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 highquality 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.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-14-102

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

5. Report Date

November 2014

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Nicole Waldheim, Susan Herbel, Ph.D., Carrie Kissel

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 800

Bethesda, MD 20814

with

National Association of Development Organizations

400 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 390

Washington, DC 20001

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00020-T-14-001

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Technical Report

December 16, 2013 through December 31, 2014

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Project Manager (COTM), Rosemarie Anderson

Technical Oversight Working Group: Raymond Concho, Pueblo of Acoma; Jesse Day, Piedmont Triad Regional 

Council; Lisa Davey-Bates, Lake County/City Area Planning Council; Dave Harris, FHWA Office of Planning; Amy 

Kessler, North Central Regional Planning and Development Commission; Lorrie Lau, FHWA Office of Planning; 

Chimai Ngo, FHWA Office of Safety; Garrett Pedersen, Iowa Department of Transportation; Rita Seto, Two RiversOttauquechee Regional Commissions; Andrew Shepler, Ohio Department of Transportation; Andrew Smith, Central 

Arizona Governments; Joan Walton, Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments

16. Abstract

Rural areas consistently experience higher numbers of crash-related fatalities and serious injuries than urban areas. 

Regional planning organizations (RPO) are poised to assist state departments of transportation (DOT) and local 

officials in addressing the safety needs in nonmetropolitan areas in accordance with statewide safety goals. RPOs in 

general engage in a planning process to understand the regional issues and needs, and identify strategies to address 

them through coordination with regional stakeholders. The opportunity exists to incorporate safety into this existing

process.

This Technical Report provides methods for integrating safety into each step of the RPO planning and programming 

process, to assist in addressing rural roads multimodal safety needs. 

17. Key Words

Transportation safety planning, regional planning 

organizations, rural safety, planning process

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No of Pages

100

22. Price

N/A

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

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................ES-1

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

1.1 Project Objective .........................................................................................1-2

1.2 Target Audience..........................................................................................1-2

1.3 Research Approach.....................................................................................1-2

2.0 Safety and Transportation Planning...............................................................2-1

2.1 Legislation and Requirements ..................................................................2-1

2.2 Planner’s Role in Transportation Safety Planning.................................2-4

2.3 Defining Safety in the Rural Planning Context......................................2-5

2.4 Transportation Safety Challenges ............................................................2-6

2.5 RPO Transportation Planning Process ....................................................2-7

2.6 Fitting Safety into the RPO Transportation Planning Process ...........2-10

2.7 Committing to RPO Planning – Iowa Example.......................................2-11

3.0 Methods for Integrating Safety into the Transportation Planning 

Process...................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Planning Worksheets .................................................................................3-1

3.2 Public Involvement/Outreach..................................................................3-2

3.3 Multidisciplinary Coordination................................................................3-6

3.4 Data and Analysis.....................................................................................3-11

3.5 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................3-17

3.6 Safety Performance Measures and Targets...........................................3-25

3.7 Project Prioritization and Programming ...............................................3-29

3.8 Monitoring and Evaluation.....................................................................3-33

3.9 Developing a Safety Plan.........................................................................3-37

4.0 Linking RPO Planning Documents.................................................................4-1

4.1 Strategic Highway Safety Plans................................................................4-1

4.2 Local Comprehensive Plans ......................................................................4-3

4.3 Other Modal Plans......................................................................................4-4

5.0 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................5-1

A. Case Studies........................................................................................................A-1
Table of Contents, continued

ii

B. Resources.............................................................................................................B-1

C. Implementation Plan.........................................................................................C-1

C.1 Introduction................................................................................................C-1

C.2 How to Use This Tool................................................................................C-1

C.3 Instructions .................................................................................................C-1
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

iii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Elements of the Transportation Planning Process .........................2-11

Table 2.2 Elements of the Transportation Planning Process .........................2-12

Table 3.1 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet Public Involvement...................3-6

Table 3.2 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet Multidisciplinary 

Committees............................................................................................3-11

Table 3.3 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet Data and Analysis..................3-16

Table 3.4 Priority Planning Work Sheet Safety Goals and Objectives.............3-24

Table 3.5 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet Performance Measures and 

Targets...................................................................................................3-29

Table 3.6 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet Project Prioritization and 

Programming ........................................................................................3-32

Table 3.7 Sample Tracking Template for Individual Safety Objectives.......3-36

Table 3.8 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet Monitoring and Evaluation....3-37

Table A.1 Weighted Transportation Attributes Used for Ranking 

Recommended Projects in the Prioritization Matrix ......................A-5

Table B.1 Key Resources to Advance RPO Transportation Safety 

Planning................................................................................................ B-1

Table C.1 Implementation Worksheet ...............................................................C-2

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

v

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 SeeClickFix Web Mapping Tool.........................................................3-4

Figure 3.2 Basic Crash Data Shown at South Central Planning 

Development Commission Transportation Planning Meeting 

Annual Data for Fatalities and Serious Injuries.....................................3-5

Figure 3.3 Basic Crash Data Shown at South Central Planning 

Development Commission Transportation Planning Meeting 

Contributing Factors Data......................................................................3-5

Figure 3.4 Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission (Virginia) 

Spatial Analysis ..................................................................................3-14

Figure 3.5 Survey Output from the Iowa Northland Regional COG ............3-18

Figure 3.6 Iowa Northland Regional COG Crash Frequency Data 

by Jurisdiction Number of Fatal Crashes per County, 2001-2010..........3-19

Figure 3.7 Iowa Northland Regional COG Crash Frequency Data 

by Jurisdiction Number of Fatal, Major Injury, and Minor Injury 

Crashes in Bremer County, 2001-2010.................................................3-19

Figure 3.8 East Central Intergovernmental Association Crash Density 

Data ......................................................................................................3-20

Figure 3.9 Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission 

Contributing Factors Data.................................................................3-21

Figure 3.10 Florida-Alabama TPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Emphasis Area 

Data ......................................................................................................3-22

Figure 3.11 Sample Data to Depict Crash Data Trends to Set Performance 

Targets..................................................................................................3-28

Figure 3.12 Sample Fatality and Serious Injury Data for Evaluation 

Purposes...............................................................................................3-34

Figure 3.13 Sample Data for Goal Area Monitoring and Evaluation ..............3-35

Figure 3.14 Piedmont Triad Speed Management Study Results......................3-36

Figure A.1a Vermont Highway Safety Forum Registration Flyer .....................A-3

Figure A.1b Vermont Highway Safety Forum Registration Flyer 

(continued) ...........................................................................................A-4

Figure C.1 Example Completed Implementation Worksheet ..........................C-3

Figure C.2 Sample Blank Action Plan Worksheet for 

Opportunity/Strategy #2...................................................................C-4

Figure C.3 Sample Blank Action Plan Worksheet for 

Opportunity/Strategy #3...................................................................C-4

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

ES-1

Executive Summary

Regional planning organizations (RPO) are poised to assist state departments of 

transportation (DOT) and local officials in addressing the safety needs in 

nonmetropolitan areas. By identifying transportation safety needs in RPO 

transportation plans, funding for safety countermeasures or other transportation

improvements can be programmed into long-range transportation plans (LRTP) 

and statewide or regional Transportation Improvement Programs (S/TIP).

The most recent crash data from the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) indicates 

that rural fatalities account for 55 percent of all fatalities, although Census 

Bureau figures show only 19 percent of the United States population living in 

rural areas.

Every RPO engages in a planning process to understand the regional issues and 

needs, either through the development of a regional plan, by providing input into 

the statewide plan, or coordinating the development of other planning 

documents. During the development of any of these plans, the opportunity 

exists to incorporate safety into the process. The terminology may differ across 

agencies, but the basic elements of a transportation planning process include:

• Public Involvement and Outreach;

• Multidisciplinary Coordination and Input;

• Data Collection and Analysis (Problem Identification);

• Development of Goals and Objectives;

• Identification of Performance Measures and Targets;

• Project Prioritization and Programming; and

• Monitoring and Evaluation.

This Technical Report provides regional planners in nonmetropolitan areas with 

methods for integrating safety into each of the above-mentioned planning 

elements, with the goal of incorporating safety into all the elements to help 

planners address multimodal safety needs. Key methods for integrating safety in 

the planning processes for rural regions, which are expanded in the document,

are highlighted below.

Public Involvement: A key function of the transportation planning process is 

soliciting input from stakeholders, local officials, and the public to inform 

decisions regarding regional priorities.

Safety Integration—RPOs can solicit and provide information on safety topics 

through surveys, comment cards, open houses, newsletters, and social media. 

This will also help to ensure that any safety stakeholders who are not reached 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

ES-2

through specific multidisciplinary coordination efforts have the opportunity to 

weigh in, along with gathering safety-specific input from the general public. 

Multidisciplinary Coordination: RPOs often establish committees to discuss and 

analyze system needs, and use that information to make informed decisions 

regarding programs and projects.

Safety Integration—Discussing safety at various RPO committee meetings (i.e.,

Policy, Technical, Bicycle/Pedestrian) and/or identify opportunities to 

engage safety stakeholders in committee discussions can promote awareness 

and stimulate action. In addition, safety workshops, or summits can be used 

to engage transportation stakeholders specifically on safety topics. Involving 

representatives from law enforcement, emergency medical services, schools, 

and other professions with safety interests in committees, workshops, and 

summits institutionalizes the role of safety professionals and stakeholders 

within RPOs.

Data Collection and Analysis: Data collection and analysis methodologies 

inform regional trends and challenges, which are used to identify goals, objectives, 

policies, programs, and projects.

Safety Integration—RPOs can utilize crash, roadway, traffic volume data, bicycle 

and pedestrian counts, transit data, or customized reports to identify current 

safety concerns and make decisions for improved transportation safety.

Development of Goals and Objectives: Goals address key desired outcomes, 

and supporting objectives are statements that support achievement of goals. 

They provide the framework for evaluating different transportation system 

options, strategies, policies, programs, and projects.

Safety Integration—RPOs can utilize public and stakeholder input, the results 

of data analysis, and information in other plans to develop safety goals and 

objectives in the planning process and associated documents.

Identification of Performance Measures and Targets: Performance measures 

can support the goals, objectives, or both and serve as a basis for making 

investment decisions and tracking results over time. A target is a numeric goal 

an agency desires to achieve over some period of time.

Safety Integration—RPOs can identify performance measures and utilize crash 

data to set targets to track progress toward the safety goals, objectives, 

programs, and/or projects.

Project Prioritization and Programming: This is the process by which projects 

and/or programs are ranked and prioritized to match the desired outcomes of 

goals, objectives, and performance measures.

Safety Integration—RPOs can include safety considerations in the prioritization 

and programming processes for the TIP, and can establish processes for 

prioritizing Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

ES-3

Monitoring and Evaluation: Monitoring can occur at the system, corridor, goal, 

emphasis area, or project level. The purpose is to inform performance and assist 

with the selection of programmatic or investment choices moving forward.

Safety Integration—RPOs can routinely monitor and track safety performance 

to evaluate progress towards meeting performance measures and targets.

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

1-1

1.0 Introduction

In 2012, 30,800 fatal motor vehicle crashes resulted in 33,561 fatalities. Rural 

areas accounted for 53 percent (16,443) of the fatal crashes; and 54 percent 

(18,170) of the fatalities.1 Some of the major factors contributing to crashes on 

rural roads include:

• Exposure – people who live in rural communities generally travel more in 

their automobiles and over further distances, increasing the likelihood of 

a crash;

• Public transportation and bicycle and pedestrian networks may be 

insufficient, forcing people to travel by car or risk unsafe circumstances on 

alternative modes;

• Rural roadways typically have higher speed limits, which increase the 

severity of crashes when they occur;

• Physical limitations of rural roadways, some constructed between mountains 

or waterways, creates narrower lanes;

• Wildlife and weather conditions, such as rock slides, often affect rural 

roadways more significantly than urban areas; and

• Rural roadways may have more curves, making roads longer and more 

challenging to navigate.

In nonmetropolitan areas,2 where crashes are occurring at higher rates, regional

planning organizations (RPO)3 are in place in about 30 states4 to assist state 

departments of transportation (DOT) and work with the public and local officials 

to understand the transportation needs for the region. Multimodal safety is often 

identified as a major issue in rural areas, but challenges, such as limited staff, a 

shortage of financial resources, inadequate data and analysis gaps, and other 

issues, may prohibit safety from being addressed in planning documents. This 

 

1 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812050.pdf.

2 The term “nonmetropolitan area” means a geographic area outside designated 

metropolitan planning areas.

3 Also known as regional transportation planning organizations (RTPO), regional 

planning affiliations (RPA), planning district commissions (PDC), councils of 

governments (COG), or regional planning commissions (RPC) (who also have a rural 

transportation program). This report will refer to rural planning agencies as RPOs, 

unless using the name of a specific agency or when referring to RTPO designation as 

part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) legislation.

4 http://www.ruraltransportation.org/about-rtpos/rtpo-states/.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

1-2

report presents opportunities and strategies for regional planners to consider 

safety throughout the transportation planning process for rural areas.

This technical report is based on available literature, web resources, and input 

from a technical oversight working group (TOWG) composed of practitioners at 

regional planning, state, and federal agencies. 

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to develop a technical report to assist RPOs with

the integration of safety into their transportation planning and programming 

process.

1.2 TARGET AUDIENCE

The main target audience of this technical report is planners at RPOs and state 

DOTs. Regional planners typically have a number of job responsibilities, but for 

many this includes assisting state DOTs with completing the requirements for 

statewide transportation planning in rural areas. This report provides regional

planners with information on the resources, strategies, and ideas for considering 

safety in their transportation planning processes. DOTs often have planners on 

staff to liaise with the RPOs in their states. In this role, they support and provide 

technical assistance to RPOs to help them carry out transportation planning 

functions. This report will provide strategies for DOTs to better assist RPOs in 

understanding the safety issues in their regions, and incorporate solutions 

through the transportation planning process.

1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH

Results from a review of recent literature and web site resources and the 

perspectives from the TOWG informed this technical report.

Web sites reviewed for resources and literature included the Transportation 

Research Board (TRB) TRID database; the National Association of Development 

Organizations (NADO); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sites, 

specifically the Rural and Small Community Transportation Planning page, the 

Safety page, and the Planning page; the National Association of Regional 

Councils (NARC); and the Community Transportation Association of America 

(CTAA).

The literature search revealed that publications do not specifically address safety 

integration in the RPO transportation planning process. However, a number of 

literature and web resources were useful and relevant to this research. They fell 

into four broad categories, including: 1) transportation safety planning from the 

urban or statewide perspective; 2) discrete safety tools and/or strategies;

3) different processes or frameworks for transportation decision-making; and
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

1-3

4) other issues important to RPO planners (i.e., economy, land use). Appendix B 

documents and provides links to these resources, while Appendix A offers short 

case studies identified in the research process of how two states are working 

with the RPOs in their states to address safety.

In addition to the literature search, this report also is based on input from the 

TOWG. The TOWG comprised planners from seven regional planning agencies

and two state DOTs, and three representatives from FHWA.

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-1

2.0 Safety and Transportation 

Planning

Section 2 provides background on recent transportation and safety legislation 

and the transportation planning process. It also identifies why, among other 

interests, safety should be considered in transportation plans, including 

opportunities for RPOs to engage in safety planning and programming.

2.1 LEGISLATION AND 

REQUIREMENTS

Title 23 of United States Code (U.S.C.)5

focuses on safety as an important 

characteristic of the transportation 

network. Recent Federal requirements 

for transportation planning processes 

stayed much the same as the 

requirements under earlier 

transportation laws, although new 

processes and concepts such as 

performance measurement are changing 

the way planning organizations complete 

their required plans.

Statewide and Nonmetropolitan 

Planning

Planning for rural areas, not served by a 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO), falls into the general category of 

Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning. 

State DOTs are responsible for 

developing two major statewide 

planning documents; a long-range 

transportation plan (LRTP), and the 

shorter-range statewide transportation 

improvement program (STIP).

 

5 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/docs/title23usc.pdf.

Rural Regional Planning

In approximately 30 states, RPOs assist 

state DOTs and local officials with regional 

transportation planning in nonmetropolitan 

areas. RPOs are voluntary organizations 

that typically function under contract to state 

DOTs to assist with tasks related to 

statewide planning, including public 

involvement, gathering input of local officials 

in the consultation process in statewide 

planning, and providing technical assistance 

to local governments.

Most of the RPOs that existed before 

MAP-21 were formed after the 1991 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act (ISTEA) and 1998 Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 

strengthened the role of local officials in the 

statewide transportation planning process. 

RPOs are often organized similarly to 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), 

with membership comprising primarily of 

local governments within the region and 

governed by a policy board or committee that 

receives recommendations from a technical 

committee.

RPOs are often housed in a multipurpose 

RPC or COG, or in a county transportation 

commission or county planning office. In 

some cases, a state DOT district office 

conducts the RPOs’ functions and acts as 

the local conduit on transportation issues.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-2

Federally Required Planning Factors

Title 23, U.S.C. requires planning agencies to 

consider eight planning factors in the 

development of plans and project selection:

1. Improving safety;

2. Supporting economic vitality;

3. Increasing security;

4. Increasing accessibility and mobility;

5. Protecting the environment and 

promoting consistency between 

transportation investments and state 

and local growth plans;

6. Enhancing connectivity for people and 

goods movement;

7. Promoting efficient system management 

and operations; and

8. Emphasizing preservation of existing 

transportation infrastructure.

Including Safety in Vision Statements

The 2013 – 2037 LRTP adopted by the 

Southern Alleghenies Rural Planning 

Organization in Pennsylvania is centered on 

the following vision:

Provide a safe, efficient, and sustainable 

multi-modal transportation system that 

fosters economic development, protects the 

environment, and meets the needs of all 

residents in the region.

The LRTP lays out the vision and goals 

regarding all aspects and modes of 

transportation over the next 20 or more 

years. Safety is usually highlighted in an 

LRTP and often appears in vision 

statements that describe the characteristics 

of a transportation network that 

stakeholders desire in the state or

particular region. The LRTP reviews 

current trends and conditions to assist in 

identifying policies, programs, and

projects that help a state achieve its goals. The STIP is a listing of priority 

transportation projects (highway and transit) that are selected to receive Federal 

funds usually in the next four or so years.

The state may decide to seek assistance with completing statewide planning 

tasks and outreach from RPOs and other planning partners in rural areas. Many 

states have chosen to contract with rural planning partners to complete regional 

LRTPs that influence the development of the state’s LRTP. RPOs also often 

identify project priorities and submit them to the state for possible inclusion in 

the STIP. RPOs provide a forum for the state to consult with local officials on 

transportation issues and priorities and assist with public involvement.

Title 23, U.S.C. identifies several issue 

areas that are required to be considered 

during planning, called planning factors. 

These factors are intended as guidelines 

for considering strategies, as well as 

specific projects and safety plays a 

prominent role. These planning factors 

can serve as a starting point for 

organizations to develop a vision, goals, 

and objectives in their long-range plan. 

The Federal planning factors also provide 

a basis for developing project ranking 

criteria, if a scoring process is used to 

determine which projects are the highest 

priority.

Major changes to Title 23, U.S.C. include a 

new focus on transportation performance 

management. The law identifies several 

national goal areas, and also requires states 

and MPOs to adopt performance targets in several areas, including safety. For 

safety, states are responsible for reporting on numbers and rates of fatalities and 

serious injuries.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-3

Safety Funding

Federal-funding programs and funding levels 

are set through authorization bills that 

historically have covered multiple years, 

rather than being subject to annual 

appropriations like other Federal funds.

Federal funds that are dedicated for safety 

projects come through the Highway Safety 

Improvement program (HSIP). However, 

other Federal programs can be used to 

enhance safety as well, provided that funds 

are spent within the parameters of those 

programs, such as the National Highway 

Performance Program, Surface Transportation

Program, and Transportation Alternatives 

Program.

In addition, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) has funds for 

educational, enforcement, and other programs

that enhance safety. These grant programs 

may be open to states and localities; 

localities generally apply to the state for 

funding for their projects. Contact your state 

Highway Safety Office (HSO) to learn more

(Appendix B includes a link to the Highway 

Safety Plans (HSP) for every state. Most 

include contact information for the HSO).

In addition, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) created an 

optional opportunity for states to formally designate regional transportation 

planning organizations (RTPO) to assist with statewide planning. Designated 

RTPOs would be required to have a policy committee; have a parent 

organization to serve as the administrative and fiscal agent, and provide 

planning staff; conduct public involvement; and complete regional 

transportation improvement programs and long-range plans.

Highway Safety

Beginning with legislation passed in 2005, known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and 

continuing under MAP-21, states are required to develop Strategic Highway 

Safety Plans6 (SHSP). The State DOT is 

responsible for the development of the 

plan. Staff assigned to the SHSP may 

not be the same as the persons involved 

in overall statewide transportation 

planning. The SHSP is to be developed 

in consultation with a variety of 

multidisciplinary stakeholders, 

including regional planners and county 

transportation officials, and should be 

updated no later than every five years.

The SHSP is a data-driven plan that 

presents a framework for reducing 

deaths and serious injuries. Each state’s 

SHSP identifies safety problems, as well 

as key emphasis areas that direct safety 

efforts. Federal Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP)7 funds are 

applied to projects and initiatives that 

are consistent with the emphasis areas 

and strategies found in their state’s 

SHSP and applicable to all public roads.

Other funds, such as those administered 

by NHTSA (e.g., Section 402), may also 

be used to implement SHSP strategies.

 

6 A web site listing the links for all the SHSPs for every state can be found in Appendix B.

7 HSIP funds are federal funds, administered by the State DOT, and eligible to be spent 

on all public roads (regardless of ownership). Planners should check with their 

respective State DOTs for state specific requirements for these funds.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-4

Linking Transportation and Safety Planning Documents

Federal regulations strengthen the expectation that the SHSP, Highway Safety 

Plan (HSP), and Motor Carrier Safety Plan have shared goals and performance 

measures and suggests other state and local plans should also align. The SHSP 

and HSIP are also required to coordinate since the obligation of HSIP funds must 

be directly related to the data-driven emphasis areas identified in the SHSP. State 

and regional LRTPs, as well as other rural/local plans, should be developed to

coordinate with the SHSP. 

2.2 PLANNER’S ROLE IN TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

PLANNING

Federal legislation may be moving toward a more defined role for RTPOs, but many

RPOs already participate in or have initiated a rural transportation planning process 

essentially following the same Federal transportation planning requirements as 

DOTs and MPOs. The extent to which RPOs address safety during this process is at 

the discretion of the agency based on available resources, identified need, and staff 

time and expertise. However, a number of factors, including momentum in states to 

adopt Toward Zero Deaths targets, the proportion of accidents occurring on rural 

roads, and advances in the availability of rural roads crash data, places RPO 

planners in an excellent position to address regional transportation safety issues. 

Research completed by the NADO Research Foundation8 and input from TOWG 

members provides insight into the capabilities and tools RPO planners have at their

fingertips to play an active role in transportation safety planning.

• RPOs’ structure naturally provides a forum for identifying regional issues 

and priorities and engaging with diverse stakeholders, in addition to local 

governments. In their role as conveners, RPOs can gather input about safety 

issues that area user’s experience. Transportation safety planning requires 

input across a number of disciplines, so the ability to convene, lead, and 

facilitate conversations further enhances communication efforts on safety.

• RPOs also commonly conduct public involvement activities for their regional 

planning efforts, and to assist the state DOT with outreach efforts. Gathering 

information about how the public views safety and where/what the biggest 

concerns are, is another public outreach effort that RPOs can complete. 

Using existing public outreach strategies, such as routine newsletters, to give 

the public information about safety topics can also be effective at improving 

awareness of not only problems, but also of safe driving techniques, 

 

8 http://www.nado.org/transportation-project-prioritization-and-performance-basedplanning-efforts-in-rural-and-small-metropolitan-regions/.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-5

resources such as child restraint inspections, or opportunities to comment 

about safety issues on statewide plans and programs.

• RPOs are connected regularly to local officials through Policy Committee 

meetings and other interactions, such as Chamber of Commerce meetings. 

Not many other regional entities have this type of access to local decisionmakers or the opportunity to convey the importance of safety on a regular 

basis.

• RPOs often have experience leading or supporting long-range planning 

processes and/or other state, regional, and local planning efforts. 

Involvement in so many different aspects of the transportation network and 

planning process in general (e.g., local land use planning, economic and 

workforce development) provides valuable insights into how safety connects 

with operations, congestion, livable communities, the economy, land use 

decisions, and other issues.

• Two common RPO positions are planners and geographic information system

(GIS) professionals. As a result, RPOs often have data analysis and mapping 

capabilities and technology. If data are available, RPO planners can identify 

crash locations and unsafe roadway characteristics. Mapping provides the 

basis for conducting a multimodal corridor safety study, or for prioritizing 

projects that improve safety by using safety and/or roadway data. RPO staff 

might also use their need for data or results from their analysis as reasons to 

communicate trends with the state DOT and state highway safety office to 

exchange information and identify ways to work more closely together.

• It is a challenge for state DOTs to coordinate with many small jurisdictions, 

but RPOs are the “boots on the ground” that provide services to member 

agencies and officials, which could include assistance to understand the

individual jurisdiction’s safety concerns.

• Elected officials are often identified as champions because of their leadership 

role and ability to advocate for safety projects. However, RPO planners can 

also be champions and lead safety efforts in other ways. Two opportunities 

include engaging in frequent conversations with decision-makers about the 

importance of safety; and identifying opportunities for the RPO to engage in 

transportation safety, perhaps through a road safety audit program or 

bicycle/pedestrian safety campaign.

2.3 DEFINING SAFETY IN THE RURAL PLANNING 

CONTEXT

Transportation legislation provides the basic framework for including safety in 

the transportation planning process. American Association of State Transportation 

Organization Highway Safety Manual refers to safety as the crash frequency or 

severity, or both, and collision type for a specific time period, a given location 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-6

and a given set of geometric or operational 

conditions. In general, transportation 

safety refers to reducing fatalities, serious 

injuries, and economic loss resulting from

crashes on the transportation system.

However, defining safety in the planning 

context and identifying how to provide 

safe facilities for all users is at the discretion 

of the planning agency and stakeholders. 

RPO planners can facilitate discussions 

with transportation and safety stakeholders 

to develop a description of safety pertinent 

to the region. Potential options are to 

spend time discussing this within an RPO 

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

meeting or during public involvement efforts.

2.4 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY CHALLENGES

Rural regions continue to see the majority of fatal crashes on their roads, but

addressing safety in the planning process can be challenging.

Rural roadway networks are often extensive with sparse populations, and 

crashes tend to be dispersed across the network and usually not found in 

clusters. Systemic analysis is a tool to overcome this challenge. The approach 

provides a more comprehensive method for safety planning and implementation 

that supplements and complements traditional site analysis. It helps agencies 

broaden their traffic safety efforts and consider risk, as well as crash history 

when identifying where to make low-cost safety improvements. However, 

conducting systemic analysis requires data, staff time, and analysis expertise.

Like MPOs, RPOs develop staff expertise as planners, conveners, and analysts, 

but the regional organization itself is not an owner of roads or bicycle and 

pedestrian paths, and usually does not operate transit; as a result, finding an 

appropriate role in addressing safety sometimes proves challenging.

RPOs often have fewer resources to comprehensively consider safety, including 

the development of specific safety plans at the local or regional level or programs 

(e.g., road safety audit programs) that could assist in identifying safety projects.

In their role to assist state DOTs with statewide planning, RPOs often work most 

closely with state DOT planning and programming offices and do not have the 

same familiarity with state DOT safety staff who can assist with safety analyses 

and safety funds for local projects.

Crash data collection and analysis are central to identifying safety problems. 

Some states lack timely and/or accurate crash data for local and rural roadways. 

This can hinder the understanding of regional safety issues. Limited staff and 

Discussing safety in the planning context is 

an opportunity to open up a dialogue with 

regional stakeholders, if safety has not 

been systematically addressed before.

At a regional meeting, such as a 

transportation advisory committee meeting, 

it may be beneficial to schedule time in the 

agenda to ask: What does transportation 

safety mean to you?

Give respondents some time to write down 

their ideas, and discuss the responses as a 

group. Issues that appear multiple times 

might become safety emphasis areas for 

that community or region.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-7

Defined Tasks in MAP-21 for 

Designated RTPOs

 Establish a policy committee of a majority 

of local official.

 Have a “parent” or “host” organization to 

serve as administrative and fiscal agent 

and provide planning staff.

 Develop rural, regional long-range transportation plans.

 Create a short-range transportation 

improvement program.

 Conduct public outreach.

 Coordinate transportation with other 

relevant planning areas.

resources at both state DOTs and RTPOs may preclude crash data from being 

reviewed or analyzed for a rural region. In addition, RTPOs may not have access 

to state or local crash databases, and need to rely on other agencies to generate 

reports or provide training on the crash databases. In some states, legal issues 

prevent the DOT from sharing safety data.

2.5 RPO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

MAP-21-defined tasks for RTPOs for the first time in Federal statute. RPOs that 

existed prior to MAP-21 have no Federally required standard work program 

across states, but they generally exist to assist state DOTs with requirements for 

statewide planning, particularly in conducting outreach to local officials and the 

public in nonmetropolitan areas. Many RPOs already comply with a number of 

these tasks, including the development of a long-range plan, similar to state and 

MPO long-range plans. These plans have a time horizon of about 20 years and 

outline vision and goals.

Regions that do not develop an LRTP typically have a planning process in place 

to identify regional needs. For instance, some rural regions complete a regional 

plan, but with no specific time horizon, which describes the region’s 

transportation context and strategies to improve it. In areas that do not complete 

a long-range plan, community-specific comprehensive plans may convey desired 

transportation outcomes shared across a region. Another option is to integrate 

safety-related objectives into other plans they complete at the regional level. In 

addition, RPOs commonly assist the state 

with other types of planning, such as 

coordinated human services 

transportation planning.

It also is common for rural regions to 

develop a list of priority transportation 

needs. In some regions, the list is fairly 

formal and resembles a Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP), similar to 

those required to be developed by MPOs. 

In other states, the RPOs submit a list of 

projects for consideration to be included as 

the state DOT develops its STIP. To 

develop a rural TIP or priority list of 

projects, most regions use a set of criteria 

to sort projects into higher and lower priorities. Sometimes the criteria are 

shared among all members of the board or committee conducting the 

prioritization, but others allow individual members to define their own criteria 

related to the overall vision for the region. Regardless of the process used to 

rank projects, the identified projects are typically consistent with the overall 

vision laid out in the long-range plan or other planning documents.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-8

The level of transportation planning varies among RPOs. However, every RPO

engages in some type of planning process to understand the regional issues and 

needs, either through the development of a regional plan, by providing input into 

the statewide plan, or coordinating the development of other planning 

documents. Common planning tasks exist across RPOs, and when they are 

combined, they form a structured process to identify transportation priorities. 

The terminology may differ across agencies, but the basic elements of a 

transportation planning process include Public Involvement and Outreach, 

Multidisciplinary Coordination and Input, Development of Goals and Objectives, 

Identification of Performance Measures, Data Collection and Analysis (Problem 

Identification), Project Prioritization and Programming, and Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

• Public Involvement/Outreach. Public engagement is the process by which 

RPOs provide information and seek feedback from stakeholders, the public, 

and elected officials on regional transportation issues. Outreach techniques 

can take a number of forms, but the most common are web sites, newsletters, 

surveys, public meetings, and workshops.

• Multidisciplinary Coordination. RPOs often establish committee structures, 

made up of diverse individuals, to discuss and analyze system needs, and 

use that information to make informed decisions regarding programs and 

projects. The policy committee, often made up mainly of local elected 

officials and state DOT officials, makes decisions regarding project priorities 

and funding. The TAC (and other modal committees if established) provides 

technical analysis and support to assist the policy committee in making 

informed decisions.

• Data Collection and Analysis. Data collection and analysis methodologies 

inform assessment of regional trends and challenges, which are used to 

identify goals, objectives, policies, programs, and projects. The analysis 

process focuses on understanding how a transportation system and its 

components function, and consequently how improvements to that system 

will alter its performance.

• Goals and Objectives. Goals address key desired outcomes, and supporting 

objectives are statements that support achievement of goals. They provide a 

framework for later in the planning process to identify criteria for evaluating 

different transportation system options, strategies, policies, programs, and 

projects.

• Performance Measures and Targets. Performance measures can support the 

goals, objectives, or both; and serve as a basis for making investment 

decisions and tracking results over time. A target is a numeric goal an 

agency desires to achieve over some period of time.

• Project Identification and Prioritization. This is the process by which 

available funds are matched with desired actions. Earlier in the process, 

public input and data analysis results shape the plans’ goals and objectives. 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-9

Performance measures are identified to track progress toward the goals and 

objectives and in combination of these considerations, projects and/or 

programs are ranked and prioritized.

• Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation are commingled 

processes. Monitoring can be conducted at the system, corridor, goal, or 

project level; and initially relies on baseline data to demonstrate the “current 

state” of transportation safety for a region. Over time, RPOs can continue to 

collect and monitor crash data to make judgments concerning the relative 

merits of funding investments, alternative actions, and/or programs and 

projects. One of the most common ways of making sure evaluations are 

linked to the safety goals and objectives of a transportation plan is through 

the definition of performance measures.

The core planning tasks outlined above are being used by a number of RPOs to 

conduct transportation planning, including examples below from three states.

Virginia

The 20 Virginia Planning District Commissions (PDC) partnered with the Virginia

Department of Transportation (VDOT) to evaluate the State’s rural 

transportation system, and recommend a range of transportation improvements 

that best satisfy existing and future needs. Each PDC has completed a 2035 LRTP 

that identifies needs based upon goals and objectives established by each region. 

The planning approach used to develop all the LRTPs included:

• Development of regional transportation goals and objectives;

• Public involvement;

• Data compilation and collection;

• Data analysis;

• Identification of transportation deficiencies and recommendations; and

• Environmental and cost reviews.

Ohio

In Ohio, ODOT began a two-year RTPO program with five existing regional 

planning agencies, and provided funding and assistance so each can develop the 

first regional transportation plan for their regions. The plans will provide a 

metric-based analysis of existing transportation infrastructure, and propose a list 

of regional multimodal transportation needs. The planning approach being used 

to develop all the LRTPs includes:

• Development of regional transportation goals and objectives;

• Inventory existing conditions;

• Project future conditions;
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-10

• Needs analysis;

• Fiscal analysis;

• Stakeholder participation; and

• Plan recommendations.

In addition to developing a transportation plan, one key part of the pilot 

program is the development of transportation expertise at each of the RTPOs. 

One way this is happening is through MPO mentorship. Each of the five 

agencies has an existing Ohio MPO that is providing mentorship over the twoyear pilot program.

Alabama

In Alabama, the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) funded a twoyear pilot program with the West Alabama RPO to understand the effectiveness 

of the rural transportation consultation process. The effort was deemed 

successful and 12 RPOs were established throughout the State. All the RPOs do 

not follow the same planning process, but the approach used by the West 

Alabama RPO is similar to that of the others and includes:

• Development of a vision statement;

• Development of goals;

• Identification of general problems and needs;

• Identification of strategies to address problems and needs;

• Identification of projects that support the strategies;

• Prioritization of projects; and

• Public review of the draft plan and adoption of the final plan.

2.6 FITTING SAFETY INTO THE RPO

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Table 2.1 lays out how safety can be integrated into the tasks that constitute the 

transportation planning process with associated strategies. It shows the basic

elements of the transportation planning process, and depicts overarching 

strategies to integrate safety into each element of the planning process. The 

elements of the transportation planning process are further explored in Section 3: 

Methods for Integrating Safety into the Transportation Planning Process. In 

addition to the strategies presented below, RPOs may find it beneficial to 

complete a standalone safety plan, which is also described in Section 3.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-11

Table 2.1 Elements of the Transportation Planning Process

Transportation Planning 

Process Tasks

Strategies to Integrate Safety into 

Transportation Planning Processes

Public Involvement/

Outreach

Utilize available public involvement tools (e.g., surveys, public meetings, 

comment cards, web sites, and newsletters) to collect information on 

transportation safety issues and needs.

Multidisciplinary 

Coordination

Discuss safety at various RPO committee meetings and/or identify 

opportunities to engage safety stakeholders in committee discussions.

Data Collection and 

Analysis

Collect and analyze safety data to identify goals, objectives, and project/

program priorities.

Develop Regional Goals 

and Objectives

Utilize public and stakeholder input, the results of data analysis, and 

information in other plans to develop safety goals and objectives in planning 

documents.

Establish System 

Performance Measures 

and Targets

Identify performance measures and targets to track progress toward the 

safety goals, objectives, programs, and/or projects.

Evaluate and Prioritize 

Projects

Include safety considerations in the prioritization and programming 

processes for the TIP.

Monitor and Evaluate 

Performance

Routinely monitor and track safety performance to evaluate progress 

towards meeting performance measures and targets.

2.7 COMMITTING TO RPO PLANNING – IOWA EXAMPLE

In Iowa, the RPAs are successful in their planning efforts and in integrating 

safety into the transportation planning processes. The success is due, in large 

part, to the coordination and collaboration between the Iowa DOT and the RPAs 

on institutional and planning topics.

The table below presents an example of how the RPOs in Iowa, known as RPAs, 

are approaching transportation safety integration in their planning processes. 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-12

Table 2.2 Elements of the Transportation Planning Process

Transportation 

Planning 

Process Tasks

Iowa RPA’s Approach to Integrate Safety 

into Transportation Planning Processes

Public 

Involvement/

Outreach

• Utilize a variety of methods for incorporating safety considerations in the public 

involvement process, including Internet surveys, formal public participation meetings, 

and project review meetings.

• Local safety workshops held across the State.

• Must develop a Public Participation Plan.

Multidisciplinary 

Coordination

• Every RPA has (or is encouraged to have) a regional multidisciplinary safety team 

(MDST), which meets regularly to discuss regional safety issues, goals, and future 

projects.

• RPAs periodically discuss safety issues with members of their TAC and Policy 

Committee. During these committee meetings, RPA staff provide relevant safety 

data and funding information to foster regional safety improvement decisions.

Data Collection 

and Analysis

• RPAs have access to a robust historical crash database and leading-edge evaluation 

software, which they use to evaluate safety needs.

• Most RPA staffs include people who possess skills with GIS, CAD, and other 

technical evaluation programs.

• RPAs participate in crash analysis workshops and road safety audits.

• DOT currently is evaluating systemic safety improvements, which will be shared with 

the RPAs. The results of this analysis can assist the RPAs in identifying priority 

locations for future improvements.

Develop Regional 

Goals and 

Objectives

• Each RPA LRTP has a safety component that may include regional goals and 

objectives as well as analysis of safety and other trends in the region. The Southeast 

Iowa RPA’s LRTP includes the following safety goal and objectives, and more 

examples can be found in section 3.5 of this report:

Improve regional transportation system to make it a safe place to travel for all users

• Create a regional traffic safety study.

• Educate regional partners on current best practices for transportation safety.

• Work with regional partners and Iowa DOT to implement safety improvements in 

locations where improvements are most needed.

• Identify and secure funding sources to implement needed safety improvements.

Establish System 

Performance 

Measures and 

Targets

• RPAs are waiting for MAP-21 performance requirements to be finalized through a 

rulemaking, so they can better direct resources toward data collection, performance 

tracking, and evaluation. Iowa DOT will provide guidance to RPAs based on final 

performance measurement rulemaking.

Evaluate and 

Prioritize Projects

• RPAs are responsible for coordinating programming efforts and development of the 

TIP. Included in the programming process are safety considerations and projects. 

Some planning agencies provide increased weighting to elevate safety as an 

important component.

Monitor and 

Evaluate 

Performance

• RPAs are waiting for MAP-21 performance requirements to be finalized through a 

rulemaking, so they can better direct resources toward data collection, performance 

tracking, and evaluation. Iowa DOT will provide guidance to RPAs based on final 

performance measurement rulemaking.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-13

Some of the keys to a successful planning partnership in Iowa that can be applied 

in other states include:

• RPA staff have many different resources available to them at Iowa DOT:

– Systems Planning office for all standard planning activities/elements

(including safety), general inquiries;

– Safety Planning staff for assistance with crash data access, analysis, and 

training;

– Program Management office for TIP and programming support;

– District Planners for project-level and day-to-day issues; and

– Other offices as needed (location and environment, local systems, other 

district staff, etc.) for resources.

• RPA staff communicate on a regular basis with the DOT offices mentioned 

above, and also participate in quarterly meetings to dialogue with DOT staff 

and network with other planning agencies. Topics can include safety.

• RPAs and Iowa DOT participate in routine agency planning reviews. It is an 

opportunity for DOT staff to learn about local conditions, including safety,

and how planning is conducted in each region. It is also good for DOT staff 

to physically visit with the RPA at planning reviews and other times. RPA 

staff appreciates knowing that staff from Iowa DOT is willing to meet for any 

number of reasons.

• Iowa DOT provides clear planning expectations and requirements, and 

avoids requirements for RPAs that are overly burdensome. In addition, the 

DOT listens to the RPAs’ concerns and is willing to adapt to different issues, 

which has been important to keeping agencies engaged in the planning process.

• Funding, including planning funds for agency staff and HSIP, Surface 

Transportation Program (STP)/Transportation Alternative Program (TAP)

funds for locals, provides RPAs and the local jurisdictions they represent a

reason to buy into the regional planning and programming process. The 

RPAs and locals are able to have input on how funds are administered.

• Some of the more rural RPAs who have fewer resources and staff are offered

in-state trainings on different subjects, including safety.

• In Iowa the DOT staff play a critical role in communicating on behalf of the 

RPAs, and ensure that FHWA/FTA are engaging the RPAs in a fair and 

effective manner. The RPAs are not federally required to have a role in 

planning, they are the major mechanism by which the state completes its 

cooperation and consultation with local officials in compliance with federal 

statewide planning requirements, and RPAs are expected to follow federal 

planning requirements as well.

• Iowa DOT provides a wide variety of crash resources on its web site, 

including profiles of cities, counties, key emphasis areas, and top safety 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

2-14

improvement candidate locations. The DOT also accepts requests for crash 

data if a user has a need not covered by these items, such as a detailed look at 

a particular intersection.

• The DOT provides the Crash Analysis Mapping Tool (CMAT), which is a 

free, user-friendly software program that provides access to crash data 

through a simple GIS interface. It includes over 10 years of crash data that 

can be queried by items, such as major cause, injury level, etc.; and it also 

provides information at the crash level. There is also a free training offered 

for the software, which has been hosted by several RPAs in the past.

• The DOT, in partnership with the Institute for Transportation (InTrans) at 

Iowa State University, has conducted crash analysis and safety improvement 

workshops with Multidisciplinary Safety Teams in the State. These can be 

tailored to focus on specific geographic areas or specific crash types.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-1

3.0 Methods for Integrating

Safety into the Transportation 

Planning Process

Every RPO has elements of a planning process in place to identify regional 

transportation priorities. This section of the Technical Report breaks down the 

core planning tasks and describes strategies to integrate safety into each. RPOs 

are encouraged to engage in all the planning tasks, from public involvement to 

monitoring and evaluation, to inform program and project selection. For RPOs 

that may not follow this exact planning process, strategies and examples are 

separated by planning task, and can be adopted into any RPO planning process.

3.1 PLANNING WORKSHEETS

At the end of each planning section is a worksheet, designed to assist RPOs and 

DOTs understand how current assets can be leveraged to better consider safety 

in regional planning processes, consider any challenges that may inhibit 

progress, and identify future opportunities to plan for a safer system. The 

worksheets can be used as a collaborative tool to initiate internal and external 

discussions on transportation safety planning opportunities. 

The worksheets could also be used as an activity during public, stakeholder,

and/or committee meetings. It is an opportunity to engage multiple disciplines 

to identify a list of potential strategies. 

Once strategies have been identified for all or some of the planning tasks using 

the worksheets, the next step would be to select the top priority planning areas 

and address them through the development of specific action steps. Appendix C 

provides an Implementation Tool template to guide this process.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-2

RTPO Public Involvement Policy Manuals

Public involvement manuals may not specify how to 

obtain input on transportation safety, but they do 

provide useful techniques and approaches for 

working with the public. Opportunities to incorporate 

safety into the approaches outlined in these manuals 

are described further in this section.

Southwestern RPO (North Carolina) Public 

Involvement Policy: http://www.regiona.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/SWRPO-PublicInvolvement-Policy.pdf.

Albemarle RPO (North Carolina) Public Involvement 

Policy: http://www.albemarlecommission.org/

Planning/planning/Public%20Involv.%20Pan.pdf.

North Central Pennsylvania RPDC (Pennsylvania)

Public Participation Plan: http://www.ncentral.com/

trans/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/

NC_PublicParticipationPlan.pdf.

3.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/OUTREACH

A key function of the transportation 

planning process is soliciting input 

from stakeholders, local officials, and 

the public to inform decisions 

regarding regional priorities. Public 

involvement is not a Federal 

requirement for RPOs, but it may be 

required by state legislation or the 

state DOT. A 2011 NADO Research 

Foundation survey found 87 percent 

of the responding 184 agencies 

conducting small metropolitan or 

rural transportation planning 

activities implement public 

involvement activities.9 RPOs may 

conduct public involvement for 

LRTPs, corridor studies, arterial plans, 

or other modal documents. The 

agencies benefit from discussing 

safety during public involvement activities by collecting information and using it to 

inform the goals and objectives in planning documents.

A number of methods are used to conduct public involvement activities, 

especially since the Internet and social media has exponentially increased the 

number of strategies used by people to receive and send information. Safety 

objectives can be worked into outreach techniques or become an outreach focus. 

Strategies are outlined below.

Strategies for Incorporating Safety into Public Involvement

Listening and Feedback. Listening and providing opportunities for feedback 

are important elements of the public engagement process. Listening enables 

RPO planners to understand the needs of the public, local officials, and 

stakeholders so they can provide transportation improvements and implement 

policies that best address their needs. An RPO might decide to reach out to 

specific agencies that are nontraditional planning partners through 

multidisciplinary coordination efforts, described in Section 3.3 below. However, 

listening through general public outreach can also provide access to other 

knowledgeable voices, such as individual school bus drivers, law enforcement 

officers, parents of children who walk or bike in the community, crossing guards, 

 

9 http://www.nado.org/transportation-project-prioritization-and-performance-basedplanning-efforts-in-rural-and-small-metropolitan-regions.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-3

Potential Safety Survey/

Comment Card Questions

 Is transportation safety a concern for you 

and your family?

 In what specific areas is transportation 

safety a concern (i.e., walking, biking, 

intersections, transit stops, rail 

crossings)?

 What are your ideas for safety solutions?

 What specific locations or roadways do 

you perceive as having a safety 

problem?

volunteer fire department members, civic leaders, public employees, and others. 

These individuals likely have knowledge of the regional roadway network based 

on their daily travels, and recognize the safety concerns expressed. Listening 

and feedback techniques range from surveys and comment forms, to 

public meetings.

Surveys and Comment Cards

Formats for surveys and comment cards 

can take a number of forms, including

mailed or on-line questionnaires, survey 

questions or comment cards at public 

meetings, on-line surveys, or telephone 

surveys, but the purpose is to help 

agencies collect qualitative information 

about key issues. Soliciting information by 

asking safety-specific questions provides 

RPOs with input as to whether safety 

problems exist and the extent to which 

they are perceived as an issue throughout 

the region. If safety emphasis or goal 

areas are identified, RPO planners can 

focus resources or partner with other agencies, such as the state DOT, to learn 

more about the regional transportation safety concerns, and incorporate 

strategies and projects into planning documents.

The North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission

(RPDC) utilized an on-line survey interface through SeeClickFix, a web-based 

mapping tool (Figure 3.1). Individuals were asked to pinpoint specific locations 

of safety concern, provide details about the location, and include a photo, if 

available. This information was used to inform the goals, strategy development, 

and project prioritization in the North Central Regional Safety Study.10

One of the main challenges expressed by planners is the lack of public interest in 

surveys or comment cards. An option is to provide incentives to complete the 

information. For the mapping survey, the North Central Pennsylvania RPDC 

offered participants a chance to win a $25 gasoline gift card, and participation 

spiked. Another strategy is to provide opportunities for the public to participate 

in surveys or comment cards at community events such as festivals, or at places 

they frequent for other purposes such as shopping malls.

 

10http://www.ncentral.com/trans/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NCentral_Final_

Report_March2012.pdf.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-4

Figure 3.1 SeeClickFix Web Mapping Tool

Source: http://www.ncentral.com/trans/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/

NCentral_Final_Report_March2012.pdf.

Public Meetings

Open house meetings are usually conducted during plan development. Early 

meetings typically focus on developing the plan’s goals and objectives, reviewing

current conditions, projecting future conditions, and identifying transportation 

needs. Bringing safety into conversations during these meetings increases the 

likelihood that the public and stakeholders will see safety as a priority for the 

RPO region. Public meetings typically include presentation slides, presentation 

boards, maps, and/or handouts. Including information on crash data or 

discussions about general safety concerns helps attendees better understand and 

make informed decisions about transportation safety.

Figures 3.2 and 3.3 depict two graphics the South Central Planning Development 

Commission, which covers a small MPO and surrounding rural counties in 

Louisiana, used during an open house meeting for their safety plan. The 

graphics stimulated discussion among participants on the key issues.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-5

Figure 3.2 Basic Crash Data Shown at South Central Planning Development 

Commission Transportation Planning Meeting

Annual Data for Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Source: http://www.scpdc.org/wp-content/uploads/SCRTSP-Updated-Feb-2013_withAug2013Status.pdf.

Figure 3.3 Basic Crash Data Shown at South Central Planning Development 

Commission Transportation Planning Meeting

Contributing Factors Data

Source: http://www.scpdc.org/wp-content/uploads/SCRTSP-Updated-Feb-2013_withAug2013Status.pdf.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Serious Injuries 213 218 187 191 165

Fatalities 49 58 49 38 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

50

100

150

200

250

Persons Killed

Persons Seriously Injured

51.4% 50.9%

37.6% 35.6%

19.5%

15.6%

10.3% 8.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-6

Transportation Safety Planning

Web Site and Newsletter

The South Central Planning and 

Development Commission has a 

webpage and a newsletter 

dedicated to safety initiatives: 

http://www.scpdc.org/?page_id=81.

Utilizing Outreach Materials. Web sites and 

newsletters are other methods for reaching and 

informing the public. An option for highlighting

safety is to include regional or statewide 

transportation safety information and links on 

RPO web sites. Even if the region is not fully 

engaged in safety activities, providing a link to 

the state’s SHSP provides the public with an 

opportunity to learn about the major 

transportation safety issues throughout the state. Another option is to designate 

a safety section or safety article in RPO newsletters.

Table 3.1 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet

Public Involvement

Strengths Responses

What are the advantages of considering safety 

during public involvement?

What low-cost resources can you utilize to include 

safety in public involvement?

Weaknesses

What are the barriers to discussing transportation 

safety with the public?

Opportunities

What trends may work to enhance public 

involvement?

Based on your identified strengths and weaknesses, 

what strategies would you identify to include safety 

in public involvement activities?

3.3 MULTIDISCIPLINARY COORDINATION

Many RPOs convene committees, working groups, or host workshops to provide 

opportunities for diverse communities and stakeholder groups to discuss 

transportation issues for consideration during the planning process. According 

to a 2011 survey from NADO and insights from the TOWG, the most common 

RPO committees are the Policy Committee and the TAC. Other committees may 

include citizens advisory, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and general 

transportation planning. Every committee offers the opportunity to discuss 

safety issues with existing members, as well as to invite the participation of 

nontraditional planning partners such as law enforcement, emergency medical 

services officials, and educational institutions who are central to understanding 

safety and affecting safety outcomes.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-7

Elected Official Training

Some RPOs have conducted trainings for 

their local elected officials. The Pueblo of 

Acoma, a member of the Northwest New 

Mexico RTPO, coordinated with the Tribal 

Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) to 

deliver a one-half-day session to its elected 

officials on the importance of establishing a 

safety program and how to achieve results.

Many RPOs conduct an orientation for their 

members each year, and the importance of 

engaging in RPO processes to enhance public 

safety could be included in the materials, 

along with more in-depth training such as that 

provided by the Pueblo of Acoma.

RPOs do not have Federal requirements for establishing committees (some states 

have statewide requirements mandating committees), or utilizing stakeholder

input during plan development. However, many RPOs have institutionalized 

committees or, at a minimum, created opportunities to facilitate conversations 

about technical transportation issues and consult with local officials.

It is rare for an RPO to have a committee dedicated to safety issues, but some 

have focused efforts in this area. Even without a safety committee, opportunities 

exist to bring safety into the conversation during any type of committee meeting. 

The benefit of discussing safety with different stakeholders and groups is 

elevating infrastructure and behavioral safety concerns and solutions, which can 

be addressed in RPO transportation plans.

Strategies for Incorporating Safety into Multidisciplinary 

Conversations

Discuss Safety with Existing Committees

The multimodal, multidisciplinary nature of safety means it can be included on 

the meeting agenda for any RPO committee (e.g., policy, technical, citizens, or 

modal/topic).

Policy Committee

RPO policy committees are predominantly made up of locally elected officials 

and state DOT officials (other individuals, such as county/city manager, may 

participate). These committees make decisions about future transportation 

investments. Although policy committee 

meetings typically focus on RPO business 

and project decisions, there are benefits to 

including safety topics on the agenda. 

Providing local elected officials with 

background on multimodal safety issues 

helps them make informed decisions about 

safety priorities and potentially champion 

future efforts. To engage policy committee 

members, RPO staff could make high-level 

presentations on regional crash data, highcrash locations, and/or hot spots during a 

meeting. Engaging elected officials in a 

road safety audit11 has the potential to gain 

their interest in safety issues related to 

multiple modes and types of road users.

 

11Road safety audits are examinations of roadways by multidisciplinary teams to identify 

potential safety concerns and opportunities to improve safety for all roadway users. 

For more resources, visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/. 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-8

Transportation Safety Agenda Ideas 

for Committee Meetings

 Presentation on the SHSP (overview, 

progress, implementation, opportunities to 

participate);

 Discuss opportunities to program and fund 

transportation safety projects;

 Identify opportunities to consider safety in 

nonsafety projects such as streetscaping 

(which may be eligible for non-transportation 

grant funds such as Community 

Development Block Grant projects);

 Presentation/review regional crash data;

 Annual review of regional high-crash 

locations;

 Overview of road safety audits and solicit 

committee interest; and

 Opportunities for a regional safety workshop.

Technical Committee

RPO TAC typically consists of state 

DOT officials, local planners, transit 

officials, county engineers, city/county 

managers, public works representatives, 

bicycle and pedestrian and other 

transportation advocates. TAC 

participation could be expanded to 

include safety stakeholders such as law 

enforcement, schools, or emergency 

medical services, as well as other safety 

stakeholders with information about 

and an interest in transportation safety. 

TAC Committee roles may include 

reviewing RPO documents, studies, 

reports, plans, and programs; and 

providing recommendations on 

technical transportation matters to the 

policy members. The benefits of 

discussing crash data or other safety 

topics during these meetings is it 

exposes committee members to safety concerns. This increases the likelihood 

that safety goals and objectives will be identified or incorporated in planning 

documents, leading to the development of programs and projects. Including key 

safety updates in regular meeting agenda can be beneficial.

Modal/Special Interest Committees

Stakeholders on modal and special interest committees, such as freight, economic 

development, bicycle and pedestrian, and environment, can also benefit from 

regular conversations regarding transportation safety. The purpose is to 

evaluate safety issues and needs from a modal or issue-area perspective and 

share that information for consideration during plan development. For instance, 

members of a bicycle and pedestrian committee would likely have insights into 

factors contributing to crashes, crash locations, and roadway treatments to 

reduce bicycle fatalities and serious injuries. Discussing and sharing this 

information could enhance the emphasis of bicycle safety in planning 

documents. Economic development also is keenly linked to safety as crashes not 

only cost $277 billion annually12, but individuals often choose to live in locations 

that they perceive to be safe, which usually includes amenities such as sidewalks, 

slower speeds, bike paths, or open space.

 

12http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2014/NHTSA-study-showsvehicle-crashes-have-$871-billion-impact-on-U.S.-economy,-society.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-9

Iowa Multidisciplinary Safety Teams

Every Iowa RTPO has been encouraged to

have a regional multidisciplinary safety team 

(MDST). At initial meetings, key 

transportation and safety players in the 

region are identified for the committee. They 

typically include planners, engineers, law 

enforcement, emergency response, incident 

response, Iowa DOT central and district staff, 

and Iowa State University (ISU) Institute for 

Transportation staff.

Meetings consist of many different activities 

(e.g., facilitated safety discussions, safety 

audits, crash analysis workshops, and 

construction zone management). All 

applicable activities are incorporated into 

RTPO/MPO planning and programming. 

Additional information on MDSTs can be 

found in Appendix A.

Citizens Committees

This committee is made up of citizens, and they discuss an array of topics 

important to the people that live in the region. Any safety issues or concerns 

identified through surveys or during public meetings should be discussed with 

this committee, along with possible solutions that can be implemented 

considering the public’s input. If safety is not a topic that regularly comes up in 

these meetings, a member of the technical committee or perhaps RPO staff could 

make a presentation to the committee on regional crash data, effective safety 

campaigns, or the SHSP to stimulate conversation on safety issues.

If RPOs have an interest in regularly discussing transportation safety topics with 

stakeholders and committee members, one opportunity is to identify and engage 

the participation of safety professionals. For example, a high-ranking law 

enforcement official could make a presentation to the policy committee; whereas, 

traffic enforcement officials, district safety engineers, emergency responders, 

neighboring MPO safety planners, or planners with a general interest in safety 

issues could be helpful additions to other RPO committees.

Establish a Safety Committee. RPOs do

not typically have institutional barriers to 

establishing committees and may be able 

to create a committee focused on 

transportation safety issues. Since safety 

is multidisciplinary in nature, committee 

members could include representatives 

from law enforcement, emergency 

response, education, engineering, and 

different modes, such as transit, bicycle, 

and pedestrian. Including individuals that 

may not address safety issues on a regular 

basis, but have an interest in it, can 

stimulate conversation and bring unique 

perspectives to the topic. Prior to 

establishing a safety committee, consider 

what the role of the committee will be, 

how often it will meet, initial topics to 

discuss, and how it will be staffed. The 

benefits to establishing a safety committee 

is that members can review available safety data; develop transportation safety 

goals, key objectives, and performance measures; prioritize programs and 

projects eligible for funding; identify opportunities to include safety in the 

context of all transportation projects; act as champions for transportation safety; 

and provide updates on transportation safety activities. In Iowa, 

multidisciplinary safety teams have or will be established at each of the RPOs.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-10

Safety Forums in Vermont

The Vermont Highway Safety Alliance partnered with the regional planning 

commissions in Vermont to host Regional 

Highway Safety Forums.

The purpose of the safety forums was to 

establish relationships between regional 

safety stakeholders; begin to discuss the 

sharing of resources; and identify highway 

safety issues specific to each region.

Key participants at each forum included local 

and regional law enforcement, emergency 

management services, fire departments, 

select boards, planners, engineers, driver’s 

education professionals, and all highway 

safety stakeholders in the region.

Materials from the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee

Regional Planning Commission Forum can 

be found in Appendix A.

Host or Attend a Safety Workshop/Summit. Outside of the regularly scheduled 

committee meetings, which are typically used to discuss business items, 

opportunities exist to engage stakeholders in conversations about transportation 

safety issues. One- to two-day workshops or summits have been hosted by 

RPOs, state DOTs, or in partnership to discuss crash data, safety goals and 

objectives, and strategies to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. Some of the 

workshops focus more on education, providing participants with an overview of 

safety planning activities in the state. For example, the Michigan DOT hosts a 

Traffic Safety Summit each year,13 inviting all the regional COGs to learn about 

the safety programs and projects in the 

State. The benefits for RPO planners to 

attend include making connections with 

safety stakeholders, and gaining a better 

understanding of statewide safety 

issues. Other workshops are used more 

as “working sessions,” educating 

stakeholders on transportation safety 

issues, but also asking them to provide 

input into future safety projects and

priorities. The Vermont Highway Safety 

Alliance, in partnership with the 

Vermont Agency of Transportation 

(VTrans), is working with all of the 

regional planning commissions in the 

State to address rural safety issues 

through stakeholder forums. In 

Arizona, the State’s COGs and small

MPOs work together to host an annual 

rural transportation summit, convening 

elected and appointed officials, 

transportation planners, engineers, service providers, and others to discuss 

relevant transportation issues, how they affect rural Arizona, and possible 

solutions for the complex transportation needs.

 

13http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Summit_program_2014_10_web_

450415_7.pdf.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-11

Types of Safety Data

Information Required

 Crash frequencies (number of fatalities and 

serious injuries) by goal/emphasis area;

 Crash rates by goal/emphasis area or 

traffic volume data to calculate crash 

rates;

 Contributing factors data;

 Crash types;

 Crash severity;

 High-crash locations;

 Roadway characteristic data (segments 

and/or intersections); 

 Geolocated crash data; and

 Traffic data (volume).

Table 3.2 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet

Multidisciplinary Committees

Strengths Responses

What multidisciplinary committees/working groups 

does your RPO convene on a regular basis?

How can you utilize existing committees to raise 

awareness of safety issues?

Weaknesses

What stakeholders are not involved in your 

multidisciplinary committees that could discuss 

safety?

Opportunities

What trends may assist with integrating safety in 

RPOs committees?

Based on your identified strengths and weaknesses, 

what strategies would you identify to include safety

topics or stakeholders in multidisciplinary 

committees?

3.4 DATA AND ANALYSIS

Analyzing data provides the foundation to help RPO planners identify safety issues 

and needs; develop goals, objectives, and performance measures; and identify 

opportunities to address issues through specific countermeasures or by 

incorporating safety into transportation projects.

Strategies for Identifying, 

Accessing, and Utilizing 

Safety Data

Identify Available Data. RPO planners 

can utilize crash data, traffic volumes, 

roadway characteristic data, bicycle and 

pedestrian use data, transit use and route 

data (where fixed route services exist),

public input, and data from other planning 

documents to make decisions about safety 

goals, objectives/strategies, and programs/

projects. Qualitative data can be collected 

through surveys, workshops, open houses, 

or other public involvement techniques. 

For RPOs with limited staff, time, or access 

to data, this can be a good starting point for 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-12

Where to Find Data

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS). FARS is an on-line database that 

allows users to search for fatality crash 

statistics by state: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.

State DOT. Often the state DOT manages the 

crash database or has full access to it, even if it 

is maintained by another agency. RTPOs can 

coordinate with the district or statewide traffic 

and/or safety engineer to obtain data.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan and Highway 

Safety Plans. Most of the data identified in 

these plans comes from FARS or the state DOT 

database, but it is already organized in these 

documents in an easy-to-read format and 

usually shows trend data as far back as 2002, 

albeit at the statewide level.

Local Law Enforcement. Local agencies 

crash records are often useful for understanding 

local road safety issues.

Each state’s Traffic Records Coordinating 

Committee (TRCC) is another source of safety 

data. A roster of contact information for TRCC 

chairs is located at:

http://www.dot.gov/government/trafficrecords/state-trcc-personnel.

understanding regional safety issues. 

To obtain quantitative data sets (crash, 

traffic volumes, and roadway 

characteristics), the best place to start 

is with the state DOT, contacting either 

the RPO planning liaison or someone 

in the state safety office to identify the 

available data. When inquiring, it is

important to clarify whether raw data 

or DOT-generated reports would be 

more useful to the planning process, 

which will depend on staff time and 

analysis capabilities. Other agencies to 

contact regarding data availability or 

assistance are local law enforcement

agencies; Local Technical Assistance 

Program (LTAP); Tribal Technical 

Assistance Program (TTAP) and local 

safety agencies/organizations (e.g., 

National Safety Council chapter or 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving), who 

usually maintain data sets in specific

safety areas. The Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) is the source 

for roadway fatality data managed by 

NHTSA. Crash data can be found by 

reviewing other planning documents, 

especially the SHSP, which addresses 

common crash types.

Access to Available Crash Data. Once data sources have been identified, the 

next step is to retrieve the information. Some state DOTs provide access to crash 

data through an on-line interface, which requires minimal effort to retrieve, 

although effectively using the data may require training or assistance from the 

DOT or a third party. For example, the Ohio DOT provides access to crash data 

on all public roads through the GIS Crash Analysis Tool (GCAT),14 and they also 

offer detailed training to planners in the State, including the RPOs. The Iowa 

DOT uses a similar approach with their Crash Mapping and Analysis Tool 

(CMAT), providing an accessible interface and training to the RPAs.15 Other 

states may not provide this level of access to the data, but can provide raw data 

 

14http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/

HighwaySafety/HSIP/Pages/GCAT.aspx.

15http://www.iowadot.gov/crashanalysis/cmatmain.htm.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-13

Prepared Crash Data Summaries

The Vermont Agency of Transportation 

provided and analyzed crash data, for both 

statewide and regional concerns, to assist 

the RPCs in communicating safety issues to 

stakeholders during Regional Highway 

Safety Forums.

Each year, the California DOT (Caltrans)

prepares an Annual Report of Fatal and 

Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions from 

the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records 

System (SWITRS), providing summaries by 

jurisdiction, type of crash, contributing 

factors, and other characteristics to all the 

RTPOs.

High-Crash Analysis in 

Maine and Vermont

The Androscoggin Valley Council of 

Governments (AVCOG) identifies high-crash 

locations during municipal comprehensive 

planning processes. AVCOG staff monitor 

the locations and request Maine DOT to 

conduct safety studies or road safety audits, 

when applicable.

The Vermont RPCs evaluate five-year crash 

data provided by VTrans. Each region then 

identifies top three crash locations (less than 

one mile in length) and corridors (greater 

than one mile in length). VTrans then 

coordinates with the RPCs on municipal 

outreach at these locations, including RSAs.

or user-friendly reports, such as highcrash location reports, to RPOs. To obtain 

access to crash data or reports, RPOs 

should contact the DOT planning liaison 

or the state safety engineer. Some state 

crash databases do not have robust data 

for local roadways. In these instances, 

RPO planners can approach their local law 

enforcement to learn more about data 

availability and accessibility.

Identifying and Utilizing Analysis Tools. 

A number of approaches are available to 

analyze or review crash data sets.

High-Crash Locations

A common approach is for DOTs or RPOs (if they have analysis capabilities) to 

develop high-crash location reports for corridors and/or intersections. 

Information regarding high-crash locations can be incorporated into short- and 

long-range transportation planning.

High-crash reports stress immediate safety needs, aiding in the prioritization of 

safety countermeasures in the near term. This information can also be used to 

conduct road safety audits to glean additional information about the causes of 

the crashes and recommend solutions. 

Identified solutions in one location may be 

applied immediately, but the audits could 

also capture information about certain 

roadway characteristics and crash 

concerns to make recommendations at 

other locations with similar characteristics. 

Another opportunity is to look at highcrash segments and intersections when 

prioritizing future transportation projects, 

such as maintenance, preservation, bike, 

and pedestrian. These projects could be 

given additional weight or a higher score.

The intent would be, in addition to meeting

future mobility or maintenance goals, the 

project also would reduce crashes.

GIS Mapping and Crash Clusters

GIS mapping also is a useful tool for RPOs. According to a 2011 survey 

conducted by NADO, nearly one-half of the RPO respondents have GIS mapping 

capabilities. Spatial analysis is a useful tool to identify where fatalities and 

serious injuries occur, crash clusters, crash magnitude, and/or the types of 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-14

crashes. For instance, the Iowa Northland Regional COG used maps to show 

individual fatalities and serious injuries for each county, as well as crash density

along roadways and at intersections for each county. The Piedmont-Triad 

Regional Council in North Carolina, as part of a speed management study, used 

GIS to rank schools by severe and speed-related crashes, and to rank road 

sections with crashes on/near curves. All the rural planning district 

commissions in Virginia used crash maps to conduct safety assessments, which 

later identified deficiencies, such as sight distance and visibility, access 

management, and inadequate signage. This informed safety recommendations 

for intersections and segments throughout the region (see Figure 3.4). Some 

states, such as Ohio, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, also have mapping functionality 

built into their crash analysis databases, which RPOs can connect to directly or 

request specific analysis from the state DOT or owner of the State’s database.

Figure 3.4 Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission (Virginia) Spatial Analysis

Source: Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission Rural Long-Range Plan 

http://www.rrregion.org/pdf/publications/transportation/RRRC%20RLRP%20Adopted%2020110622.pdf.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-15

Data Analysis for a 

Speed Management Study

The Piedmont Triad Regional Council conducted a pilot speed management study for one 

of its member jurisdictions. The study included 

a three-pronged analysis approach.

County Level Analysis – Frequency tables 

using crash data variables were used to identify 

countywide trends and general crash factors 

associated with speeding-related crashes.

Network Screening – Identified routes where 

severe and/or speeding-related crashes are over 

represented compared with other similar routes.

Spatial Analysis – GIS was used to rank 

schools by severe and speeding-related 

crashes, and to rank road sections with crashes 

on/near curves.

Additional Crash Data

and Analysis Resources

Reports have been written specifically to assist

local and rural planners understand and 

analyze crash data. One very useful document 

is Road Safety Information Analysis – A Manual 

for Local Rural Road Owners: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/

fhwasaxx1210/.

Additional information on this report and others 

can be found in Appendix B.

Crash Frequency

Crash frequency is generally the simplest

way of conducting analysis. It is defined 

as the number of crashes that have 

occurred across the regional network by 

member jurisdiction, or more specifically, 

at a given roadway section or intersection. 

If GIS capabilities exist, then these data can 

be transferred to a map to show crash 

clusters. Frequency information can also 

be used to demonstrate the propensity for 

certain types of crashes, such as impaired 

driving, roadway departures, distracted 

driving, intersections, occupant protection, 

speeding, or other safety areas of concern 

in the region. The outputs of this analysis 

will provide RPOs with an idea as to 

which goal/emphasis areas to focus on in 

the transportation planning process.

Trend Analysis

Trend analysis is a useful tool to monitor increases and decreases in fatalities and 

serious injuries over a certain number of years to understand whether any 

changes are occurring for different safety issue areas or crash types. For 

example, if the data from 2007 to 2013 shows pedestrian injuries have 

consistently risen, RPO planners may explore the development of this as a goal 

area with objectives and strategies to address the issues.

Crash Rates

Crash rates need exposure data to 

calculate. Examples include traffic 

volume data (either Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (AADT) or Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT) numbers). However, 

crash data, combined with traffic 

volumes can be used to depict the 

number of crashes in a given period as 

compared to the traffic volume. Rates 

can provide better insight into 

problematic locations, segments, or 

intersections. For example, some 

intersections may experience minimal crashes, but when you compare it to traffic 

volume, the crash rate may be higher than other intersections with higher 

volumes and crashes.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-16

Planning for Systemic Projects in Vermont

Since 2008, 6,000 crashes in Vermont have 

been related to vehicles crossing the highway 

centerline. As a result, VTrans now considers 

the applicability of centerline rumble strips on 

every state road. During the planning process 

VTrans, the MPO, and the RPOs are 

encouraged to analyze corridors for high 

crossover crashes, higher speeds, and higher 

traffic volumes to make recommendations for 

the installation of rumble strips in conjunction 

with other projects, such as resurfacing, or as a 

standalone projects.

Systemic Analysis

Crashes in rural areas tend to be spread 

out making it difficult to identify 

locations to address. The systemic 

approach is beneficial because safety 

improvements are identified based on 

high-risk roadway features, not highcrash locations. Systemic analysis is a 

risk-based approach and works by 

identifying common roadway 

characteristics associated with crashes

across the road network. Once these 

roadway characteristics are known, 

locations through the network with these 

characteristics can be identified and 

countermeasures identified to address them. DOTs, more so than RPOs, have 

begun using systemic analysis to identify risk factors and program low-cost 

countermeasures. However, for RPO planners, understanding some of the 

systemic issues and proven countermeasures can aid in prioritizing 

transportation projects, where systemic treatments could be considered.

Table 3.3 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet

Data and Analysis

Strengths Responses

What data and analysis tools are available?

What corridor studies or other project analysis can 

be used for their data sources or analysis?

Weaknesses

What are the challenges related to data access 

and availability?

What data analysis limitations exist?

Opportunities

What trends may work in your favor?

Based on your identified strengths and weaknesses, 

what strategies would you identify to include crash 

and/or safety data in the transportation planning 

processes?
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-17

Goals and Objectives

Transportation safety goals demonstrate 

what an agency is dedicated to achieving, 

whether it be an overarching goal (reduce 

fatality and injury crashes), or more specific 

goals (reduce intersection-related fatalities 

and serious injuries).

Transportation safety objectives describe 

how the goal(s) will be achieved and the 

expected goal outcome. They should be 

specific, attainable, and measurable using 

quantitative or qualitative measures.

3.5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

One of the key criteria for any 

transportation planning document is the 

identification of regional needs, 

opportunities, challenges, and priorities. 

These discussions inform the development 

of regional goals and objectives, which are 

then used to guide program and project 

decisions. For RPO staff to consult with 

local officials and DOT partners on safety 

projects or transportation projects inclusive 

of safety considerations, transportation 

safety goals first need to be identified.

Using a combination of public involvement, 

multidisciplinary input, crash and other data, and input from other planning 

documents, the goals and objectives in transportation plans can be identified or 

refined early in a planning process.

Strategies for Incorporating Safety into Goals and Objectives

Use Community and Stakeholder Input. Using opportunities to solicit input 

from the public and stakeholders, specifically on transportation safety issues,

will provide a starting point to understanding whether or not safety is a priority 

in the RPO region (does the region have a high number of fatalities and serious 

injuries?); and for which areas (are the crashes occurring predominately at 

intersections or because of speeding?). 

The Iowa Northland Regional Council of Governments currently is updating its 

rural LRTP and used a public-input survey and a safety focus group to better 

understand the regional safety issues; some of which were developed as objectives 

(or strategies) to meet the safety goals in the plan.16 For example, as part of the 

survey, the COG learned that safety improvements were very important to almost 

one-half of the respondents (second behind ongoing maintenance and preservation), 

completing missing sidewalk segments was a priority for 48 percent of respondents, 

and improving crosswalk safety was important to 46 percent of respondents. 

Figure 3.5 represents the responses from one of the questions on bicycle and 

pedestrian features and points to the status of safety. As part of the focus group, 

which included local planners, engineers, and law enforcement, discussions focused 

on what they considered the most important issues when it came to multimodal

safety, driver issues, and funding opportunities. Using outputs of these activities 

can be a key resource to developing safety goals and objectives.

 

16 Iowa Northland Regional Transportation Authority 2012 Public Input Survey, 

http://www.inrcog.org/pdf/RTA-Survey.pdf.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-18

Asking safety-related 

questions of the public 

and stakeholders is 

important, but visually 

depicting the results 

can further 

demonstrate to the 

public, stakeholders, 

and elected officials 

that safety is a priority 

and should be 

included in the 

planning process.

Figure 3.5 Survey Output from the Iowa Northland Regional COG

Source: Iowa Northland Regional COG, Black Hawk County Metropolitan Area 2013 Public Input Survey 

Report, http://www.inrcog.org/pdf/2013-MPO-Survey-Report.pdf.

Using Transportation Data. To effectively focus resources, it is essential to 

identify crash types contributing to the regional safety problem. RPO staff, 

typically in coordination with DOT staff, can obtain crash data and either 

analyze the information in-house or have the DOT conduct the analyses. 

Regardless of approach, all or some combination of the following data can be 

used to understand the key transportation safety issues: overall number of 

crashes in a rural region (crash frequency), crash frequency by jurisdiction, crash 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-19

rates, crash densities along roadways and intersections, and contributing crash 

factors. Reviewing these data can help a rural region understand if safety is 

indeed a concern for the region or jurisdiction, the primary issue areas (e.g., 

roadways, pedestrians, intersections, young drivers, or roadway departures), 

where these issues are occurring (at what segments or intersections), and crash 

characteristics (e.g., rear-end, head-on, impaired driving). All or some 

combination of the data can inform transportation safety goals and objectives/

strategies to lower fatalities and serious injuries. Figures 3.6 to 3.10 depict ways 

the information can be shown to public, stakeholders, and local elected officials 

and examples of goals and objectives, based on the data.

Figure 3.6 Iowa Northland Regional COG Crash Frequency Data 

by Jurisdiction

Number of Fatal Crashes per County, 2001-2010

Source: Iowa Northland Regional COG Rural Long-range Transportation Plan, 

http://www.inrcog.org/pdf/RTA-LRTP-Draft-Ch7.pdf.

*For Black Hawk County, regional total excludes crashes within jurisdictions of the metropolitan area.

Figure 3.7 Iowa Northland Regional COG Crash Frequency Data 

by Jurisdiction

Number of Fatal, Major Injury, and Minor Injury Crashes in Bremer 

County, 2001-2010

Source: Iowa Northland Regional COG Rural Long-range Transportation Plan, 

http://www.inrcog.org/pdf/RTA-LRTP-Draft-Ch7.pdf.

Potential Goal 

that Could 

be Derived 

from Data

Goal. Reduce 

fatalities and 

major injuries that 

result from motor 

vehicle crashes.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-20

Potential Goal

and Objectives

That Could be

Derived from Data

Goal. Reduce fatalities 

and serious injuries that 

result from motor vehicle 

crashes.

Objectives.

 Improve street 

livability by 

implementing safety 

countermeasures 

systemwide.

 Address high-crash 

clusters by 

conducting roadsafety audits and 

identify crashreduction strategies.

Figure 3.8 East Central Intergovernmental Association Crash Density Data

Source: East Central Intergovernmental Association (Iowa), Transportation 2031 Long-Range Transportation Plan, 

http://www.ecia.org/municipalities/transplanning/dmats/transport_lrtp.html
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-21

Potential Goal

and Objectives That Could 

be Derived from Data

Goal. Reduce fatalities and 

serious injuries that result from 

motor vehicle crashes.

Objectives.

 Implement findings from 

road-safety audits at the 

top intersections or road 

segments with high 

numbers of rear-end 

crashes.

 Implement rear-end crash

reduction strategies as 

identified by the DOT.

Figure 3.9 Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission Contributing 

Factors Data

Source: Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission. 

Data developed for the September 11, 2012 Regional Highway Safety Forum.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-22

Figure 3.10 Florida-Alabama TPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Emphasis Area Data

Source: Florida-Alabama TPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, March 2012, 

http://www.wfrpc.org/fatpo/Florida-Alabama%20TPO%20Bike%20Ped%20Plan%20Final%20March%202012.pdf

Potential Goal

and Objectives That Could 

be Derived from Data

Goal. Reduce bicycle and 

pedestrian crashes.

Objectives.

 Identify the predominant 

contributing factors to 

bicycle and pedestrian 

crashes to implement 

appropriate 

countermeasures.

 Focus resources on 

high-crash locations for 

bicycle and pedestrian 

crashes.

 Support the bicycle and 

pedestrian strategies 

identified in the SHSP.

 Improve community 

livability by expanding 

bicycle and pedestrian 

options.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-23

Linking to the SHSP

The East Central Intergovernmental 

Association (ECIA) in Iowa developed a rural 

LRTP. After a review of the regional crash 

data, they recognized a number of elements 

in the Iowa Comprehensive Highway Safety 

Plan (ICHSP) were also applicable to rural 

issues within their region. ECIA adopted five 

safety policy strategies and eight safety 

program strategies from the ICHSP for 

inclusion in the LRTP.

Review Other Planning Documents. The 

safety goals and objectives in other 

planning documents also can be utilized in 

RPO transportation planning documents, 

where applicable and relevant. Reviewing 

transportation plans also will ensure 

consistency in goal areas across the region. 

Key documents to review and express 

support for in a RPO LRTP would, at a 

minimum, include the state’s SHSP, the 

statewide and metropolitan LRTPs, and 

local comprehensive plans. Other plans 

may include useful goal information, such as the statewide or regional bicycle/

pedestrian plans, coordinated public transit-human services transportation 

plans, economic development plans (CEDS), and freight plans.

Use the Information to Build Safety Goals and Objectives. Safety goals and 

objectives are developed through a combination of community input, safety data, 

and information in other plans. Below are examples of the goals and objectives 

for three regional planning agencies.

North Central Pennsylvania RPDC LRTP Goals

Goal 2. Increase transportation system safety.

Objectives

1. Reduce the rates of transportation-related fatalities and injuries.

2. Expand the use of compatible land use practices in regard to transportation.

3. Implement safety initiatives for all transportation modes.

East Central Intergovernmental Association Rural LRTP Goals

Goal 1. Develop a safe, secure multimodal transportation system that provides for the efficient movement 

of people and goods.

Objectives

1. Preserve and maintain the existing transportation system to maximize the performance of transportation 

infrastructure.

2. Identify future transportation improvements that are fiscally constrained and support the creation of a 

comprehensive, multimodal transportation system.

3. Identify appropriate mitigation techniques to minimize the number and severity of accidents within 

RPA 8.

4. Select and program transportation projects that are consistent with community values and goals.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-24

Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (MPO and RPO with a combined plan)

Goal. Provide a transportation system that maintains and improves safety and security in all aspects of the 

transportation network, including both users and nonusers of the system.

Objectives

1. Support and promote regionwide participation in the state’s efforts to identify traffic safety needs and 

guide investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads (SHSP: Target Zero).

2. Support and promote programs that ensure both structurally and operationally safe and secure 

pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, truck, rail, waterway, and air travel movement.

3. Encourage development of transportation safety goals (e.g., road safety targets and policies) to provide 

direction to the safety component of a plan.

4. Encourage interagency cooperation between governmental and private enterprises to increase overall 

safety and security awareness.

5. Promote high levels of safety standards for all modes of transportation so that users feel safe and 

secure as they travel.

6. Implement traffic calming measures to reduce automobile speeds in pedestrian areas, such as 

residential neighborhoods and school zones.

7. Encourage cities and counties to seek competitive funding solutions through Washington State DOT’s 

Safe Routes to Schools Program.

Table 3.4 Priority Planning Work Sheet

Safety Goals and Objectives

Strengths Responses

What elements of safety are included in your plan’s 

goals and objectives?

What transportation safety data are available to 

develop safety goals and objectives?

What other planning documents or resources can be 

used to inform your safety goals and objectives?

Weaknesses

What transportation safety data are needed to 

develop safety goals and objectives?

What data analysis limitations exist?

What other factors limit the development of safety 

goals and objectives?

Opportunities

What trends are evident that will assist in the 

process of developing goals and objectives?

Based on your identified strengths and weaknesses, 

what strategies would you identify to develop or 

enhance transportation safety goals and objectives?
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-25

Performance Measures

Performance measures are used to track 

progress toward the safety goals and/or 

objectives identified in planning documents. 

These measures provide RPO planners with 

a snapshot of network-, corridor-, or projectlevel issues and trends, and can inform 

decisions on how to allocate resources.

3.6 SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS

Recent changes to Title 23, U.S.C. places 

emphasis on performance measures, as well 

as performance-based planning. The law 

identifies seven national goal areas to

determine performance measures, including 

safety.

Title 23, U.S.C. requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to establish measures for 

states to use to assess the number and rate 

of fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads. These measures will be tracked by state DOTs and utilized as they

report on performance goals, known as targets, for each of these measures. 

There is no requirement for rural regions to do this on their own, but it may be 

useful for RPOs and local governments to engage in the state’s target-setting 

discussion for safety. State DOTs also may choose to set targets that are separate 

for rural and urban parts of the state, in addition to setting a statewide target. As 

required by Title 23, U.S.C., safety is measured on all public roads, so RPOs can 

play a role in helping a state achieve its targets by incorporating safety into their 

planning and other work.

According to the 2011 NADO study, 71 percent of RPOs develop a TIP or 

identify potential projects for the STIP, requiring a process of project 

identification and prioritization. As more RPOs move into project prioritization 

and selection, it would be useful to identify performance measures and potential 

targets, to better understand rural safety system performance, as well as projectlevel performance (which will be further discussed in Section 3.6 on project 

prioritization).

Performance measures and targets are used in the planning process in many 

rural regions, such as in developing criteria for determining which projects are 

high priorities. However, those internal processes are not always visible in

published transportation planning documents, such as long-range plans. It is 

common to include vision, goals, and objectives in long-range plans, but 

measures may not be thought of as part of the plan in the same way. However, 

including performance measures in plans creates transparency and demonstrates 

to the public and stakeholders how transportation investments are meeting the 

shared safety vision and goals for the RPO planning area.

Strategies for Developing Safety Performance Measures and Targets

Identify Data. The identification of safety performance measures and targets 

often relies on past and current data, which describes the regions’ crash patterns 

and trends. Although potential challenges exist when trying to access, analyze, 

or receive up-to-date data, a minimum amount of information on crashes and 

trends can help RPOs begin to understand past system performance and make 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-26

predictions about future performance. This data can be used to convey the need 

to develop safety goals, help identify related performance measures, and be used 

to set a target.

The most basic level of data needed to do this includes:

• Five-year rolling averages, where multiple years of safety data are averaged 

to smooth out years where large decreases or increases occur outside the 

trend line.

• Total number of fatalities and serious injuries for the system can also be used,

although setting a target with this data is challenging as annual numbers 

typically show sharp increases or decreases and do not necessarily convey an 

average or typical year in which to base a goal.

Develop Performance Measures and Targets

Performance Measures

Measuring performance is emerging as an important aspect of the transportation 

planning process, allowing agencies to assess whether safety efforts are 

successful, and to determine a direction for future safety planning and 

programming activities. The general framework for performance measurement 

is to use the vision, goals, and objectives developed earlier in the planning 

process to determine which particular measures are of interest. Measures, or 

metrics, refer to the characteristics of the transportation system that are analyzed. 

For safety, this may include information about crashes, as well as information 

about roadways and characteristics that might make a road less safe for travel.

Performance measures can be developed in a number of ways. The simplest 

approach is to establish performance measures that align with the state DOT’s 

performance efforts. These are high-level measures, but the data to track them 

(at a minimum, on the statewide system) will be available; and they provide 

planners with a snapshot of system-level safety and whether safety investments 

are necessary. This can also help an RPO demonstrate its contribution to 

statewide crash reductions.

Some RPOs may have the data and capability to develop measures in addition to 

overall fatalities and serious injuries, helping them assess performance by 

specific goals or objectives (i.e., intersection or speeding fatalities). Other RPOs 

may be interested in developing measures to track programs and projects 

specifically. Below is an example from the North Central Pennsylvania RPDC

LRTP, depicting the goals, objectives, and different types of measures the region 

is implementing to assess progress.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-27

Goal. Increase transportation system safety.

Objectives

1. Reduce the rates of transportation-related fatalities and injuries;

2. Expand the use of compatible land use practices in regard to transportation; and

3. Implement safety initiatives for all transportation modes.

Performance Measures

1. Change in fatality rate over time;

2. Change in injury rate over time;

3. Estimated value of lives saved and injuries prevented;

4. Number of corridor safety studies completed;

5. 100 percent commercial driver’s license (CDL) compliance for all operators of school buses and public

transit vehicles;

6. Motor carrier crash rates in region at or below national or state averages;

7. Hazardous material (HAZMAT) spill changes in frequency over time;

8. Rail crossing accident changes in frequency, over time;

9. Changes in bicycle/pedestrian accidents, over time; and

10. Pennsylvania DOT motorcycle training and safety course offerings and number of students.

Targets

Progress in safety, as well as other performance characteristics, depends on many 

outside factors, like vehicle and roadway technology advancement, the economy, 

demographics, travel patterns, and more. With so many unpredictable factors 

having an impact on transportation, why do targets matter? Strategies to achieve 

targets may play a role in guiding the way funds are spent within a state or a 

region. Targets also help agencies communicate the progress they have made 

and where more work is needed to the public and to decision-makers. Even 

when agencies set ambitious targets that are difficult to meet, reporting on 

progress can spur partners to innovate new solutions or more efficient uses of 

public funds to achieve bigger impacts and prevent more deaths and serious 

injuries.

Targets also enable the public and media to hold agencies accountable, making 

the process of setting a target a controversial one in some cases. To address that, 

some agencies determine that a target that describes a trend, rather than a 

specific number, fits their region best. An example of a descriptive target would 

be “toward zero deaths,” using “toward” to indicate the desired direction of the 

trend line but without actually needing to adopt zero as a numeric target. Others 

agencies opt to select a numeric value at a point in time to give partners a specific 

goal to focus on, such as “half the number of deaths by 2030.”

Setting a target often involves analyzing historic data to understand the trend of 

how the number of fatalities and serious injuries has changed over time, and 

projecting how that trend would look if it held constant in the future. Once a 

projected point has been determined, transportation stakeholders can decide 

together whether the target should follow the forecasted line or be above or 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-28

Using Data to Develop 

Measures and Targets

Safety Goal or 

Objective. Improve 

transportation safety by 

reducing roadway 

fatalities.

Performance Measure. 

Number of fatalities.

Performance Targets. 

Reduce 5-year average 

fatalities by 3.4 percent 

per year through 2020.

below the historical trend. Selecting the target compared to a forecasted point 

allows stakeholders to identify their assumptions about what will happen in the 

future that may affect safety, and discuss whether an ambitious target would 

encourage partners to address safety even more aggressively.

See Figure 3.11 for an example of how fatality data can be used to establish a 

goal, a performance measure, and a target.

Figure 3.11 Sample Data to Depict Crash Data Trends to Set 

Performance Targets

Source: Sample data created for purposes of this report.

Adopting Statewide Performance Measures and Targets. RPO planners may 

choose to support statewide performance measures and targets rather than 

formally adopting specific ones for the region. This can be accomplished by 

referencing the statewide goals, objectives, and targets in regional transportation 

plans. The purpose would be to explicitly state how the regions’ efforts toward a 

set of shared safety goals and objectives will help to reach the state’s target, it is 

beneficial to engage in ongoing conversations/meetings with the DOT district 

traffic engineer, state safety engineer, or statewide transportation planners to 

confirm what is in current plans and understand the timeline for updates.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-29

Table 3.5 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet

Performance Measures and Targets

Strengths Responses

What elements of a performance management 

framework are already in place?

What transportation safety data are available to 

support performance measures and targets?

What other planning documents can be used to 

inform performance measures and targets?

Weaknesses

What data collection and analysis limitations exist to 

develop performance measures and targets?

What other limitations exist?

Opportunities

What safety trends may work in your jurisdiction to 

improve transportation safety?

Based on your identified strengths and weaknesses, 

what strategies would you identify to develop or 

enhance safety performance measures?

3.7 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND PROGRAMMING

Identifying and ranking projects is the critical step in the planning process where 

all the visioning, analysis, performance measurement, and data come together to 

make decisions about investments that support the desired future for the region. 

The majority of RPOs develop a regional TIP or a list of projects that are 

identified as important in their region.

The processes used to identify and rank those projects vary by state and by 

region. In some places, state DOTs consider the projects identified, and 

depending on state priorities, may include them in the development of the STIP. 

In other states, the list of priority projects is developed in consultation with the 

state DOT, so that connections are made early on between projects identified 

locally and ones that are identified through the state DOT’s own process. Other 

states use hypothetical sub allocation, where they use formulas or other ways to 

divide funding among regions, who then submit a prioritized list within the 

financial constraints of that funding target for adoption in the STIP.

RPOs may prioritize safety-specific projects or countermeasures for Highway 

Safety Improvement Program or other funding, but may also consider safety in 

the scoring process for all modal projects. Regardless of the methods used, having

well-defined criteria and discussing tradeoffs that arise from funding limitations 

help to ensure that projects put forward are truly regional.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-30

Surface Transportation Program 

Project Prioritization

The Southeast Iowa RPC allocates 

Surface Transportation Program funds 

through a competitive application process 

and projects are rated on six different 

criteria: economic vitality, system preservation, local and regional factors, 

accessibility and mobility, integration and 

connectivity, and safety. Safety is one of 

the highest weighted criteria, and the 

safety score is assessed by comparing 

crash rates on the proposed facility with

state rates and what proportion of the 

project cost will go toward safety 

improvements.

VDOT Rural Project 

Prioritization Approach

The Virginia DOT developed a priority 

ranking matrix to help prioritize projects in 

rural LRTPs. Every project was ranked 

based on weighted attribute data, including 

vehicle-to-capacity ratio, current and future 

daily traffic counts (AADT), flow rate, level 

of service, number of heavy trucks, number 

of environmental and social attributes, and 

number of crash injuries and fatalities per 

mile. See Appendix A for additional details 

on this process.

Strategies for Prioritizing Safety Projects and Including Safety 

Considerations in Transportation Projects

Incorporate Safety into Transportation 

Project Decisions. Effective prioritization can 

take many forms in the context of rural 

planning. An increasingly common approach 

is to have local project sponsors complete a 

project information form to collect basic data 

about a roadway segment or other 

multimodal issue. That information feeds 

into a project scoring process, where points 

are assigned in several different categories 

that describe the project context and the 

expected impacts, and address qualitative 

factors.

The scoring categories, as well as the number 

of points assigned to them, should refer back 

to the vision, goals, and objectives set in the regional planning process, so that 

the projects that receive the highest scores are the ones that demonstrably 

support the region’s vision. Points are commonly assigned for criteria that 

support the planning factors, such as safety, environmental impact, economic 

impact, accessibility, and others. Other criteria refer to the use of the facility, 

such as average annual daily traffic, level of service, and volume/capacity ratio, 

or the roadway’s condition, such as pavement quality or condition index, 

structural capacity, bridge sufficiency rating, International Roughness Index, or 

lane-width deficiency.

Using a numeric project scoring system is a 

way to ensure safety is considered 

systematically in every project. Safety 

scores are usually a quantitative 

measurement, such as crash rate, but it also 

can include qualitative assessments, such as 

a project’s likely effects on pedestrian and 

bicycle safety. A real or perceived safety 

issue is one of the most common reasons a 

rural transportation project is identified 

within a regional plan. But for projects that 

are developed mainly to enhance 

accessibility or to promote economic 

development, including safety strategically 

as an element in a non-safety-focused project will help the project to earn more 

points. As a result, prioritizing safety can be used to reward projects that 

improve multiple goal areas, which each offer their own set of points.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-31

Proven Countermeasures

For RPO planners looking to 

identify safety treatments, the 

best place to start is to review:

FHWA proven countermeasures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

provencountermeasures/).

NCHRP Report 500 series 

(http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/

152868.aspx), the NHTSA 

Countermeasures That Work 

(http://www.ghsa.org/html/

publications/

countermeasures.html).

Ask your state DOT as statespecific countermeasures may 

have been identified.

Safety Project Prioritization

The North Central Pennsylvania Regional 

Planning and Development Commission 

developed a prioritization approach for safetyspecific projects. The RTPO developed a “top 

25” safety project list as part of the region’s Core 

Network Study, and multiple improvements were 

identified for each location.

The improvements were ranked using a quantitative 

benefit-cost analysis, which weighed the number of 

crashes occurring at a location, the economic loss 

that resulted from each crash, and the cost to 

implement the proposed safety improvement. The 

greater the economic loss and lower the cost of the 

proposed improvements, the higher the ranking of 

the safety improvement. Generally, low-cost, shortterm (in terms of implementation) safety 

improvements ranked higher than long-term 

improvements that would involve a greater 

investment.

Benefit-cost analysis is a systematic evaluation of the advantages (benefits) and 

costs (funds needed for implementation) of a set of investment alternatives and

can be combined with other scores when ranking projects. Traditionally, benefitcost analysis for safety projects takes into account all of the positive benefits of 

the project, such as reductions in fatalities, serious injuries, or crashes or 

economic savings and compares it to a cost variable, such as the project cost or 

economic cost of crashes and quantifies it in financial terms. The North Central

Pennsylvania RPDC used benefit-cost analysis to prioritize safety projects.

Prioritize Safety-Specific Projects. While integrating 

safety considerations into every transportation project 

is beneficial to maintain a safe system for the future, 

RPOs also identify safety-specific projects to address 

multimodal safety issues. While some RPOs have 

identified prioritization processes for safety projects,

many state DOTs have developed approaches to 

prioritize and program Highway Safety Improvement 

Program funds. This prioritization may involve the 

identification of countermeasures with the highest 

potential for mitigating risks in the state. For RPOs 

seeking to prioritize safety projects or identify low-cost 

countermeasures, contacting the state safety engineer 

will provide insight into the scoring process, which 

could be customized to meet regional needs. A 

number of RPOs also lead road safety audits, using the 

results to identify safety projects and coordinate with 

DOT staff 

on priorities. For instance, three RPOs in 

Missouri, the Mo-Kan Regional Council, 

Northwest Missouri Regional Council of 

Governments, and Green Hills Regional 

Planning Commission have 

institutionalized an annual road safety 

audit (RSA) program. With support and 

involvement from the Missouri 

Department of Transportation 

(MoDOT), the RPOs schedule one RSA 

in each region every spring. Following 

the completion of an RSA report, the 

communities receiving the RSA may 

approach their RPO about identifying 

potential funding for a safety project for 

that roadway segment, or about 

submitting a project through the RPO’s 

prioritization process for MoDOT to 

consider funding through the STIP.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-32

Safety projects also offer low-cost, quick solutions to transportation problems 

and often require little modification outside existing right-of-way. As a result, 

focusing on identifying and implementing safety projects can help to maintain 

buy-in into the planning process as a whole because the results are visible 

and tangible.

Work with Stakeholders to Prioritize Projects. Having stakeholders 

qualitatively determine whether proposed projects rank high, medium, and low 

is a straightforward method for developing a priority list. An RPO may choose 

to set parameters for how to define high-priority projects based on state priority, 

or allow stakeholders to select projects using their knowledge about local road 

conditions. Although a qualitative approach is less formal than completing a 

project score card, stakeholders who have been engaged in the RPO process tend 

to be knowledgeable about the region as a whole, and the outcome is often 

shared priorities rather than local concerns. A potential challenge to this 

approach is maintaining a focus on projects that rise above local or political 

concerns to truly regional ones. This regional focus is important because 

knowing that a project has been vetted by multiple stakeholders and prioritized 

at the regional level is helpful for state DOTs to make decisions about spending 

their own limited resources throughout the state.

Table 3.6 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet

Project Prioritization and Programming

Strengths Responses

What are the elements of your RPO’s project 

prioritization process? How is safety already 

included?

What safety data or qualitative information are 

available for the project prioritization process?

Weaknesses

What are the challenges related to prioritizing 

safety projects with HSIP funds?

What are the challenges to including safety 

considerations in transportation project 

prioritization?

What data or other resources are needed for project 

prioritization?

Opportunities

What trends may assist in the project prioritization 

process?

Based on your identified strengths and weaknesses, 

what strategies would you identify to prioritize safety 

projects or include safety in the decision-making 

process for all transportation projects?
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-33

3.8 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring can occur at the system, corridor, goal, emphasis area, or project 

level. The purpose is to inform safety performance in a region and assist with 

the selection of programmatic or investment choices moving forward.

Monitoring and evaluation requires data as well as performance measures

identification. The data allows planners to view and evaluate fatality trends to 

make decisions regarding safety goals, programs, and projects. And the 

performance measures are the mechanism by which the data are evaluated to see 

if and where progress is being made or where changes need to occur. Measuring

performance is the most reliable method for monitoring and evaluating 

transportation safety goals. However, tracking progress efficiently relies on data 

collection, data quality, and sound data management processes.

Monitoring and evaluation can be used to determine the effectiveness of

implemented programs and projects on reducing fatalities and serious injuries

and identify transportation safety priorities.

Strategies for Monitoring and Evaluating Transportation Safety

Use Monitoring to Establish a Network Baseline and Evaluate Performance. 

At the network level, historical and recent data for fatalities and serious injuries 

(or other system-level measures, such as crash rates) can assist RPO planners in 

monitoring overall safety performance. These data provide information 

necessary to understand the extent to which safety investments have generated 

an impact and may need to be applied to similar safety issues. For instance, the 

sample data in Figure 3.12 shows fatalities and serious injuries over a six-year 

timeframe. Assuming 2007 and 2008 are the baseline years, the data indicates a 

crash problem, signaling the need to program and implement investments in 

subsequent years. Continuing to track high-level progress after transportation 

safety improvements and projects are in place will depict resulting changes in 

crash trends. Planners can use this information to evaluate the level of 

investment needed to continue lowering fatalities and serious injuries and to 

assess the efficacy of using various strategies to improve safety within that 

region.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-34

Corridor Report Card

The North Central Pennsylvania RPDC 

developed a Corridor Report Card to monitor 

and evaluate the core system roadway. 

Each roadway is given a letter grade (A, B,

C, D, or F) based on the reportable crashes 

from the previous year. The report card will 

be updated on an annual basis and will 

provide information on the health of the 

corridor related to safety, candidates for 

safety improvements, and progress in corridors where improvements have been 

implemented.

Figure 3.12 Sample Fatality and Serious Injury Data for Evaluation Purposes

 

Source: Sample data created for purposes of this report.

A corridor focus provides another 

potential opportunity to monitor and 

evaluate the network. For RPOs that have 

the capability to look at crash clusters or

crash locations by intersections, segments, 

or corridors, the data can be used as an 

initial indicator of safety concerns and

crash trends by location. Once the areas 

are identified, programs or projects may 

be systematically implemented to reduce 

the number of crashes. Continuous 

monitoring and evaluation of crash 

clusters can provide insights into which 

areas need attention, as well as how well 

improvements are helping areas where they have been implemented.

Using Monitoring to Invest in Goal Areas. If RPOs have data to identify 

multiple safety goal areas or objectives, it is possible to monitor and evaluate 

performance across each area. Trend data (a minimum of three years, although 

five years is preferred) allows planners to initially identify goal areas in which to

invest and later, identify how those investments are moving the needle on 

fatality and serious injury reductions, informing future resource allocation.

Figure 3.13 depicts sample data, showing trends for three safety goal areas over 

the course of six years. In 2008, funding was programmed for young driver and 

intersection projects. The data show that over time, serious injuries in both 

emphasis areas declined. Bicycle programs however did not receive any funding 

in 2008 as fatalities appeared to be declining at the time, but more recent data 

show a steady increase. It is up to planners to monitor these trends and evaluate 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Serious Injuries 867 854 800 750 743 712

Fatalities 30 41 39 27 30 36

 -

 5

 10

 15

 20

 25

 30

 35

 40

 45

 -

 100

 200

 300

 400

 500

 600

 700

 800

 900

 1,000

Persons Killed

Persons Seriously Injured

Serious Injuries Fatalities
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-35

where to make investments. For instance, even though serious injuries for young 

drivers and intersections show decline after 2008, it does not necessarily mean 

funding and project/program implementation should cease in those areas. 

Figure 3.13 Sample Data for Goal Area Monitoring and Evaluation

Source: Sample data created for purposes of this report.

Monitor and Evaluate Projects. Ideally, monitoring safety project effectiveness

should take place, before and after project completion. As part of a speed 

management study for Randolph County (North Carolina), the Piedmont Triad 

RPO reviewed the outcomes of converting a four-lane road to a two-lane road, 

with a middle turning lane. The evaluation showed an increase in the number of 

pedestrians and bicyclists using the road, and decreases in speed and the injury 

rate (Figure 3.14).

Many states are implementing low-cost safety countermeasures, which generally 

are treatments proven effective at reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Each 

state is required to submit an annual report to the Secretary of Transportation 

that describes progress on safety improvement projects funded with HSIP funds, 

their effectiveness, and their contribution to reducing multimodal fatalities, 

injuries, and crashes. This can provide a general assessment of the effectiveness 

of the improvements across the state.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Young Drivers 40 38 37 37 32 30

Intersections 100 105 98 98 95 90

Bicyclists 28 25 40 45 49 51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Persons Seriously Injured
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-36

Figure 3.14 Piedmont Triad Speed Management Study Results

Source: Piedmont Triad RPO Speed Management Action Plan for Randolph County, 2013.

Planners may also want to take a high-level quantitative look at each of the safety 

objectives in planning documents to understand to what extent they are being 

implemented. Table 3.7 provides an example tracking template, which planners 

can use to comment on objectives or document the specific actions implemented 

to achieve the objectives.

Table 3.7 Sample Tracking Template for Individual Safety Objectives

Goal. Reduce Intersection Crashes.

Performance Measure. Number of Fatalities and Serious Injuries at Intersections.

Objectives Implementation Status

Improve Crash Data and accuracy and usability.

Conduct local training on road safety audits and 

develop a road safety audit program.

Pursue a local policy for the consideration of 

roundabouts at local intersections.

Pursue traffic calming strategies at intersection,

where appropriate.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-37

Table 3.8 Priority Planning Area Work Sheet

Monitoring and Evaluation

Strengths Responses

What processes are already in place to monitor and 

evaluate safety performance?

What data are available to inform the monitoring and 

evaluation process?

Weaknesses

What resources are needed to monitor and evaluate 

safety performance?

What data and analysis limitations exist?

What other limitations exist?

Opportunities

What trends exist that enable monitoring and 

evaluation?

Based on your identified strengths and weaknesses, 

what strategies would you identify to include 

monitoring and evaluation in the transportation 

planning process?

3.9 DEVELOPING A SAFETY PLAN

This section breaks down the core planning tasks and describes strategies to 

integrate safety into each part of the transportation planning process. However, 

some RPOs may be interested in developing a comprehensive safety plan to 

guide safety programs, policies, and projects for the region. The safety plan 

should be a living document, with a focus on implementation and with regular 

updates to ensure strategies match the greatest safety needs. The planning tasks 

outlined above can be used to develop a safety plan.17

Public Involvement. Engage the public and stakeholders specifically on safety 

issues, which could include online/print surveys or maps to allow participants 

to identify what the safety problems are and/or where they are most 

problematic. If feasible, hosting a safety workshop or summit is valuable to 

gather input from the community and stakeholders on safety issues in the region.

Breakout groups by key issue areas could be used to seek input from participants 

on strategies and actions to address the problems. Developing a public 

involvement plan for a safety plan can assist agencies develop a framework early 

 

17 For more information, use Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road 

Owners, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/. 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-38

Sample Emphasis Areas and Strategies –

Missoula Area Community Transportation

Safety Plan

Emphasis Area. Intersection Crashes.

Strategies. Improve safety at intersection 

with an above average number of crashes, 

fatalities and serious injuries through 

appropriate infrastructure improvements 

based on best practices.

Conduct education campaign on safe driving 

practices with a focus on intersection safety.

Improve pedestrian crossings and increase 

pavement markings for pedestrians at highvolume roadway intersections as warranted.

Full plan can be found at: 

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/missoulact

sp/docs/mis_ctsp_final_09_2013.pdf.

in the process for which transportation safety stakeholders to engage, specific 

tools and ideas to solicit input, as well as opportunities to provide input as well.

Multidisciplinary Coordination. A new safety committee, with regional 

representation from multimodal planning, engineering, enforcement, education, 

and emergency response, could be created to oversee and develop the safety 

plan. If it is not feasible to develop a new committee, an existing RPO

committee, such as the TAC, could be tasked with overseeing the development of 

the safety plan. If the latter approach is taken, consider temporarily adding 

safety stakeholders to the committee to provide input of the non-engineering 

aspects of safety. The roles of the planning committee can include reviewing 

available crash and other safety data; developing transportation safety goals, key 

objectives, and performance measures; prioritizing programs and projects 

eligible for funding; identify opportunities to include safety in the context of all 

transportation projects; acting as champions for transportation safety; and 

providing updates on transportation safety activities to the Policy Board. Upon 

plan adoption, this committee should continue to meet regularly to discuss 

implementation and evaluation activities.

Data and Analysis. Available state and local crash and roadway data for available 

modes should be collected and analyzed to characterize total, fatal, and serious 

injury crash trends. Crash characteristics defined by geographic area, road type, age, 

crash type, road user, environmental conditions, and behavioral factors also could

be reviewed. GIS can be used to pinpoint crash locations and clusters and display 

them spatially. Data are shared with the multidisciplinary committee to inform the 

development of goals and objectives and with the public during outreach activities 

to increase their safety awareness and dispel mistaken assumptions.

Goals and Objectives. Based on a review of 

the data analysis, the goals and objectives in 

the SHSP, and public input, the 

multidisciplinary committee should identify 

short-, medium-, and long-term safety 

goals/emphasis areas and objectives/

strategies. Some RPOs may decide to 

develop safety goal area teams (e.g., 

intersection safety team, bicycle safety 

team), with members from the 

multidisciplinary committee and other 

stakeholders. Each team would be tasked 

with identifying objectives and specific 

actions to meet the goal in the Plan and 

would also monitor and evaluate activities 

over the longer term. It is a useful approach 

to keep stakeholders interested and engaged 

in safety planning after the plan is 

developed.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

3-39

Performance Measures. To determine the effectiveness of regional safety 

programs, policies, and/or projects in both the short and long term, the 

identified goal(s) should include performance measures, method(s), and a

detailed game plan for measuring progress/success for all stakeholders and 

partners to follow. Performance measures also will be valuable for reporting 

purposes when briefing public officials and for progress reporting to the Policy 

Board. Appropriate RPO performance measures should be coordinated with 

those identified in the SHSP.

Prioritization and Programming. Outputs of the crash data analysis will 

provide the multidisciplinary committee with a list of safety strategies, actions, 

and/or projects to identify future safety projects (i.e., conduct road safety 

audits). Using a combination of committee input and project prioritization, these 

projects can be scored and ranked. Typically, state DOTs have a prioritization 

process in place, which the RPO may choose to adopt. Identifying potential 

funding sources for safety projects is another important component of this phase.

Most notable are HSIP funds allocated by the state DOT, but all sources should 

be discussed.

Monitoring and Evaluation. Upon adoption of the safety plan, the 

multidisciplinary committee and the goal area teams should continue to meet to 

review progress on implementing the safety plan and to track performance. 

Some RPOs develop annual reports, so a section on transportation safety 

progress could be added.

Coordinating Transportation and Safety Plans

The LRTP is the overarching transportation planning document for a region, 

describing how the local area transportation system should evolve over the next 

20 years, so providing guidance on transportation safety over that timeframe is 

imperative. Including elements of the safety plan, such as safety goals, emphasis 

areas, longer-term strategies, and policies in a LRTP will provide direction to 

RPO staff and member agencies, as well as local elected officials on suitable 

methods for incorporating safety in the context of all transportation projects.

A benefit of developing a transportation safety plan is the opportunity to feed 

the LRTP process with specifics on safety. Linking the LRTP and the safety plan 

through a dedicated safety chapter/section in the LRTP could provide specifics 

to concisely summarize the regional crash trends; the transportation safety goals, 

objectives, performance measures, and policies; an overview of the SHSP and 

regional safety plan (if any) and how they relate to the LRTP; and an overview of 

other transportation safety activities, policies or programs, occurring in the 

region. The chapter also could include a list of transportation safety stakeholders 

or programmatic/project “highlights,” which document regional successes.

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

4-1

4.0 Linking RPO

Planning Documents

RPOs looking to institutionalize safety into the planning process should begin by 

seeking opportunities to link other plans with an RPO’s existing planning work, 

such as utilizing appropriate concepts and strategies from the state’s strategic 

highway safety plans to feed the rural regional long-range planning process. In 

rural areas that currently do not complete a regional long-range plan, safety 

strategies can be addressed and become institutionalized policies through 

integration into other plans, such as local comprehensive plans and other 

modal plans.

4.1 STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANS

A strategic highway safety plan is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that 

provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads. States should update SHSPs at least every 

five years, and they must include several characteristics:

• Developed in consultation with a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders;

• Coordinated with other plans, such as the highway safety plan, commercial 

vehicle plan, state and regional long-range plans, and local and regional 

safety plans;

• Data-driven, using fatality and serious injury crash data, roadway data, and 

traffic data to identify safety problems;

• Consider other factors that may be available in their area, such as the findings 

of RSAs, crash location and crash risk data, rural roadway issues, other 

transportation modes, and more;

• Adopt performance-based goals;

• Identify emphasis areas across the “4 Es” of safety – engineering, education, 

enforcement, and emergency services.

Based on data, each state’s SHSP establishes statewide goals, objectives, 

emphasis areas and strategies within the document. Those emphasis areas and 

strategies guide the initiatives that state, regional, and local safety stakeholders 

take to improve safety. The emphasis areas also determine the ranges of 

activities that a state can spend its Federal Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) dollars on.

The overall goals and emphasis areas of an SHSP can be informative for shaping 

an RPO’s conversation about safety within the region and eventually safety goals 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

4-2

Implementing State Safety Efforts within a 

Rural Region

The Meramec Regional Planning 

Commission in Missouri staffs a roadway 

safety coalition that localizes larger-scale 

efforts by promoting safety messaging, 

encouraging the use of seat belts and 

booster seats, discouraging drinking and 

driving, and discouraging distracted driving.

Law enforcement, fire departments, EMS 

personnel, educators, healthcare 

professionals, and the public are invited to 

participate in the coalition and learn more 

about its efforts to reduce fatalities and 

accidents.

The coalition’s activities include working with 

area businesses to stencil safety messaging 

in business parking lots, encouraging teens 

to drive safely, and increasing child restraint 

inspection stations within the region. These 

efforts are conducted in support of achieving 

a statewide target of reducing annual 

fatalities to 700 by 2016.

and objectives in the LRTP. Several questions an RPO might ask itself about the 

SHSP include:

• Do the state emphasis areas mirror problems within the region?

• Are there other issues not represented in the SHSP?

• If an RPO’s resources for data analysis within the region are constrained, is 

the statewide data analysis completed for the SHSP helpful in discussing the 

region’s safety problems in its regional plan?

• Can the SHSP’s direction guide the vision and goals that are developed in the 

RPO’s plans?

• Can the emphasis areas and strategies 

guide the identification and ranking of 

potential infrastructure projects within 

the region?

• Would safety practitioners (such as the 

various multidisciplinary stakeholders 

that develop the SHSP) currently not 

engaged in the RPO be interested and 

helpful additions on an advisory 

committee, engaged stakeholder 

group, or even an occasional invited 

attendee at transportation meetings for 

the rural region?

• Can/should the RPO become more 

engaged in facilitating safety education 

and outreach to its member local 

governments and the public?

• Is the state developing any safety 

outreach tools (videos, infographics, 

articles) the RPO could disseminate to 

increase the number of people who see 

it, with little required labor from RPO

staff?

These questions provide a starting point for adopting the SHSP in the RPO

regional planning process. The SHSP may provide useful information and a 

framework for the LRTP, but even regions without a long-range plan can 

consider how its statewide strategies fit in with a region’s vision for safety, how 

to better engage safety stakeholders in the transportation needs identification 

process, and how to communicate safety information to decision-makers and 

stakeholders, who also are transportation users.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

4-3

4.2 LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Local comprehensive plans are generally visionary, with defined goals and 

objectives developed at the community level rather than regional transportation 

planning level. The comprehensive plan sets local policy for transportation, land 

use, utilities, recreation, housing, and other issues by connecting physical design 

and development of a place with its social and economic goals. Most 

importantly, the comprehensive plans provide a glimpse into future land use. 

Accounting for this element in transportation plans is extremely critical as a 

transportation system that does not adequately serve the evolving land use will 

undoubtedly have safety issues.

As RPOs develop their regional plan, it is useful to consult the existing local 

comprehensive plans to ensure as much consistency as possible among the local 

government plans in the region and the regional transportation vision, goals, 

objectives, and strategies. Complete agreement is not always possible, but having

mutually supportive planning documents to any extent is beneficial in achieving 

the goals of these plans that are created at overlapping scales.

Many RPOs and other regional planning and economic development 

organizations assist with local comprehensive planning on a periodic basis. 

Transportation is typically included as an element of a comprehensive plan, and 

RPOs might complete the transportation chapter or an entire comprehensive 

plan for the local governments, either through their work program with the state 

DOT, through local government member dues, or as a fee-for-service option. 

Serving in this consultant role gives RPOs the opportunity to raise questions and 

issues about safety with the leadership of the entity developing the plan. For 

example, a locality might be interested in exploring the concept of Complete 

Streets to adopt a local policy, and an RPO’s planning staff could provide 

information on how Complete Streets affect safety for all users of the 

transportation facilities in the area.

An RPO might also analyze the connection of land use to transportation, for 

instance, analyzing where parking exists in the plan, where access points exist, 

where pedestrian facilities exist, where are likely destinations for travelers in an 

area and how are they likely to get around, and how people can safely access 

destinations. Even without a travel demand model, discussing how land use 

decisions and access management might affect traffic and traffic safety is a topic

planners can initiate with localities as they undergo a comprehensive planning 

process.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

4-4

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety

The Albemarle Rural Planning Organization 

in North Carolina completed a bicycle plan in 

2013 that will improve opportunity for and 

safety of traveling by nonmotorized modes as 

it is implemented within the region.

The plan analyzes current conditions of the 

bicycle transportation network, a 

recommended network, prioritized strategies 

and low-cost improvements, tools for 

integrating bicycle considerations into codes 

and local ordinances, and recommendations 

for programming. The current conditions 

section analyzes not only the existing 

transportation network, but also regional land 

use patterns and settlement types. In 

addition, the RPO conducted an equity 

analysis to identify where underrepresented 

populations reside to target public 

involvement there.

The impetus for the plan included improved 

public health, transportation options, and 

support for tourism-related activities, since 

this region includes the tourism sector-reliant 

Outer Banks and other coastal communities. 

Safety was also analyzed, given a number of 

crashes in rural areas outside municipalities.

The plan identifies goals and objectives, with 

many of the objectives crafted to be 

measurable outputs and outcomes.

4.3 OTHER MODAL PLANS

In addition to the Federally required plans 

for states and MPOs, many other plans 

could be referenced in RPO plans or 

developed with safety in mind. For 

example, Title 23, U.S.C. encourages states 

to develop state freight advisory 

committees and to adopt state freight plans. 

At this point, most RPOs are not involved 

in state freight advisory committees, but 

they might have a role to play in 

commenting on how implementation of a 

state freight plan would affect the safety of 

freight movement and the traveling public 

in their region.

Bicyclist and pedestrian safety is very 

important, given the relative risk to nonmotorists traveling in a transportation 

network with limited sidewalks and bike 

paths common in many rural areas and 

small towns. Bicycling and walking also 

are low-cost forms of transportation for 

short trips, and many transit users cycle or 

walk to complete their door-to-door travel 

to a destination, making their safety for the 

trip a multimodal issue. Rural tourism in 

many places includes nonmotorized travel 

to access destinations, making safety of 

bicyclists and pedestrians an economic 

issue as well.

As a result, RPOs are increasingly developing regional bicycle and pedestrian 

plans as part of their overall work program, or assisting localities with 

developing their own nonmotorized transportation plans. Safety is an integral 

aspect of these plans, including determining the appropriate kinds of facilities for 

cyclists and pedestrians in different rural contexts, depending on land use and 

traffic levels.

RPOs often complete coordinated human services – public transportation plans, 

as well as assist with other public and community transportation planning as 

needed in their region or state. In the course of conducting outreach to 

transportation providers in coordinated planning, RPOs often take the 

opportunity assess safety related to transit travel. Transit operators are an 

important stakeholder group for identifying potential safety issues, for the 

vehicles, location of bus stops, appropriate pull off areas, and passengers, as they 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

4-5

travel door to door. The information can guide the development of safetyrelated goals, objectives, and strategies in the regional plan, or methods for 

improving the safety of coordinating services.

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

5-1

5.0 Conclusion

Regional Planning Organizations are poised to play an active role in

transportation safety. There current activities including facilitating input from a 

variety of stakeholders, identifying regional priorities, and encouraging 

investments provides the tools and resources to integrate and implement 

transportation safety planning activities. By working with both the state and 

local safety stakeholders and serving as conveners of various interests, RPOs are 

strategically positioned to integrate safety into planning and programming and 

improve safety analysis and outcomes in their regions.

In transportation safety planning, safety data is important to effectively 

determine and address the safety issues, and evaluate applied strategies. As a 

result, the availability and access to efficient safety data is essential. There are 

several sources of safety data planners can use including national resources, such 

as FARS; state databases or generated reports; localized data from law 

enforcement agencies; other planning documents, such as the SHSP and HSP; 

and public and stakeholder input.

Although integrating safety in the existing transportation planning processes and 

plans can be effective in reducing fatalities and serious injuries on the regional 

roadway network, oftentimes a standalone safety plan can produce added incites 

to regional safety issues. Engaging non-traditional planning partners and safety 

stakeholders in the safety planning process can provide a more comprehensive 

identification of issues and strategies to address them.

In nonmetropolitan areas, where crashes are occurring at higher rates, RPOs are 

in place in about 30 states to assist state DOTs and work with the public and local 

officials to understand the transportation needs for the region. Several states 

have recognized the benefits of engaging RPOs in achieving safety goals and 

objectives. With the methods and case studies outlined in this technical report, 

RPOs have a starting point for increasing their consideration of safety and 

helping to decrease traffic fatalities and serious injuries within their regions.

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix A

A-1

A. Case Studies

Iowa Multidisciplinary Safety Teams

In Iowa, Regional Planning Affiliations (RPA) are key participants in the formation 

and ongoing success of Multidisciplinary Safety Teams (MDST). MDSTs are local 

safety teams that convene to coordinate local expertise, priorities, perspectives, and 

recommendations for safety improvements. Several of Iowa’s 18 RPAs have MDSTs 

and the other RPAs have been encouraged to form MDSTs. This unique partnership 

with RPAs allows all cities and counties to benefit from the MDST initiatives. RPA 

staff play a key role in the teams by working with diverse groups to help them 

understand issues, helping stakeholders work together, providing input and 

experience on the long-range planning process, promoting transportation safety 

planning concepts, and providing access to and analysis of crash data.

MDST meetings are often hosted by the RPAs with initial assistance from Iowa 

DOT and the Institute for Transportation (InTrans) staff. Key objectives can vary 

by region, depending on goals and most pressing issues but objectives almost 

always include the identification of potential safety projects and programs. 

Meeting activities include facilitated discussions on issues, crash analysis 

workshops, construction zone management, safety audits, safety corridor 

evaluation, local media and marketing campaign efforts, and other multimodal 

planning topics. Ultimately, all applicable activities are incorporated into the 

RPA planning and programming process.

The MDSTs have helped RPAs successfully integrate safety into their planning 

processes and provide invaluable multidisciplinary input for planning and 

programming safety improvement projects and implementing safety programs. 

This approach incorporates local safety issues into the process and helps Iowa 

DOT work to reduce fatal and serious injuries (nearly 50 percent of all fatal and 

serious injury crashes occur on local roads in Iowa).

In general, safety activities have been an integral part of the planning activities at 

Iowa’s 27 RPAs and MPOs. 
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix A

A-2

Vermont Highway Safety Forums

The Vermont Highway Safety Alliance partners with Vermont’s regional planning 

commissions to host Regional Highway Safety Forums.18 The purpose of the safety 

forums were to establish relationships between regional safety stakeholders, begin 

discussions on sharing resources, and identify highway safety issues specific to each 

region. Key participants at each forum included local and regional law enforcement, 

emergency management services, fire departments, planners, engineers, driver’s 

education professionals, and other highway traffic safety stakeholders in the region.

Forum participants are introduced to the Vermont Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan, statewide safety initiatives, and the local roads program. Sessions on topics 

in engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services are offered to 

educate participants on Vermont’s seven critical SHSP emphasis areas. VTrans 

shared information on data available to the local agencies for decision-making. 

An afternoon breakout session included a discussion exploring regional data 

provided by VTrans. Participants were expected to discuss any data 

commonalities, local groups or personnel to be mobilized to address issues, 

outside sources that can be leveraged to assist, and strategies to consider for next 

steps.

The Regional Highway Safety Forums served as an opportunity to engage a 

larger group of partners in the SHSP process and to personalize the experience 

for local agencies. The initiative gives local agencies better access to crash data, 

more knowledge of funding for safety programs, and better understanding of 

statewide safety initiatives.

 

18The oversight and development of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan is 

accomplished through the Vermont Highway Safety Alliance which consists of the 

Executive Committee, the Board, and five Focus Teams.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix A

A-3

Figure A.1a Vermont Highway Safety Forum Registration Flyer

Source: Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix A

A-4

Figure A.2b Vermont Highway Safety Forum Registration Flyer (continued)

Source: Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix A

A-5

Virginia’s Rural Project Prioritization

Virginia DOT has developed a process for ranking and prioritizing projects in rural 

regions served by the State’s Planning District Commissions. The process is used to 

rank all rural LRTP projects based on performance measures. The Lynchburg 

District LRTP project selection and prioritization process, as an example, can be 

found at: http://www.region2000.org/assets/files/Transportation/Project 

Prioritization Process and Methodology 2013 Update.pdf. Transportation projects 

were selected for the LRTP based on the following criteria: safety, operations and 

maintenance, and capacity. The prioritization process involves using key roadway 

attributes, based on the five transportation goals of the VTrans 2035 Plan to calculate 

a weighted score for each project. Data was collected from the Statewide Planning 

System, VDOT’s on-line GIS tool and VDOT’s Traffic Management System (TMS). 

The goal of the project was to rank each LRTP project for each county in the 

Lynchburg District based on a series of weighted technical road attributes. A 

detailed prioritization matrix was used to score and rank each project based on the 

roadway characteristics outlined in Table A.1.

Table A.1 Weighted Transportation Attributes Used for Ranking 

Recommended Projects in the Prioritization Matrix

Roadway Element/

Attribute Description

Weight Relative to

Prioritization Goals

Proposed Number of 

Lanes

Number of recommended lanes from transportation plans 

that propose additional lanes, if applicable.

N/A

Length of Project Total length in miles of the proposed recommendation. 

Intersection recommendations receive a default value of 

0.5 miles.

N/A

2009 Level of Service Measure used to determine the effectiveness and 

operational level of the roadway in 2009.

33%

2009 V/C Ratio Volume-to-Capacity Ratio is an index to assess traffic 

conditions and level of congestion of the roadway.

33%

2011 AADT 2011 Average Annual Daily Traffic is the total volume of 

vehicle traffic on a roadway for 1 year divided by 365 days.

N/A

2035 AADT Projected 2035 Average Annual Daily Traffic rates. N/A

Flow Rate (pcphpl) The maximum rate of flow reasonably expected on an 

existing roadway while maintaining a certain LOS in 

passenger cars per hour per lane.

33%

Fatal+Injury Crash Rate 

per Mile (2006 to 2010)

Total number of aggregate injuries and fatalities on the 

roadway per mile from 2006 to 2010.

100%

Number of 

Heavy Trucks

Total number of heavy trucks in 2011 on a select roadway 

segment which equates to the estimated percent heavy 

trucks.

50%

Cultural Resources Total number of historic properties and cultural resources 

in close proximity to the right-of-way of a select roadway.

N/A
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix A

A-6

Roadway Element/

Attribute Description

Weight Relative to

Prioritization Goals

T&E Species Threatened and Endangered Species considerations. 50%

R/W Impact Any impacts on the right-of-way considered here (such as 

environmental or social).

50%

Include HOV, Bike/Ped,

other Modes

Any special accommodation features for HOV, bicycle, 

pedestrian, or transit are considered here.

25%

Structurally Deficient 

Bridge (square feet)

Total square footage of a structurally deficient bridge from 

the 2035 Rural LRTP.

25%

Total Cost Estimated cost of the recommended project from the 

2035 Rural LRTP.

25%

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation Project Prioritization Process and Methodology 2013 Update.

Developing a prioritization process and ranking for road improvement projects 

have several benefits:

• Brings more transparency to the project selection process;

• Provide a common basis with which to rank planning transportation projects 

of different types, purposes, and origins;

• Streamlines the project development process across the state;

• Encourages decision-makers to focus limited transportation funds;

• Strengthens the link between planning and programming; and

• Provides a better assessment of system performance using transparent data.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix A

A-7

North Central Pennsylvania RPDC Safety Study

The North Central Pennsylvania RPDC developed a Regional Safety Study to 

evaluate the safety-related issues along the Core Roadway System in their 

region. The Core Roadway System connects the region’s most important 

economic centers and the transportation facilities and businesses that serve them. 

The study examined existing and historic information related to highway safety, 

including crash data, characteristics of the roadways and input on motorist, 

pedestrian, transit, and bicyclist safety from the public and project stakeholders. 

Roadway safety related to economic development and important connections to 

air and rail transportation were also evaluated. The region’s transit agencies 

were included as part of the study to determine roadway safety conditions 

relative to public transportation and to identify resultant mobility, accessibility,

and safety improvements.

The corridor safety analysis was conducted to determine which areas presented 

the greatest safety concern in the region. Data collected from PennDOT Crash 

Reporting System (CDART), North Central Pennsylvania RPDC Top 25 Crash 

Locations List, Pennsylvania DOT’s Top 20 Intersection Safety Concern List, and 

input from local officials and stakeholders was used to inform the site selection 

identification process. This list of sites was prioritized or ranked using 

qualitative and quantitative (benefit-cost analysis) methods that evaluated the 

improvement’s effectiveness. The goal was to develop a final list that reflected 

priorities of the stakeholders and the public while taking economic factors into 

account. A comprehensive list of proposed safety improvements was developed 

and included both project-specific improvements and systematic improvements. 

The proposed safety improvements were integrated into PennDOT’s highway 

planning process with the development and submission of Linking Planning and 

NEPA (LPN) Level I Screening Forms. The plan also identified the proper 

funding source for each proposed site improvement.

For additional information, see: http://www.ncentral.com/trans/wp-content/

uploads/2014/01/NCentral_Final_Report_March2012.pdf.

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix B

B-1

B. Resources

Table B.1 presents key resources to advance RPO transportation safety planning.

Table B.1 Key Resources to Advance RPO Transportation Safety Planning

Title Notes

Transportation Planning Processes

Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit 

Administration (2007). The Transportation Planning 

Process Key Issues: A Briefing Book for 

Transportation Decision-Makers, Officials, and Staff. 

Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program. 

FHWA, Washington, D.C. 

http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/

bbook_07.pdf

The publication provides an overview of 

transportation planning and contains a summary of 

key concepts in statewide and metropolitan 

transportation planning, along with references for 

additional information.

RPOs would benefit from the process diagrams and 

explanation of the elements of the transportation 

planning process, since many RPO structures follow 

the FHWA process for transportation planning. 

Federal Safety and Planning Web Sites

FHWA Local and Rural Safety Program, 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/

This web site provides a number of resources to 

local and RPO planners, including national 

information on crash facts, funding and policy 

guidance, safety programs, publications, and peerto-peer assistance opportunities.

FHWA Safety Program, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ This web site is intended to provide transportation 

planners with programs, publications, and 

technologies to improve safety performance.

FHWA Planning Program, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/

This web site is intended to provide transportation 

planners with programs, publications, and 

technologies to improve transportation planning.

FHWA Web-Links to State SHSPs, 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/state_links.cfm

This web site provides links to the SHSPs for every 

state.

NHTSA Web-Links to State HSPs, 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/safeteaweb/page

s/SafetyPlans.htm

This web site provides links to the HSPs for every 

state.

Countermeasures

NCHRP (2011), Report 500: Guidance for 

Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan, 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx

This project developed a series of guides to assist 

state and local agencies in reducing injuries and 

fatalities in targeted emphasis areas. The guides 

correspond to the emphasis areas outlined in the 

AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Each 

guide includes strategies/countermeasures to 

address the problem.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix B

B-2

Title Notes

Countermeasures (continued)

FHWA Office of Safety (2012), Proven Safety 

Countermeasures, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

provencountermeasures/

FHWA has provided information and fact sheets on 

a group of countermeasures that have shown great 

effectiveness in improving safety.

FHWA, Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse 

houses a web-based database of CMFs along with 

supporting documentation to help transportation 

engineers identify the most appropriate 

countermeasure for their safety needs.

NHTSA (2013), Countermeasures That Work: A 

Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State 

Highway Safety Offices, http://www.ghsa.org/html/

publications/countermeasures.html

The guide is a basic reference is selecting 

evidence-based countermeasures, mainly for 

behavioral initiatives.

FHWA Office of Safety (2006), Implementing the High 

Risk Rural Roads Program, 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10

012/index.cfm

This document contains resources and practices for 

consideration in implementing the HRRRP, including 

crash data, analysis and use, and project selection.

Transportation Safety Planning 

NCHRP (2006), Report 05-46, Incorporating Safety 

into Long-Range Transportation Planning, 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13891

Report 546 was a first step in providing MPO and 

DOT transportation planners with tools and 

strategies to consider safety in the planning 

process. Although geared toward urban agencies, 

many of the processes and strategies outlined in the 

document are relevant to RPO practitioners.

NCHRP (2011), Report 08-76, Institutionalizing Safety 

in the Transportation Planning Process, 

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/

TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2502

Report 876 created a seven-principle transportation 

safety planning framework (TSP Framework) 

demonstrating how planners could integrate safety 

into every step of the traditional planning process. 

Although geared toward urban agencies, many of 

the processes and strategies outlined in the 

document are relevant to RPO practitioners.

NCHRP (Project Underway), Report B08-76, 

Implementing, Testing, and Evaluating the 

Transportation Safety Planning Framework, 

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/

TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2502

Report B876 is ongoing and has focused research 

on five lead states, working with them to identify 

approaches for integrating safety throughout the 

entire planning process based on their own unique 

planning environments. One of the lead states, 

Maine, has RPOs and provided guidance on how to 

better integrate safety into regional planning 

processes.

FHWA (2012), Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for 

Local Rural Road Owners, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/

This document guides the development of a Local 

Road Safety Plan, providing local practitioners with 

a framework to take a proactive stance to identify 

the specific or unique conditions that contribute to 

crashes within their jurisdictions.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix B

B-3

Title Notes

SHSP Guidance

FHWA (2012), Strategic Highway Safety Plans: A 

Champion’s Guide to Saving Lives, Second Edition. 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/guidebook

This document promotes best practices and serves

as guidance to state DOTs and their safety partners 

for the development and implementation of the state 

SHSP; assists state DOTs in creating an SHSP that 

meets the requirements of Title 23, U.S.C.; and 

assists states in understanding the relationship 

between the SHSP and existing transportation 

planning and programming processes. For RPOs 

looking to engage in their state’s SHSP process, 

this guide is useful.

Performance Measures

California Department of Transportation (2006),

Performance Measures for Rural Transportation 

Systems, http://www.dot.ca.gov/perf/library/pdf/

RSPMTechnicalDocument.pdf

This publication provides guidance to rural areas 

regarding a standardized and supportable 

performance measurement process for 

transportation systems.

FHWA (2009), A Primer on Safety Performance 

Measures for the Transportation Planning Process, 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwahep09043/ 

This Primer is a tool to help State and local 

practitioners, transportation planners, and decisionmakers identify, select, and use safety performance 

measures as a part of the transportation planning 

process.

Project Prioritization

NADO (2013), Webinar Materials: Strategic 

Prioritization in North Carolina, http://www.nado.org/

webinar-materials-strategic-prioritization-in-northcarolina/ 

These materials outline the process used in North 

Carolina to prioritize transportation projects, which 

incorporates input from rural practitioners. The 

prioritization also includes safety considerations for 

every project.

NADO (2011). Transportation Project Prioritization 

and Performance-Based Planning Efforts in Rural and 

Small Metropolitan Regions, http://www.nado.org/

transportation-project-prioritization-and-performancebased-planning-efforts-in-rural-and-small-metropolitanregions/

This report provides an overview of the state of the 

practice in nonmetro regional transportation 

planning, including the contract amounts, RPO 

tasks, and committee structures. The research also 

examines rural long-range planning efforts and 

criteria used to rank regional priority projects.

RPO Transportation Planning Documents

Piedmont Triad RPO (2013), Speed Management 

Action Plan for Randolph County, http://www.ptrc.org/

modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2183

This plan was developed for one of the counties in 

the Piedmont Triad Regional Council planning area. 

It characterizes Randolph County’s speeding and 

speed management issues, identifies appropriate 

countermeasures and strategies, and describes 

implementation actions to reduce speeding and 

speed-related fatal and injury crashes.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix B

B-4

Title Notes

RPO Transportation Planning Documents (continued)

North Central Pennsylvania RPDC (2012), North 

Central Regional Safety Study, 

http://www.ncentral.com/trans/wp-content/uploads/

2014/01/NCentral_Final_Report_March2012.pdf

The North Central Regional Corridor Safety 

Improvement Study represents a focused evaluation 

of safety-related issues along the Core System 

Roadways that provide key transportation links to 

critical economic centers and recreational assets 

throughout the region. It examines safety related to 

motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit 

services with the goal to outline specific safety 

improvements within the six-county region that best 

accommodates multiple modes of travel.

Virginia DOT (2012), Rural Regional Long-Range 

Plans, http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/

rural_regional_long-range_plans.asp

Virginia DOT partnered with all the rural planning 

agencies in the State (called planning district 

commissions in Virginia) to evaluate the State’s 

rural transportation system and to recommend a 

range of transportation improvements that best 

satisfy existing and future needs. The partnership 

resulted in the development of regional 

transportation plans for each PDC.

Planning/Policy Manuals

VTrans (2014), Transportation Planning Initiative 

Annual Work Program Guidance, 

http://www.acrpc.info/transportation/TPI/

FFY2014_TPI_Guidance_Final_201305.pdf

This document provides guidance to Vermont’s 

RPCs’ to assist them with developing their annual 

Transportation Planning Initiative (TPI) work 

program and budget for Federal Fiscal Year 2014. 

The document also outlines opportunities for the 

RPCs to engage in safety planning activities. This 

document may be useful to DOTs, interested in 

formalizing RTPO work programs.

Data and Analysis

FHWA Road Safety Information Analysis: A Manual 

for Local Rural Road Owners, 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/

fhwasaxx1210/lrro_data.pdf

This manual provides information on crash data 

collection and analysis techniques specifically 

applicable to local practitioners with limited 

resources.

FHWA (Project Underway), Toolkit: Improving Safety 

on Rural Local and Tribal Roads

This toolkit will help rural agency practitioners 

effectively integrate road safety into their existing 

array of responsibilities. It provides practitioners 

with an easy to use safety analysis process, a set of 

tools, examples, and links to resources appropriate 

to their needs. 

AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (2010), 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/

The first edition of the HSM provides the best factual 

information and tools to facilitate roadway planning, 

design, operations, and maintenance decisions 

based on precise consideration of their safety 

consequences. The primary focus of the HSM is the 

introduction and development of analytical tools for 

predicting the impact of transportation project and 

program decisions on road safety.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix B

B-5

Title Notes

Data and Analysis (continued) 

FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (2013), 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/

The FHWA Office of Safety developed the Systemic 

Safety Project Selection Tool guidebook to provide 

practitioners a step-by-step process for conducting 

systemic safety planning, considerations for 

balancing investments in spot-specific and systemic 

safety improvements, and analytical techniques for 

quantifying the benefits of a systemic safety 

program.

Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix C

C-1

C. Implementation Plan

C.1 INTRODUCTION

This tool is designed to help you move from a broad safety goal to effective and 

strategic action planning. This template will aid in the development of an 

effective implementation plan in which specific, measurable objectives, 

strategies, and action steps are identified to assist regional planners begin or 

better integrate safety in the planning process.

C.2 HOW TO USE THIS TOOL

The strengths, weaknesses and opportunities identified in each planning area 

worksheet identified a preliminary list of strategies your organization can 

implement to enhance the integration of safety in the RPO transportation 

planning process. Moving forward, consider forming a small, focused team to 

select priority safety planning tasks, refine strategies for addressing the tasks, 

and completing the process by identifying specific action steps for accomplishing 

the strategies. The below Implementation Plan will assist with action step 

development.

C.3 INSTRUCTIONS

An Implementation Plan template is provided to help you create goals, 

objectives, and action steps for each planning task. The Public Involvement 

planning task is intended to provide an example and guidance for using the tool. 

The following table provides definitions of key terms used in the Implementation 

Plan.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix C

C-2

Table C.1 Implementation Worksheet

Term Description/Definition

Priority Planning Task Enter the priority planning task to be addressed (e.g., Public Involvement, 

Multidisciplinary Coordination, Goals and Objectives, Performance Measures, 

Data Collection and Analysis, Project Prioritization and Programming, or 

Monitoring and Evaluation).

Goal Create a statement outlining the desired end state, i.e., what you hope to 

accomplish related to this priority area.

Opportunity (Strategies) List one opportunity (i.e., strategy) identified from the planning task worksheet.

Background Provide a brief description of the specific strategies you plan to achieve.

Action Steps Outline the steps you will take to achieve each strategy. Place each action step 

in a separate row, arranged chronologically.

Timeline Establish a time period for each action step to be accomplished (number of 

months, years, etc.).

Lead Person/

Organization

Identify the person or organization responsible for initiating/implementing the 

activity, providing direction for the work, and monitoring progress. The leaders 

are not expected to accomplish all the work; however, they will ensure the 

activities are carried out.

Anticipated Result Describe the specific, expected results of the activity. This statement should 

operationalize the goal.

Monitoring and 

Evaluation

Track and regularly report progress on each activity. Evaluate the effectiveness 

of the strategies and activities and recommend course corrections where 

appropriate.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix C

C-3

Figure C.1 Example Completed Implementation Worksheet

Source: Sample worksheet created for purposes of this report.
Integrating Safety in the Rural Transportation Planning Process

Appendix C

C-4

Figure C.2 Sample Blank Action Plan Worksheet for Opportunity/Strategy #2

Source: Sample worksheet created for purposes of this report.

Figure C.3 Sample Blank Action Plan Worksheet for Opportunity/Strategy #3

Source: Sample worksheet created for purposes of this report.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

FHWA-SA-14-102

November 2014