety practitioners should apply the latest available analytical tools, 

and make use of research identifying proven safety countermeasures.

Safety is considered a cornerstone of sustainability and livability, and CSS is a tool by 

which to achieve these goals. Safety is also an important stakeholder value that 

communities want to achieve in addition to, rather than instead of, other stated goals.
27

5.4 If Safety is Not Part of the Purpose

and Need

If no substantive safety problem exists or safety is not a part of the project purpose and need, safety analysis does not necessarily need to be included in the 

purpose and need statement. However, it may still be appropriate and beneficial 

to identify possible safety enhancements to the project’s safety. Every modification to a roadway presents a potential opportunity to improve design, and some 

agencies, including FHWA, specifically encourage or mandate consideration of 

safety as part of every project. Transportation agencies can use discretion in 

determining whether to address safety as part of every project. Agencies should 

avoid using generic statements regarding project impacts to meet the goal of 

addressing safety in all projects, and should instead strive to use objective analysis and proven countermeasures to demonstrate substantive safety benefits.

5.5 Summary

If safety is part of the project purpose and need, the purpose and need statement 

should include analysis to define the problem, reference applicable safety plans, 

incorporate the results of public outreach, and address the safety of all road users.

Table 5.1 provides information and data that may be included in purpose and 

need statements.

Table 5.1 Information and Data to Include in Purpose and Need Statements 

for Safety Focused Projects

Type of Information Example Information to Consider for Inclusion

Roadway performance Comparison of roadway crash rates to expected crashes for similar facility

types given traffic volumes to identify the existence of a safety problem (see

HSM for analysis techniques).

Crash rates for multiple types of road users.

Contributing crash factors Analysis of crash history to indicate predominance of certain crash types.

Multimodal safety issues Safety issues for specific types of road users, including pedestrians,

bicyclists, freight vehicles, and transit vehicles.

Public perceptions Safety issues raised by the public as being of concern.

Results of RSA RSA results indicating any findings regarding deficiencies/opportunities for

improving safety performance.

29

6.0 Alternatives Analysis

6.1 Introduction

This section describes how to integrate safety considerations into the alternatives 

analysis. The extent to which safety is emphasized in this discussion is a function of whether the project is safety focused or not. For projects where safety is a 

key component of the project purpose and need statement, each alternative 

should be evaluated for the degree to which it achieves the desired safety 

improvement purpose. For general-purpose projects, safety improvement may 

not be an evaluation criterion for each alternative, or may be weighted 

differently than for a safety-focused project. However, practitioners can still 

suggest inclusion of safety features, as appropriate, for the project context.

6.2 Developing Alternatives

Safety-Focused Projects

For safety-focused projects, develop alternatives that solve a specific safety 

problem, and do so in close consultation with safety specialists and stakeholders, 

particularly if their input was not collected or documented during the planning 

phase. Document all comments received, and use this input to modify alternatives and improve the overall project outcome.

Base the development of alternatives on a clear understanding of the safety 

problem. Specialized tools are available to help identify the safety problem and 

develop solutions (see Appendix A.4). The HSM is the most recent and comprehensive resource describing the state-of-the-art analytical processes for identifying 

Regulations on Alternatives Analysis

CEQ NEPA regulations describe the importance of the alternatives analysis: “This 

section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Based on the information 

and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment (Sec. 1502.15) and 

the Environmental Consequences (Sec. 1502.16), it should present the environmental 

impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus, sharply 

defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the 

decision-maker and the public.”

FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A guidance recommends that the Alternatives 

Analysis section of environmental documents begin with a concise discussion of how 

and why the “reasonable alternatives” were developed for detailed study, and explain 

why other alternatives were eliminated.
30 

the causes of crashes and developing solutions. The HSM also provides techniques for evaluating the safety impacts of specific design alternatives on certain 

types of roads.

As much as possible, consider the full range of possible safety solutions, not only 

engineering countermeasures, but also operational improvements that benefit 

safety (improved incident response) and behavioral countermeasures (education 

and enforcement). The NCHRP 500 Research Reports include a series of more 

than 20 guidebooks indicating a range of 4E (engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response) countermeasures to address a variety of safety 

solutions.7

Select countermeasures not only for their appropriateness in addressing the 

identified safety problem, but also their effectiveness. The best countermeasures 

are those that have been proven to reduce fatalities and serious injuries through 

rigorous study (see inset box below on proven countermeasures). Appendix A.4 

lists additional resources for identifying the effectiveness of different types of 

safety countermeasures.

Proven Safety Countermeasures

On July 2008, the FHWA issued a guidance memorandum on the consideration and 

improvement of proven safety countermeasures. The guidance states: “While there is 

still much work to do on determining the precise effectiveness of some safety 

countermeasures, we are highly confident that certain processes, infrastructure design 

techniques, and highway features are effective and should be encouraged whenever 

Federal funds are used. Safety should be considered at every stage of the project 

development process. Every investment decision should consider the impact on 

safety, and every Federally-funded project should include appropriate safety 

enhancement features.” The document goes on to list nine safety countermeasures 

that research has proven to be effective in reducing fatalities and injuries, and are 

specifically encouraged by the FHWA:

1. Road Safety Audits,

2. Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes,

3. Median Barriers,

4. Safety Edge,

5. Roundabouts,

6. Left- and Right-Turn Lanes at Stop-Controlled Intersections,

7. Yellow Change Intervals,

8. Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas in Urban and Suburban Areas, and

9. Walkways.

Source: FHWA Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Implementation of Proven 

Safety Countermeasures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/.

7 The NCHRP 500 Series Reports are available at: http://safety.transportation.org/

guides.aspx.
31

General Purpose Projects

The safety elements of the alternatives that would be considered for asafety‐focused 

project also may be relevant for general-purpose projects. The difference is thatthe 

development of the alternatives will have to balance the degree to which they can 

satisfy all of the identified transportation problems, not just the safety issues.

Even if a project is not safety focused, consider incorporating safety into the 

development of alternatives. As described in public outreach, give safety specialists an opportunity to review the project design early on to avoid potentially 

costly design changes. Even if the project design is acceptable, safety specialists 

may be able to suggest low-cost safety improvements8

 that could be added without significant impacts to the project scope, schedule, or cost. They also may be 

able to suggest systemic features that have been identified for inclusion on the 

appropriate types of roadways due to their proven safety benefit – shoulder 

rumble strips on rural roads are one common example. Consider an RSA, discussed in Section 5.0, to obtain input from experts on how to improve the safety 

of a project alternative in the preliminary design stage.

 6.3 Screening Alternatives

NEPA requires that the potential environmental impacts of each alternative be 

identified and used in determining which alternatives should be advanced 

through the NEPA analysis and selection process (as long as they also meet the 

project purpose and need). The selection of reasonable alternatives should be 

based on: 1) consideration of alternatives that avoid impacts; 2) consideration of 

the alternatives that minimize impacts; and 3) consideration of the potential 

mitigation of impacts of each alternative, all while meeting the project purpose 

and need.

Case Study: Using Proven Countermeasures

The State Route 502 Corridor-Widening Project in the Seattle, Washington region is 

an example of the incorporation of proven safety countermeasures into the 

development of alternatives for a general-purpose project. Section 3 of the 

Environmental Impact Statement, Comparison of Alternatives, discusses the safety 

benefits of medians, a proven safety countermeasure. The benefits specific to the 

project include creating a protected turn lane, eliminating turning movements, and 

reducing the likelihood of a head-on crash by creating a physical barrier between 

lanes. See Appendix B for additional details.

8 For more information on low-cost safety improvements, refer to the following resource:

FHWA, 2003. Low Cost Traffic Engineering Improvements – A Primer,

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/low_cost_traf/low_cost_traf.pdf.
32 

Safety-Focused Projects

A comprehensive stakeholder involvement process is likely to generate a range 

of alternatives that must be reduced to a smaller set of reasonable alternatives for 

detailed analysis. A first level of evaluation can be conducted to eliminate alternatives that clearly do not meet the project purpose and need. Further screening 

may include: 1) the degree to which the alternative solves the problem; 

2) compatibility with existing or planned transportation systems; and 

3) compatibility with local and/or community goals and objectives.

For projects where safety is a key component of the purpose and need, screen the 

alternatives with respect to their relative safety benefit (typically defined as the 

degree to which the project would reduce crashes, fatalities, and/or serious 

injuries).

Rigorous analysis may not be feasible in all cases, but some assessment of likely 

safety performance should be included, such as empirical evidence demonstrating 

the effectiveness of safety features in each alternative compared to a No-build 

alterative (which presumes none of the alternatives is constructed). The HSM 

provides specific guidance regarding how to estimate future collisions on certain 

facility types with and without safety improvements. The basic approach is to 

apply a safety performance function, which is an equation that predicts changes 

in collisions as a function of changes in exposure (e.g., volumes of vehicles, 

bicyclists, pedestrians) to future crash outcomes. This will allow the estimation 

of future safety conditions for a No-build alternative. Then, practitioners can 

identify the safety improvements associated with each “build” alternative, and 

calculate their expected impact on future collisions.

The effectiveness of safety improvements is typically expressed through crash 

reduction factors, which represent the expected percentage reduction in crashes 

from countermeasures. The HSM provides the best available crash reduction 

factors and tools for estimating the potential effects of transportation decisions. 

The FHWA’s Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse contains a more comprehensive inventory of all available crash reduction factors, including a star 

rating to indicate their quality.

As a general rule, use research and analysis to demonstrate the benefits of proposed safety features. If the information is unavailable, a safety benefit cannot be 

assumed. Adherence to the latest design standards is not sufficient as evidence 

of a safety benefit. Numerous publications, software, and other resources identified in Appendix A.4 are available to help define the safety benefit of features 

proposed for various alternatives. For example, the Safety Analyst tool and the 

Interactive Highway Design Model both can be used to predict future collisions 

with and without safety countermeasures.

General-Purpose Projects

Ideally, all project alternatives would be designed to be safe and practical, 

regardless of whether the project was safety focused. In most cases, providing 
33

the safest possible design is compatible with other project objectives. However, 

in some cases, tradeoffs between safety and other objectives (e.g., mobility) arise, 

particularly in the context of general-purpose projects. The project purpose and 

need statement should serve as the primary guidance document in deciding how 

best to balance safety and mobility objectives through the project alternatives. 

The CSS approach discussed previously also can be useful. It suggests practitioners balance any competing priorities by fully considering the context of the 

project, including the character of the local community and the desires of community members.

Case Study: Analyzing Safety in Alternatives Analysis

The Town of Eagle, Colorado recently prepared an Environmental Assessment for the 

future East Eagle Interchange project. This assessment identified the Preferred 

Alternative that would best meet the need to improve the operational and safety 

aspects of the transportation network. The study used crash data to demonstrate that 

safety problems would persist and crashes would increase if no action was taken to 

improve the roadways in the study area. The study also included the use of a safety 

performance function to estimate future crash rates of the project alternatives, and to 

inform the selection of countermeasures. The Town also created a Project Working 

Group, which developed a five-step process to identify and evaluate the alternatives. 

Throughout this process, safety elements played a prominent role in goal setting, 

evaluation, and eventual selection of the Preferred Alternative. Appendix B.1 

provides additional detail on this case study.

35

7.0 Defining the Affected 

Environment

7.1 Introduction

Defining the affected environment 

in a project study area provides the 

foundation for developing and 

evaluating project alternatives, and 

identifying mitigation strategies. 

The existing condition of the 

affected environment is typically 

used as a baseline for comparison 

of any build alternative against the 

No‐build alternative. Both quantitative and qualitative descriptions 

are desirable.

Examples include, but are not limited to, identifying the location, size, and quality of wetlands; describing and mapping significant historic and cultural properties; and mapping neighborhoods, towns, communities, schools, hospitals, 

businesses, and parks.

The existing condition of safety in the project area provides a baseline for comparison with the proposed improvements. This comparison is especially pertinent when safety is a primary reason for the project. Defining the context of the 

project also is important when considering the potential safety issues or impacts. 

The community context helps define the key safety concerns, the needs of special 

types of road users, and the safety solutions that are most appropriate. In addition, considering community character as part of project development is consistent with national best practices — specifically the concept of Context Sensitive 

Solutions (CSS).

7.2 Project Contexts and Safety

Considerations

The following are some examples of special types of project contexts that could 

influence the definition of safety issues and solutions.

Contextsensitivesolutions.org – WSDOT
36 

Downtown Areas

Downtown areas tend to have high concentrations of bicyclists, pedestrians, and 

transit vehicles, and a high density of intersections. Parking locations also can 

have safety implications. Vehicles conflict with crossing pedestrians, and local 

buses attempting to reach transit stops may conflict with bicyclists. Balancing 

the safety and mobility needs of these users at intersections and along crowded 

streets, while balancing other community needs, is a key challenge. Designs that 

might be appropriate in rural or suburban areas, such as providing larger 

turning radii, widened shoulders, or removing trees near the roadside, may 

conflict with community desires to enhance walkability and livability. The 

FHWA-sponsored CSS web site provides resources on these topics: 

http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org.

Schools and Senior Centers

Children, elderly, and disabled 

people are more vulnerable than 

other groups to die if involved in 

a traffic crash. Give special consideration to the safety in areas 

with high concentrations of these 

populations, particularly at 

roadway crossings. Consider a 

mix of safety strategies, such as 

median refuges at roadway 

crossings, in-school educational 

programs focused on child safety, 

or heightened fines for speeding in school zones.

Specific outreach activities to support NEPA goals can be oriented toward these 

vulnerable groups, including school events, provided that they are wellintegrated into the NEPA process and sufficiently documented. Special outreach 

to seniors should be undertaken as well, with “scoping”-like focus groups to discuss pedestrian activity patterns and ongoing discussion to discuss special needs 

and design considerations with seniors. Strong coordination with Safe Routes to 

School (SRTS) coordinators also is important to ensure effective stakeholder 

outreach.

Complete Streets

Many jurisdictions and agencies are pursuing “complete streets” policies. These 

policies require agencies to design and operate roadway facilities to provide a basic 

level of safety and accommodation for all roadway users, including drivers, transit 

users, pedestrians, bicyclists, older people, children, and the disabled. This could 

mean, for example, requiring sidewalks on all newly constructed roadways; however, 

the exact requirements of complete streets policies vary by jurisdiction.

www.pedbikeimages.org/danburden
37

The NCHRP 500 Volume 9, A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Older 

Drivers, and the web site of the FHWA-sponsored National Safe Routes to 

Schools Center may be helpful: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/resources/

index.cfm?/publications.cfm).

Transit Stations

A unique range of issues arise in safety around transit stations. In particular, 

transit stops are frequently the site of crossing pedestrians, and it is important to 

enhance their visibility to motorists, including transit bus drivers. Transit stop 

placement is an important consideration; at intersections, far-side stops are 

usually preferred for a variety of safety and operational reasons. One safety 

advantage is that pedestrians cross in back of the bus.

The web site of the FHWA-sponsored Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 

contains information on improving pedestrian safety around transit stations 

(http://www.walkinginfo.org/transit/access.cfm/).

Freight Routes

Freight vehicles have special needs such as turning radii that will safely accommodate turning movements, truck rest stops that allow drivers to rest and reduce 

the risk of crash, and escape ramps in areas with steep grades. Give these users 

special consideration in areas with high volumes of freight vehicles. NCHRP 500 

Volume 13: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Heavy Trucks provides 

information improving safety for heavy trucks. Some proven countermeasures 

from this report include performing safety consultations with carrier safety management, and installing interactive truck rollover signing.

Rural Roadways

Rural roadways have higher crash rates than other types of roadways. Typical 

safety issues include nighttime visibility, impaired driving, speeding, animal 

crossings, fixed objects next to the roadway, sharp curves, and lack of a “clear 

zone” where drivers can safely stop if they run off the road. Visit the FHWA’s 

Local and Rural Road Safety web site for resources: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

local_rural/. The University of Minnesota’s Center for Excellence in Rural Road 

Safety is another important resource: http://www.ruralsafety.umn.edu/.

High-Crash Locations

Any of the possible project contexts mentioned previously can be the site of a 

high number of crashes. These locations deserve special consideration, particularly if the analysis suggests that the number of crashes is higher than expected 

given the roadway type and volumes of vehicles and other roadway users. The 

HSM contains detailed information on identifying high-crash locations and 

addressing issues. These locations are identified as part of the Federal Highway 

Safety Improvement Program.
38 

Table 7.1 summarizes some of the special characteristics and issues arising in 

these contexts.

Table 7.1 Summary of Characteristics and Considerations in 

Special Contexts

Context Characteristics Key Considerations

Urban downtowns ● Mix of road users

● High intersection

densities

● Right-of-way constraints

● Balancing the needs of multiple users, including

transit buses, automobiles, delivery vehicles,

bicycles, pedestrians, etc.

● Preserving the downtown character.

● Maintaining a bicycle- and pedestrian‐friendly

environment.

● Working within existing right of way.

Schools and senior

centers	

● High density of the most

vulnerable road users

● Ensuring child/senior safety at roadway crossings.

Transit stations	 ● High volumes of crossing

pedestrians

● Turning/weaving transit

vehicles

● Ensuring safe pedestrian crossings and

pedestrian visibility to oncoming motorists.

● Balancing safety objectives with impacts on

transit operations (e.g., signal retiming).

● Balance safety needs of transit vehicles with

needs of other users (e.g., bicyclists weaving in

and out of transit lane).

Freight routes ● High volumes of freight

vehicles	

● Providing safety features designed to improve

safety of freight vehicles (e.g., escape ramps, rest

stations).

● Balancing freight vehicle needs (e.g., wide turning

radii) with the needs of other users (e.g.,

pedestrians in downtown areas, community

members concerned about freight impacts).

Rural roadways ● High crash rates

● High incidence of

alcohol, speedinginvolved collisions

● Providing safety features, including roadway clear

zones, improved nighttime visibility, improvement

of marking and signing, incorporation of safety

edge, enforcement of speeding and impaired

driving, etc.

High-crash locations ● Higher than expected

crash sites and road

segments

● Investigating and addressing the contributing

factors at high-crash concentrations.
39

8.0 Analysis of Environmental 

Impacts and Mitigation

8.1 Introduction

The analysis of the environmental consequences, as a result of a proposed 

project, represents the core of the environmental impact analysis for a project.

Safety-focused and general-purpose projects are no different than any other 

transportation projects with respect to the required analysis of the potential for 

impact on environmental resources and features. Each project must have a specific and concise purpose and need statement. Creating a comprehensive 

description of the affected environment, including mapping and quantitative, as 

well as qualitative data, will be just as important for these safety projects as for any 

other transportation project.

For both safety-focused and general-purpose projects, direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts related to safety may occur. Direct impacts 

may include, but not be limited to, the impacts related to the project, such as 

increased traffic due to capacity increases, facility construction impacts on sensitive environmental resources, or construction impacts on road user safety. These 

impacts may, in turn, create additional indirect impacts that must be considered. 

Follow the usual procedures, but keep in mind the following impacts and/or 

benefits that may be specific to safety-focused projects.

Regulations on Analyzing Environmental Effects and Consequences

The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.8 define “effects” as follows:

Effects includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, 

structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, 

social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects also may include those 

resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on 

balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.

FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A recommends that the section on environmental 

consequences includes the probable beneficial and adverse social, economic, health, 

and environmental effects of alternatives under consideration; and describes the 

measures proposed to mitigate adverse impacts. The information should have 

sufficient scientific and analytical substance to provide a basis for evaluating the 

comparative merits of the alternatives.
40 

Specific project features that may affect safety include:

• Design speed;

• Access management (e.g., driveways);

• Sight distance;

• Geometry (e.g., ramp design and configuration, presence or lack of turn lanes);

• Safety impacts on vulnerable modes or users;

• Access for emergency vehicles;

• Signalization;

• Roadway/roadside features; and

• Work zone safety during construction.

Construction impacts a common type of safety-related impact cited in environmental documents. Safety impacts also can be considered in the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts. A third area to consider is the potential to integrate 

beneficial safety enhancements beyond required mitigation.

8.2 Construction Impacts

Safety-related construction impacts are a common type of safety-related impact 

requiring mitigation. This issue is particularly significant since approximately 

1,000 fatalities occur each year in work zones; moreover, the FHWA’s Work Zone 

Final Rule (23 CFR 630) requires consideration of work zone safety and mobility 

issues in project development. Resources are available to assist practitioners in 

identifying safety countermeasures appropriate for work zones, such as the 

FHWA-supported National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse 

(http://www.workzonesafety.org/). The AASHTO NCHRP 500 Series Guide on 

Reducing Work Zone Collisions is another helpful resource listing proven countermeasures for reducing work zone collisions, such as:

• Improve maintenance and construction practices;

• Utilize time-related contract provisions;

• Use nighttime road work; and

• Use demand management programs to reduce volumes through work zones.

If work zone impacts are significant, consider a construction stage RSA (see 

Section 5.0) to identify potential problems in the work zone and means of 

addressing them.

Although addressing short-term safety issues during construction is very 

important, it is not a substitute for careful consideration of the long-term safety 
41

outcomes of the project itself, which should be evaluated during alternatives 

analysis.

8.3 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Safety-related impacts may be an important component of the analysis of the 

indirect and cumulative impacts. This is because of the potential for safety 

impacts to result from the interactions of traffic and land use development over 

time. For example, new housing, commercial, or industrial developments associated with new transportation facilities could lead to:

• Increased pedestrian traffic resulting in the need for additional pedestrian 

safety features around the project site (e.g., high-visibility crosswalks, flashing 

beacons, pedestrian countdown signals);

• Increased freight traffic resulting in the need for changes in roadway design 

to accommodate freight turning movements;

• Increased numbers of vulnerable road users (e.g., elderly, handicapped) 

requiring additional safety features, such as oversized or high-visibility road 

signs for older users, accessible pedestrian signals, etc.; and

• Expected changes in travel behavior (e.g., more bicycling and walking, 

increase in transit-dependent population) resulting from expected land use 

changes, such as densification.

Some of the analytic methods discussed previously, such as safety performance 

functions provided in the HSM, take into account expected changes in the 

volumes of personal vehicles and pedestrians in predicting future safety impacts.

The case study below on Health Impact Assessment illustrates an analysis of 

long-term project impacts on pedestrian safety.

Case Study: Health Impact Assessments 

Health Impact Assessments (HIA) are an emerging tool for assessing and capturing 

all health-related impacts associated with policies or projects, which may include 

road safety impacts. HIAs are not required as part of NEPA, but have been prepared 

voluntary, in some cases, as a supplement to environmental documentation.

For example, the Health Impacts Group at the University of California, Berkeley 

recently evaluated the health impacts of a proposed housing development project in 

Oakland, California. The Oak-to-9th Health Impact Assessment included the 

application of a predictive model for measuring the additional pedestrian crashes 

likely to result from higher vehicle volumes surrounding the future development. 

This information suggested a need for enhanced mitigation of future pedestrian 

safety impacts.

Source: UC Berkeley Health Impact Assessment Group, 

http://sites.google.com/site/ucbhia/projects-and-research.
42 

Since potential safety impacts relate to community context, the assessment of 

indirect and cumulative impacts also allows for close CSS review when considering potential mitigation and/or avoidance of safety impacts.

8.4 Mitigation and Enhancements

Consider proven safety countermeasures as mitigation for safety-focused 

projects to integrate safety into NEPA decision-making. Document the safety 

benefits of proposed features. Refer to Appendix A.4 for resources to help 

quantify and document the benefits of safety countermeasures.

Practitioners also may go beyond the required mitigation to enhance the safety of 

the roadway. With safety as a primary Federal goal, the enhancement of safety 

should be considered as a potential value-added benefit of every project. This 

statement is particularly true when safety is a state, regional, or local goal.

8.5 Safety After the NEPA Process

Safety improvement does not end with the NEPA process. Safety can be 

improved and monitored during project construction, maintenance, and operation. Behavioral strategies, such as enforcement and education, can be employed 

at any time to reduce crashes. The NCHRP 622, Effectiveness of Behavioral Safety 

Strategies, lists a number of behavioral strategies proven to reduce crashes, such 

as sobriety checkpoints, bicycle helmet laws, passive alcohol sensors, and many 

others. Another resource is Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety 

Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices. Both resources are 

described in more detail in Appendix A.4. Finally, programs can be implemented for honoring safety commitments and mitigation strategies from the 

NEPA process during construction and beyond.
43

A. Resources

This section lists several types of resources to assist practitioners in incorporating 

safety into the NEPA process, including:

• NEPA training programs;

• References for NEPA regulation and guidance; and

• Analytical tools and resources for identifying and addressing project-level 

safety issues.

A.1 NEPA Training

• FHWA Environmental Review Toolkit – 

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/index.asp;

• FHWA-NHI 142005 – NEPA and Transportation Decision-Making;

• FHWA-NHI 142036 – Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation 

Decision-Making;

• FHWA-NHI 142052 – Introduction to NEPA and Transportation DecisionMaking – Web-Based; and

• See the following URL for details on these courses: 

http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/nhistore.aspx.

A.2 Safety Training

The FHWA Office of Safety web site (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/training/) 

provides links to multiple safety training opportunities, including:

• Safety Professional Capacity Building;

• National Highway Institute, including courses on Transportation Safety 

Planning and other topics;

• Improving Safety of Horizontal Curves;

• Designing for Pedestrian Safety;

• Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan;

• Planning and Designing for Pedestrian Safety;

• Application of Crash Reduction Factors (CRF);

• Science of Crash Reduction Factors;
44 

• Supply and Demand for Highway Safety Professionals in the Public Sector;

• Core Competencies for Highway Safety Professionals;

• Model Safety Curricula – Safety 101; and

• Professional Development – Safety 101.

A.3 References for NEPA Regulation and Guidance

Legislation

Federal-Aid Highways, Title 23, United States Code, “Highways,” National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), plus numerous other 

related statutes and orders, http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/

tdmpdo.asp.

Regulations

• “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act” – 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, November 29, 1978 

(Council on Environmental Quality – CEQ); and

• “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures” 23 CFR 771, August 28, 1987 

(FHWA), http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpdo.asp.

FHWA Guidance

• “NEPA and Transportation Decision-Making – Project Development and 

Documentation Overview,” FHWA, August 21, 1992, 

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpdo.asp; and

• “Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) 

Documents” – FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, October 30, 1987, 

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/impTA6640.asp.

Other Guidance

• Questions and Answers about NEPA Regulations, Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) Memorandum, March 16, 1981.

• The RED BOOK – Applying the Section 404 Permit Process to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects, FHWA, et al., September 1988.
45

• FHWA Environmental Guidebook (primarily an internal document) – An allinclusive compendium of environmental guidance information that includes 

the following:

– Section 4(f) Policy Paper, October 5, 1987, as updated June 7, 1989;

– Transportation Enhancement Activities, FHWA Memorandum, April 24, 

1992;

– Cooperating Agencies, FHWA Memorandum, March 19, 1992; and

– Purpose-and-Need, FHWA Memorandum, September 18, 1990.

• NEPA and Transportation Decision-Making – Project Development and 

Documentation Overview, August 21, 1992, http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

projdev/tdmpdo.asp.

A.4 Analytical Tools and Resources for Identifying 

and Addressing Project-Level Safety Issues

Reference Documents

State Strategic Highway Safety Plans

Federal transportation legislation (SAFETEA-LU) requires states to develop a State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The SHSP identifies the state’s most significant safety problems, and provides specific strategies from across the four “Es” of 

safety (engineering, education, enforcement, emergency response) to address them. 

Project planners and designers can refer to the SHSP for ideas on how to incorporate 

safety concepts into project development. Ideally, all safety projects should address 

a specific problem highlighted by the SHSP.

NCHRP 500 Series

In addition to using SHSPs as a resource, project planners and designers can refer to 

the NCHRP 500 Series for detailed research on a wide range of safety strategies. The 

500 Series consists of more than 20 guides containing strategies for implementing 

each of the AASHTO’s SHSP priority emphasis areas.

The guides are designed to support implementation of the 4E approach within each 

emphasis area by providing concrete ideas for how the emphasis area applies to the 

4Es. Each guide provides the following information:

• Description of the problem.

• Strategies for addressing the problem (strategies from multiple Es are typically included), information on expected effectiveness, keys to success, 

potential difficulties, associated measures and data, organizational and policy 

issues, cost issues, legislative needs, and other topics.
46 

• A list of related strategies for “creating a truly comprehensive approach” – 

this typically includes general discussion of how all the “Es” can get involved 

in implementing the emphasis area.

• An index of strategies by effectiveness (proven, tried, and experimental); 

implementation timeframe; and relative cost.

Source: http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Highway Safety Manual

The purpose of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) is to provide the best factual 

information and proven analysis tools for crash frequency prediction. The HSM 

will facilitate integrating quantitative crash frequency and severity performance 

measures into roadway planning, design, operations, and maintenance decisions. 

The primary focus of the HSM is the increased application of analytical tools for 

assessing the safety impacts of transportation project and program decisions.

The HSM can be used to:

• Identify sites with the most potential for crash frequency or severity reduction;

• Identify factors contributing to crashes and associated potential countermeasures to address these issues;

• Evaluate the crash reduction benefits of implemented treatments;

• Conduct economic appraisals of improvements to prioritize projects;

• Calculate the effect of various design alternatives on crash frequency and 

severity; and

• Estimate potential crash frequency and severity on highway networks, and 

the potential effects of transportation decisions on crashes.

Source: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/factsheet/.

FHWA – Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse

The FHWA maintains a comprehensive database of available crash modification 

factors (CMF) for a wide range of safety countermeasures. CMFs include a star 

rating (one to five stars) indicating their quality.

Source: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/.

NCHRP 622 – Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety 

Countermeasures

The National Cooperative Highway Safety Program Report 622 (Effectiveness of 

Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures) provides information on the effectiveness of educational and enforcement countermeasures. Countermeasures are 

divided into five categories: proven, likely, uncertain, unknown, and varies.
47

Source: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_622.pdf.

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide 

for State Highway Safety Offices

“Countermeasures that Work” is a guide to assist State Highway Safety Offices 

(SHSO) in selecting effective, science-based traffic safety countermeasures for 

highway safety emphasis areas. As with the NCHRP 500 Series, this guide 

arranges countermeasures under each emphasis area. It then categorizes each 

safety improvement as a subgroup within each emphasis area, and rates them 

according to effectiveness. This effectiveness rating is based on published 

research and consists of five levels:

• 5 Stars – Demonstrated effective by several high-quality evaluations with 

consistent results.

• 4 Stars – Demonstrated effective in certain situations.

• 3 Stars – Likely effective based on balance of evidence from high-quality 

evaluations or other sources.

• 2 Stars – Effectiveness still undetermined; different methods of implementing 

this countermeasure produce different results.

• 1 Star – Limited or no high-quality evaluation evidence.

Source: www.ghsa.org/html/publications/countermeasures/index.html.

Software Tools

Safety Analyst

Safety Analyst consists of six software programs to analyze the safety performance of specific sites, to suggest appropriate countermeasures, quantify their 

expected benefits, and evaluate their effectiveness. These six tools are:9

1. Network Screening Tool – Identifies sites in need of safety improvement;

2. Diagnosis Tool – Diagnoses the nature of safety problems at specific sites;

3. Countermeasure Selection Tool – Assists users in selecting countermeasures 

to reduce crash frequency and severity at specific sites;

4. Economic Appraisal Tool – Conducts economic appraisals of the costs and 

safety benefits of countermeasures selected for a specific site;

5. Priority Ranking Tool – Provides a priority ranking of sites and proposed 

improvement projects based on the benefit and cost estimates determined by 

the economic appraisal tool; and

9 Source: www.safetyanalyst.org/scope.htm.
48 

6. Evaluation Tool – Enables the design and application of well-designed 

before/after evaluations.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM)

IHSDM is a suite of software analysis tools for evaluating the safety and operational effects of geometric design decisions on highways. IHSDM is a decisionsupport tool that checks highway designs against policy values, and provides 

estimates of a design’s expected safety and operational performance. The 

IHSDM consists of six evaluation modules:

1. Crash Prediction – Estimates the frequency of crashes expected on a roadway 

based on its geometric design and traffic characteristics;

2. Design Consistency – Helps diagnose safety concerns at horizontal curves;

3. Intersection Review – Identifies potential safety concerns and possible treatments to address those concerns;

4. Policy Review – Checks roadway-segment design elements for compliance 

with relevant highway geometric design policies;

5. Traffic Analysis – Uses a traffic simulation model to estimate traffic quality 

of service measures for an existing or proposed design under variable traffic 

flows; and

6. Driver/Vehicle – Permits the user to evaluate the drivability of a roadway 

design, and to identify existing conditions that could result in loss of vehicle 

control.

Levels of Service of Safety10

The Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) tool was developed by engineers at the 

Colorado DOT. The concept of Level of Service of Safety uses quantitative 

measures to characterize the safety of a roadway segment in reference to its 

expected performance.

The LOSS is determined by using the Safety Performance Function to predict the 

expected number of crashes for a given location, and compare it to the actual 

number of crashes (including frequency and severity). This is used to rate the 

road segment as follows:

• LOSS-I – Indicates low potential for crash reduction;

• LOSS-II – Indicates low to moderate potential for crash reduction; 

10 Kononov and Allery, 2003, Level of Service of Safety Conceptual Blueprint and 

Analytical Framework, Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research 

Board, http://diexsys.com/PDF/1840-007.pdf.
49

• LOSS-III – Indicates moderate to high potential for crash reduction; and

• LOSS-IV – Indicates high potential for crash reduction.

The LOSS method is intended to:

• Help bring about consensus on the subject of the magnitude of safety problems for different classes of roads;

• Bring the perception of roadway safety in line with reality of safety performance of a specific facility; and

• Provide a frame of reference from a safety perspective for planning major 

corridor improvements.

51

B. Case Studies

B.1 Colorado DOT: East Eagle Interchange – 

Innovative Process for Including Safety in 

Alternatives Analysis

The Town of Eagle, Colorado recently prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) for the future East Eagle Interchange project.

The purpose of the EA was to identify transportation projects that improved 

roadway connectivity in the East Eagle area and accommodated anticipated 

growth and development. Four primary needs were expected to be met by these 

improvements, but specific to safety, the identified needs were to:

• Address current safety problems along Eby Creek Road by reducing overall 

traffic congestion; and

• Provide a second connection between I-70 and U.S. 6 built to modern design 

standards.

The Preferred Alternative was chosen, in part, because it met the need to 

improve the operational and safety aspects of the transportation network.

There can be many competing interests and priorities during the development of 

a transportation project, but to equally consider all of the needs of a project 

(mobility, safety, and connectivity), the Town of Eagle followed a data-driven 

and innovative process for selecting their Preferred Alternative.

This evaluation was performed using congestion, safety, and environmental 

data. For the safety element, crash data was taken from a safety study completed 

by the Colorado DOT in 2008. The data specifically looked at the trends in crash 

rates along I-70 from 2000 to 2004 and used it as a baseline to demonstrate that 

safety problems would persist and crashes would increase if no action was taken 

to improve the roadways in the study area. This study also included an innovative approach to determine the future safety performance of the project alternatives. Specifically, they developed a safety performance function to estimate 

crash rates for out-years and to inform the selection of countermeasures. Safety 

performance functions describe the relationship between traffic exposure 

(Average Daily Traffic – ADT) and crash frequency (crashes per mile per year).

Once the Town had a complete understanding of transportation issues and 

needs, they formed a Project Working Group (PWG) consisting of representatives 

from the FHWA, Colorado DOT, the Town of Eagle, and Eagle County, along 

with engineering and environmental consultants. The PWG created a step-bystep process to identify, develop, and evaluate all of the alternatives, and 
52 

eventually select the alternative that met all of the defined needs. Throughout 

this five-step process, safety elements played a prominent role in the goal setting, 

evaluation, and eventual selection of the Preferred Alternative. The steps were 

as follows:

1. Develop project goals, evaluation criteria, measures of effectiveness, and 

design criteria;

2. Develop a full range of alternatives;

3. Develop and perform criteria and an initial prescreening of alternatives;

4. Develop and perform a comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives 

to be analyzed in the EA; and

5. Conduct a detailed analysis on the Preferred Alternative and the No Action 

Alternative as described in this EA.

During the first step, each potential alternative had to meet five specific goals to 

advance to the next stage. Two of the five goals were specific to safety.

• Goal 1 – Improve connectivity between U.S. 6 and I-70 east of Eagle;

• Goal 2 – Relieve future congestion from proposed development in the Eagle 

and Gypsum areas on the existing Eagle interchange ramps, as well as along 

Eby Creek Road;

• Goal 3 – Meet safety requirements of all users traveling through the study area 

(e.g., lane and shoulder widths, stopping sight distance, traffic control, etc.);

• Goal 4 – Improve operational and safety aspects of the transportation network for all users within the study area (including bicyclists and pedestrians); and

• Goal 5 – Be consistent with East Eagle area plans.

Each alternative that fit within the above goals was then rated based on five 

evaluation criteria – its impact on safety, mobility, environment, community, and 

implementation. To effectively measure the safety benefits in each alternative, a 

specific set of criteria was used. This included:

• Crash Reduction – A measure of the relative safety of an alternative from a 

crash potential standpoint;

• Emergency Response Times – Ability to improve emergency response times;

• Interchange Spacing – Ability to meet safe interchange spacing;

• Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety – Ability to safely accommodate pedestrians and 

bicyclists;

• Traffic Safety Standards – Ability to meet AASHTO, Colorado DOT, and/or 

local agency design standards; and

• Vehicle/Train Conflicts – Ability to minimize vehicle/train conflicts.
53

If the alternative met the projected goals and was positively evaluated, it was 

then summarized based on its advantages and disadvantages. Figure B.1 depicts 

the initial screening process for one of the alternatives. This process was completed for all of the alternatives until a Preferred Alternative was chosen.

Figure B.1 Alternatives Analysis Summary Sheets

Source:	 East Eagle Interchange Environmental Assessment, August 2010.

By using a well-defined process with specific goals, data, and methods, the Town 

of Eagle was able to establish a Preferred Alternative that met the critical safety, 

mobility, and community needs established at the beginning of the project.
54 

B.2 Colorado DOT: Central Park Boulevard – 

Safety Analysis Techniques

The project area contains the Stapleton Redevelopment Area, a 4,700-acre mixeduse development area located in eastern Denver, Colorado. The site is projected 

to accommodate 30,000 residents and provide employment for 35,000 workers. 

The current accessibility options to/from Stapleton are congested and expected 

to worsen as more development occurs.

To address these issues, a new six-lane bridge and highway interchange was 

proposed to be constructed. The I-70/Central Park Boulevard (CPB) Interchange 

will provide direct access between the Stapleton Redevelopment Area and major 

interstates I-70 and I-270; will connect the north and south sides of the Stapleton 

redevelopment; and will provide safe access for automobiles, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists.

The I-70/CPB Interchange project was an element of the I-70 East Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which covered transportation 

improvements along a large stretch of the I-70 highway corridor, from I-25 to 

Tower Road. However, with the availability of new funds, the City and County 

of Denver (CCD) and the FHWA decided to advance the CPB Interchange project 

independently, triggering its own NEPA process. The resulting Environmental 

Assessment (EA) carries forward the crash data (1999 to 2001) from the original 

DEIS, which was used as a baseline to portray the existing safety issues along the 

entirety of I-70 East and make projections about future issues in the study area. 

This data is included in the EA primarily to set the context for safety concerns in 

the study area, but not as part of the purpose-and-need statement, which does 

not explicitly reference safety:

The purpose of the identified project is to provide improved connectivity 

to I-70 that supports local and regional access to/from existing and 

planned land uses served by CPB north and south of I-70. The project is 

needed due to the development of Stapleton and the projected levels of 

congestion in the area.

The Preferred Alternative for this project was chosen because it exemplified the 

specific elements of the purpose-and-need statement. It also reflects input 

obtained from nearby neighborhoods, businesses, local jurisdictions, and stakeholders. However, the concept for analyzing and utilizing safety data, which 

was used for the DEIS, is innovative and worthy of replication in other states.

For the original DEIS, the Colorado DOT used a Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) 

approach to compare traffic safety under existing conditions with safety conditions for future design alternatives. The magnitude of safety problems on highway segments was then evaluated using safety performance functions. A Safety 

Performance Function (SPF) is a probability function describing the relationship 

between traffic exposure (Average Daily Traffic (ADT)) and crash frequency 

(crashes per mile per year). The SPF defines the normal or expected number of 
55

crashes at a specific ADT. The degree of deviation from the expected performance is classified as LOSS I to IV.

The LOSS uses qualitative measures to characterize the actual safety performance 

of a road segment to the expected safety performance. It is assessed for total 

crashes and injury/fatal crashes separately.

• LOSS I – Indicates low potential for crash reduction;

• LOSS II – Indicates better than expected safety performance;

• LOSS III – Indicates less than expected safety performance; and

• LOSS IV – Indicates high potential for crash reduction.

The two road segments on I-70 within the CPB area experienced an LOSS of IV 

and an LOSS of III for total crashes, and an LOSS III for injuries and fatal crashes. 

Figure B.2 depicts the Colorado DOT LOSS model for total crashes on six-lane 

freeways. The overall intent of the LOSS analysis was to identify the need for 

safety improvements, and to inform the selection of appropriate 

countermeasures to remedy the issues. Colorado DOT also analyzed crash 

concentrations and patterns on road segments and interchanges to identify any 

safety problems within the study area. This included analysis of crash type, 

severity, direction of travel, road conditions, spatial distribution, and time-of-day 

travel patterns. The EA cites this analysis to support an assertion that these road 

segments and interchanges were in need of potential improvement, but does not 

suggest specific countermeasures or design ideas to remedy the issues.

The Preferred Alternative was chosen based on engineering, environmental, and 

other criteria. The “other” criteria included consistency with other planning documents and the ability to provide multimodal access. Although safety was not 

specifically noted as being part of the selection criteria for the multimodal elements of the project, the direct access between the north and south side of I-70 

will provide an enhanced environment for pedestrians and bicyclists as a result 

of including the following improvements:

• A 12-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of Central Park Boulevard interchange;

• Well-lit walkways across the Central Park Boulevard bridge;

• Tightly designed ramp intersections at each end of the bridge to best accommodate pedestrian movements through the intersection areas; and

• NCHRP 500, Volume 10, A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians, 

indicates that sidewalks and lighting are proven to improve pedestrian 

safety.
56

Figure B.2 Colorado DOT LOSS Model for Total Crashes in Study Area
57

B.3 Washington DOT: SR 502 – Using Proven 

Safety Countermeasures

The purpose of the SR 502 corridor-widening project is to improve mobility and 

safety along the SR 502 corridor between NE 15th Avenue and NE 102nd in North 

Clark County, Washington, where collision and congestion rates have been 

increasing. Safety concerns in the project area included:

• High number of crashes;

• High number of access points;

• Risky left turns at unsignalized intersections;

• Diversions to alternate routes; and

• Lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Since one of the two primary objectives of this project was to improve safety in 

the corridor, alternatives were evaluated based on how well they met the 

purpose-and-need, specifically looking at the number of locations — either at 

driveways or intersections — where traffic patterns crossed and created potential 

conflict points.

The EIS began with a total of nine alternatives:

• Five on-corridor alternatives that would widen and reconfigure the existing 

SR 502 alignment;

• Two off-corridor alternatives that would relocate SR 502 to a new roadway 

north or south of the existing alignment; and

• Two options for a transportation system management/transportation 

demand management (TSM/TDM) alternative.

Two on-corridor alternatives, the off-corridor alternatives and the TSM/TDM 

alternatives, were eliminated early as they did not meet the mobility and safety 

needs of the project. Of the three remaining on-corridor alternatives, Washington 

DOT created a hybrid that minimized the environmental effects and satisfied the 

project’s purpose-and-need for safety and mobility. The hybrid, or the Pink 

Alternative, became the Preferred Alternative studied in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS). The cross-section for the Preferred Build Alternative is 

shown in the below diagram. In 2010, the FHWA signed the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the SR 502 corridor-widening project, concurring with Washington 

DOT on the Preferred Alternative.
58 

Figure B.3 Build – No-build Alternative

Under current or No-build conditions, the collision rates in this corridor already 

exceed the statewide average and are projected to increase with traffic volumes. 

The Preferred Alternative presents a number of safety measures to reduce injury 

and fatality rates.

As shown in the cross-section diagram, the Preferred Alternative has a 14-foot 

median, running the length of the corridor. As noted in the EIS, this roadway 

design feature is a proven safety treatment, as it greatly reduces head-on crashes 

and restricts left-hand turning movements and u-turns, unless at signalized 

intersections and in protected turn lanes. In some instances, center turn lanes are 

viable alternatives to center medians. However, they were not considered here 

because they are designed for managed access, low speed urban roadways with 

traffic volumes under 24,000 per day. SR 502 is projected to be four-lanes with 

42,000 vehicles per day, which would make it hard for cars to find appropriate 

gaps in traffic to make left turns from a center lane. Cars turning left from 

driveways or unsignalized intersections also would need to cross multiple lanes 

of traffic, making the center-lane option unsafe.

Access control was an additional consideration. There are approximately 

150 driveway access points onto SR 502, but only one signalized intersection in 

the corridor that provides cars with a safe opportunity to turn left. Outside this 

intersection, drivers can currently make left-hand turns to and from driveways, 

and across oncoming traffic onto SR 502, wherever they choose. To provide the 

left-turn option, but in a more managed way, driveway connections onto SR 502 

would be consolidated and three intersections were assessed to see if traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the locations 

would warrant a traffic signal. In the Preferred Alternative, four intersections 

would be signalized, eliminating other conflicting movements, which generally 

require quick reaction time and judgment. These additions, plus the new 

median, will mean that access onto and across the project corridor will be controlled, and will reduce crashes.

The number of travel lanes on SR 502 will be increased from one to two in both 

directions, which would provide a safer means to pass slow-moving vehicles. 

The additional capacity on SR 502 also is projected to ease current and projected 
59

congestion issues. Analysis suggested that additional capacity would encourage 

people that currently utilize alternate routes to avoid SR 502 traffic to use the 

safer, more direct route that the project will provide.

The Preferred Alternative also calls for 10-footwide shoulders that will provide a 

safe area for broken down cars, as well as safe bicycle mobility. The four intersections also will have crossing treatments allowing pedestrians to access both 

sides of SR 502.

The Preferred Alternative meets the purpose-and-need of this project by specifically 

addressing all of the safety concerns (as well as mobility concerns) for this corridor.

B.4 District of Columbia DOT: South Capitol 

Street – Addressing Safety for Multiple Modes

The roots of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) began in 2000, 

when the Mayor of Washington, D.C. brought together Federal and District 

agencies to guide development along the Anacostia River waterfront. From 

these initial meetings, the District DOT Office of Planning created the Anacostia 

Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan, which examined the potential for development on and near the waterfront. The Plan also addressed South Capitol 

Street, which was identified as a potential civic gateway to the central part of the 

city by providing a mix of shopping, housing, and offices. Encouraging the 

development of South Capitol Street would serve as a catalyst for the development of the Anacostia Waterfront. This idea started the process for a series of 

plans and studies to investigate and analyze existing and future transportation 

patterns in the South Capitol corridor. As it stands today, the stated purpose of 

the South Capitol Street project in the DEIS is to improve safety, multimodal 

mobility, and accessibility; and support economic development.

Historic city planning documents call for South Capitol Street to serve as a gateway 

into Washington, D.C. Yet today, the corridor functions mainly as an expressway, lacking any characteristics of its historic or gateway functions. By transforming South Capitol Street from an expressway to an urban boulevard, the project 

would improve multimodal mobility, safety, accessibility, and economic development. In particular, a streetscape concept would improve the safety of the pedestrian and cycling environment by adding widened sidewalks; widened curbside 

lanes on some streets for bicycle travel; and increased pedestrian- and bicycleoriented elements, such as street trees, benches, and decorative streetlights. The 

current streetscape concept for South Capitol Street, found in the DEIS, is shown 

in Figure B.4.
60 

Figure B.4 Streetscape Concept for South Capitol Street

Crash data from January 1, 2000 until December 31, 2004 shows that some of the 

highest fatality rates in the District occur at four major intersections within the 

corridor. Crash severity rates at intersections in the corridor were calculated 

using the equation shown in the box at right. Rear-end crashes are the most frequent type of crashes, followed by left-turn and sideswiped crashes.

Factors contributing to these unsafe conditions include:

• Local roads overloaded with regional traffic;

• Inadequate sight distance;

• Insufficient/lack of advanced warning signs;

• Weaving traffic patterns;
61

• S-curve alignment of the approach roads to the Frederick Douglass Memorial 

Bridge;

• Nonstandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and

• Lack of crosswalks, pedestrian signals, median barriers, and grade separations.

To address these issues, the DEIS evaluates two build alternatives (1 and 2) and a 

No-build alternative. The No-build would not adequately address the safety 

issues because it would include only small and isolated safety improvements. 

These would reduce left-turn and some rear-end crashes, but would not be sufficient to address additional crashes expected as traffic volumes increase.

Both Build Alternatives 1 and 2 include redesigned intersections with additional 

turn lanes and reconfigured interchanges intended to improve traffic flow and 

reduce the likelihood of crashes among motorists. Pedestrian and bicycle safety 

improvements would include new crosswalks, pedestrian signals, curb cuts, 

refuge islands, and other bicycle accommodations. Alternatives 1 and 2 also 

would replace the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with one that meets current design standards and provides a safer crossing for pedestrian and bicyclists. 

The primary difference between the two alternatives is that Build Alternative 2 

increases the number of at-grade intersections and traffic circles/ovals, which 

could create conflicting movements between automobiles. Build Alternative 1 

proposes to keep median barriers and maintain grade separations, reducing the 

potential for conflicts.

The Preferred Alternative will eventually be chosen and further examined in the 

FEIS. The proposed urban boulevard design for South Capitol Street will contribute to the safety, accessibility, multimodal mobility, and economic development 

of the corridor.

B.5 Wisconsin DOT: U.S. 8 – Public Involvement 

and Safety

A 40-mile stretch of 

U.S. 8 runs east to west 

in Wisconsin from 

WIS 35 North in Polk 

County to U.S. 53 in 

Barron County. This 

corridor passes through 

the Communities of 

Range and Poskin; the 

Villages of Turtle Lake and Almena; the City of Barron; and the Towns of 

St. Croix Falls, Balsam Lake, Apple River, Beaver, Almena, Clinton, Barron, and

Stanley. Since the mid-1990s, the corridor has been of interest to a group of 

county and local officials, concerned with safety and congestion along the corridor. 
62 

Known today as the U.S. 8 Coalition, the group has expanded and consists of 

county highway commissioners, highway committee chairpersons, and community members from each county. The group’s goal is to promote, develop, and 

prioritize improvements to U.S. 8. In 2001, the original legislative mandate to 

study this stretch of the corridor was the direct result of input from the Coalition.

The purpose of this project was to identify the preferred corridor for the eventual 

construction of a multilane facility meeting future transportation and safety 

needs for U.S. 8. Because of the length of the corridor and the complexity of 

issues in each community, analysts divided the corridor into seven individual 

segments for study. Each segment had one or more alternatives in addition to 

the No-build alternative. Of the seven segments, the Turtle Lake segment is the 

only one without a Preferred Alternative. Due to the number of severe crashes in 

the Village of Turtle Lake, analysts concluded further study in the form of a 

Tier 2 EIS or EA was needed.

The project Tier 1 EIS, including an ROD, has been completed, resulting in consensus on the basic location and design vision for the overall corridor. The Tier 2 

environmental documentation will include formal corridor preservation for the 

preferred segments, and Tier 3 will include advancement of the proposed alternatives to projects that move to final design.

Due to the interest and commitment of the U.S. 8 Coalition, public support has 

been high for improvements that address congestion, safe access to and from 

U.S. 8, and mobility for both local and regional traffic. In 1994, the Coalition 

developed purpose and mission statements to formalize its desire to provide a 

safe route that met the growing demands of the collective communities. The 

purpose of the group is to secure the provision of safe and efficient travel and economic 

growth on U.S. 8 for the next generation; and the mission is to work cooperatively in 

promoting, developing, and prioritizing improvements to U.S. 8 from the Minnesota/

Wisconsin border to WIS 13 in Price County. From the beginning, the Coalition 

established a close working relationship with the Wisconsin DOT, who ultimately helped them secure money from the State Legislature to study the safety 

and congestion impacts along this 40-mile stretch of U.S. 8. As part of the EIS 

environmental process, the Coalition participated in public forums, held their 

own meetings to update members regarding the progress and issues along the 

project, and made a commitment to long-range planning activities in their local 

Comprehensive Plans.

Another element of this project indicative of the Coalition members’ commitment 

to safety in the corridor was the response to the road safety analysis. Updated 

crash analysis, covering 2001 to 2006, showed the crash rates throughout the corridor, as a whole, were below the statewide average, but fatal crash rates exceeded 

the statewide average on more than one-half of the individual segments. In particular, the recent number of fatal crashes in the Village of Turtle Lake prompted 

the Village to ask for a Road Safety Audit from Wisconsin DOT. This delayed the 

recommendation of a Preferred Alternative in the Tier 1 EIS for the Village of 

Turtle Lake, but the results of the road safety audit will be used to inform the 
63

Tier 2 environmental documentation. Tier 2 will specifically evaluate and select a 

Preferred Alternative for the Turtle Lake segment that meets the safety needs of 

the project.

B.6 Tennessee DOT: Expediting Road Safety 

Improvements

The Tennessee DOT has an extensive program to conduct Road Safety Audit 

Reviews (RSAR) that examine the need for safety improvements for existing road 

segments, intersections, corridors, and ramp queues. The intent of the RSAR 

program is to implement low-cost safety improvements in an expedited manner.

The RSAR process involves a multidisciplinary team, including staff from the 

Short-Range Planning Office, the Project Safety Office, the Conceptual and 

Environmental Documentation Office, the State Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator, 

Region Design Office, and the Region Traffic Office. Additional professionals 

(e.g., law enforcement, structural, or right-of-way) participate as needed. The 

RSAR team examines the interaction of project elements and considers the safety 

of all road users while promoting Tennessee DOT’s goal of reducing injuries and 

fatalities.

Tennessee DOT’s Project Safety Office manages the RSAR process. They initiate 

the RSAR and perform the following duties:

• Gather data and other information about safety issues at site;

• Analyze crash data;

• Identify sites in the study area that are eligible for safety funding; and

• Conduct a RSAR and prepare report.

Environmental staff are invited to prebriefings and to discuss safety issues identified during the RSAR, as well as to recommend improvements. At the prebrief 

meeting, participants plan a site visit and review data, including collision 

history, collision diagram, traffic volumes, and aerial photos. The 

multidisciplinary team conducts the site visit and considers all factors that could 

impact safety, such as all road users, environmental conditions, safety, road user 

characteristics, and surrounding land uses.

The RSAR focuses almost entirely on safety improvements, and does not consider operational issues in detail. If an operational or design issue did arise 

during the audit, the project would be handled in more traditional manner with 

coordination between the planning and NEPA staff. Under typical conditions, 

the RSAR safety recommendations qualify for treatment as a Categorical 

Exclusion (CE), allowing expedited execution. These types of activities include, 

but are not limited to, pavement markings, rumble strips, traffic lights and/or 

signs, guard rails, and concrete barrier end treatments.
64

Tennessee DOT has prepared a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for 

most of these types of projects, presuming that they stay within existing right-ofway. The PCE includes technical studies: historical, archaeological, air and 

noise, hazardous materials, and ecological reports that are subject to the FHWA 

oversight and approval. In this manner, Tennessee DOT is able to expeditiously 

address safety problems as soon as they are evident.