http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA-SA-16-024

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

National Scan Tour

March 2016
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

i

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.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

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

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT 

ii

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-16-024

2. Government Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Highway Safety Improvement Program National Scan Tour

5. Report Date

March 2016

6. Performing Organization Code

7.Author(s) 

Scott Kuznicki, Bruce Ibarguen, Jennifer Symoun (Toxcel), Peter Pavao

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc (VHB)

8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700

Vienna, VA 22182-2626 

Toxcel, LLC

7140 Heritage Village Plaza

Gainesville, VA 20155

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00022 (VHB)

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

Final Report

April 2015 – March 2016

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

The contract manager for this report was Karen Scurry.

16. Abstract

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned facilities. In its efforts to ensure that the program investment 

produces an optimal outcome, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted a scan tour of HSIP practices in the fall of 2015, 

visiting Alaska, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah. The purpose of the Scan Tour was to identify 

notable practices in the areas of HSIP administration, planning, implementation and evaluation in high -performing States with the goal of 

sharing this information among all the States. The Scan Tour findings highlighted a number of notable practices related to: documenting HSIP 

processes; coordinating with internal and external partners; understanding the relationship between the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

and HSIP; making data-driven safety decisions; using advanced safety analysis methods and tools; addressing local road needs; considering all 

four “E’s”; establishing multi-year plan and budget; and identifying opportunities to streamline project delivery.

17. Key Words:

HSIP, highway safety improvement program, safety

data, roadway inventory data, traffic data, data

collection, crash data, SHSP, strategic highway

safety plan

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this

page) Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

139

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

iii
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTICE.................................................................................................... I

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT.................................................. I

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................IV

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. XI

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................. XI

ACRONYMS........................................................................................XIII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................XV

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION........................................................... 1

SCAN SCOPE .................................................................................................................1

SCAN TEAM COMPOSITION.....................................................................................2

USING AND APPLYING THIS REPORT...................................................................2

CHAPTER 2—DOCUMENTATION OF HSIP PROCESSES................. 4

PROGRAM HANDBOOKS AND POLICY MANUALS............................................5

SAFETY ENGINEERING MANUALS..........................................................................6

DOCUMENTING SAFETY OUTCOMES...................................................................7

WEB SITES.....................................................................................................................7

SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 3—COORDINATING WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL 

PARTNERS............................................................................................ 10
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

v

INTERNAL COORDINATION ..................................................................................10

Shared Delivery of HSIP ...........................................................................................11

Centralized Delivery of HSIP ...................................................................................13

RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXTERNAL PARTNERS................................................13

HSIP and Safety Committees...................................................................................13

Governor’s Office of Highway Safety ......................................................................15

Federal Agencies ........................................................................................................16

Universities .................................................................................................................16

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................16

CHAPTER 4—UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

THE SHSP AND HSIP........................................................................... 18

ALIGNING HSIP PROJECTS WITH THE SHSP.....................................................18

USING COUNTY SHSPS FOR NETWORK SCREENING....................................20

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................21

CHAPTER 5—MAKING DATA-DRIVEN SAFETY DECISIONS......... 22

CRASH DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS.....................................22

Crash Data Collection ............................................................................................... 23

Using a Tiered Crash Data Entry System............................................................... 25

Crash Data Analysis Tools ........................................................................................25

SYSTEM SCREENING, PROJECT NOMINATION, AND PROJECT SELECTION

.. 27

Using Safety Warrants to Screen and Select Projects .........................................27

Using an Electronic Application Process to Screen and Select Projects............28

Using Crash Data to Screen and Select Projects...................................................31

Applying Additional Factors in Screening .............................................................. 33

SPOT VERSUS SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENTS........................................................34

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................42

CHAPTER 6—USING ADVANCED SAFETY ANALYSIS METHODS 

AND TOOLS......................................................................................... 43
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

vi

ANALYSIS TOOLS......................................................................................................44

USE OF SAFETY INDEXES........................................................................................45

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................47

CHAPTER 7—ADDRESSING LOCAL ROAD NEEDS ........................ 48

ASSISTING LOCAL AGENCIES ...............................................................................49

WORKING WITH METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS............51

DELIVERING LOCAL SAFETY PROJECTS............................................................. 52

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................52

CHAPTER 8—CONSIDERING ALL "4E'S".......................................... 54

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT.......................................................... 55

Addressing Driver Behavioral Issues .......................................................................55

Zero Fatalities Messaging and Media Outreach.....................................................57

Tribal Outreach Efforts............................................................................................. 58

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT............................................................................................... 58

SAFETY CORRIDORS.................................................................................................62

ENFORCEMENT AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ................................................63

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................63

CHAPTER 9—IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES TO STREAMLINE 

PROJECT DELIVERY ............................................................................ 65

COORDINATION OF PROJECT DELIVERY...........................................................65

USE OF CONTRACTORS/CONSULTANTS .......................................................... 66

PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS...........................................67

HSIP IN THE STIP.......................................................................................................71

ESTABLISH A MULTI-YEAR PLAN AND BUDGET .............................................72

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................73

CHAPTER 10—EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM 75
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

vii

HSIP PROJECT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION AND MONITORING............76

CMF DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................78

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................78

CHAPTER 11—OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.................. 79

STREAMLINED ACCESS TO CRASH DATA AND CRASH REPORT 

INFORMATION ...........................................................................................................79

STRONG DOCUMENTATION OF SYSTEM SCREENING AND PROJECT 

SELECTION PROCESSES.......................................................................................... 79

PATHWAY FOR LOCAL INVOLVEMENT AND NOMINATION OF PROJECTS

.. 80

EXTENSIVE USE OF RSAS........................................................................................80

DELIBERATE AND DOCUMENTED ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT 

PERFORMANCE ..........................................................................................................80

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................80

APPENDIX A—KEY CONTACTS FROM HOST STATES................. 82

APPENDIX B—SCAN TEAM MEMBERS............................................. 86

APPENDIX C—NOTABLE PRACTICES BY STATE.......................... 87
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

viii

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: ALASKA ......................................................88

Documentation of HSIP Processes..........................................................................88

Coordination with Internal and External Partners................................................88

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP...........................88

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions .....................................................................89

Addressing Local Road Needs ..................................................................................89

Considering All “4E’s”............................................................................................... 89

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery ...................................90

Evaluating the Success of the Program...................................................................90

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: ILLINOIS .....................................................91

Documentation of HSIP Processes..........................................................................91

Coordination with Internal and External Partners................................................91

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP...........................91

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions .....................................................................92

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools ............................................93

Addressing Local Road Needs ..................................................................................93

Considering All “4E’s”............................................................................................... 94

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery ...................................94

Evaluating the Success of the Program...................................................................95

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: MASSACHUSETTS ...................................95

Documentation of HSIP Processes..........................................................................95

Coordination with Internal and External Partners................................................95

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP...........................96

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions .....................................................................96

Addressing Local Road Needs ..................................................................................97

Considering All “4E’s”............................................................................................... 97

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery ...................................98

Evaluating the Success of the Program...................................................................99

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: NEW HAMPSHIRE....................................99

Documentation of HSIP Processes..........................................................................99

Coordination with Internal and External Partners................................................99

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP.........................100

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions ...................................................................100

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools ..........................................101

Addressing Local Road Needs ................................................................................101

Considering All “4E’s”............................................................................................. 102
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

ix

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery .................................102

Evaluating the Success of the Program.................................................................103

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: NORTH CAROLINA ............................... 104

Documentation of HSIP Processes........................................................................104

Coordination with Internal and External Partners..............................................104

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP.........................105

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions ...................................................................105

Addressing Local Road Needs ................................................................................106

Considering All “4E’s”............................................................................................. 106

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery .................................107

Evaluating the Success of the Program.................................................................108

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: OREGON...................................................109

Documentation of HSIP Processes........................................................................109

Coordination with Internal and External Partners..............................................109

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP.........................109

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions ...................................................................110

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools ..........................................111

Addressing Local Road Needs ................................................................................111

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery .................................112

Evaluating the Success of the Program.................................................................112

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: UTAH.........................................................113

Documentation of HSIP Processes........................................................................113

Coordination with Internal and External Partners..............................................113

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP.........................114

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions ...................................................................114

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools ..........................................115

Addressing Local Road Needs ................................................................................115

Considering All “4E’s”............................................................................................. 115

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery .................................116

Evaluating the Success of the Program.................................................................117

APPENDIX D: HSIP RESOURCES..................................................... 118
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

x

OFFICE OF SAFETY HSIP RESOURCES............................................................... 118

HOST STATE HSIP WEB SITES.............................................................................118

NEW HAMPSHIRE HSIP FORMS ...........................................................................118

REFERENCES...................................................................................... 121
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

xi

List of Tables

Table 1. Five common HSIP initiatives. ........................................................................xvi

Table 2. Appendices in IDOT HSIP engineering policy memorandum.......................5

Table 3. Comparison of NCDOT's HSIP and SPOT safety programs.......................37

Table 4. Host State statistics. .......................................................................................... 87

List of Figures

Figure 1. The Alaska HSIP Handbook..............................................................................4

Figure 2. ODOT project business case - intersection systemic example. ...................8

Figure 3. NCDOT traffic safety unit organization chart..............................................12

Figure 4. Illinois SHSP emphasis area priority levels. ..................................................20

Figure 5. Example crash map from IDOT crash manager. (11)....................................23

Figure 6. More detailed crash map information from IDOT crash manager. (11).....23

Figure 7. IDOT HSIP candidate application form. .......................................................29

Figure 8. IDOT HSIP project selection process flow chart. (14)...................................30

Figure 9. Alaska HSIP project selection process. (15)....................................................32

Figure 10. ODOT ARTS program funding allocations and crash proportions. ........40

Figure 11. UDOT cable median barrier crash trends. .................................................41

Figure 12. Output of Utah's crash prediction model. ..................................................45

Figure 13. Illinois DOT safety tier classification............................................................46

Figure 14. UDOT's zero fatalities Facebook posts reach a large audience...............55

Figure 15. Brochure created under NHDOT's Driving Toward Zero program.......57

Figure 16. Incorporating RSA into design in Massachusetts. ......................................58

Figure 17. NHDOT RSA process. ...................................................................................61
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

xii

Figure 18. New Hampshire DOT cost thresholds. .......................................................70

Figure 19. Screenshot of the UDOT WorkFlow Manager tool. .................................71

Figure 20. RSA application............................................................................................. 119

Figure 21. HSIP project application spreadsheet (page 1). .......................................120
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

xiii

ACRONYMS

4E’s Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Engineering

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AHSO Alaska Highway Safety Offices

AOC Association of Oregon Counties

ARTS All-Roads Transportation Safety

ATSC Alaska Traffic Safety Corridor

B/C Benefit/Cost

BSE Bureau of Safety Engineering

CEA Critical Emphasis Area

CEI Cost-Effectiveness Index

CMF Crash Modification Factor

CPM Crash Prediction Model

CRF Crash Reduction Factor

CRS Condition Rating Survey

CUUATS Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles

DOH Department of Health

DOT Department of Transportation

DOT&PF Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

DPS Department of Public Safety

DSC District Safety Committee

DTS Division of Traffic Safety

DTZ Driving Toward Zero

EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

GHSO Governor’s Highway Safety Office

GHSP Governor’s Highway Safety Program

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

HSP Highway Safety Plan

ICWS Intersection Cross-Road Warning System

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

IRI International Roughness Index

ISP Illinois State Police

LOC League of Oregon Cities

LPA Local Public Agency

LSA Limited Service Agreement
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

xiv

M&S Mobility and Safety

M&SFO Mobility and Safety Field Operations

MassDOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation

MCDOT McHenry County Department of Transportation

MCR Mobile Capture Reporting

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation

NHSP New Hampshire State Police

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

PH Potentially Hazardous 

PSI Potential for Safety Improvement

RMV Registry of Motor Vehicles

ROW Right of Way

RPC Regional Planning Commission

RSA Road Safety Audit

RTE Regional Traffic Engineer

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SPF Safety Performance Function

SRI Safer Roads Index

STIP State Transportation Improvement Program

T&S Traffic & Safety

TESS Traffic Engineering and Safety Section

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan

TSAP Transportation Safety Action Plan

TSD Transportation Safety Division

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation

UNC-HSRC University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

usRAP United States Road Assessment Program
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the 

purpose of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public 

roads, including non-State-owned facilities. In its efforts to ensure that the program investment 

produces an optimal outcome, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted a scan 

tour of HSIP practices in the fall of 2015. The purpose of the Scan Tour was to identify notable 

practices in the areas of HSIP administration, planning, implementation and evaluation in highperforming States with the goal of sharing this information among all the States. 

FHWA in partnership with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) considered a variety of factors in selecting the seven Scan Tour States, 

including the:

 Geographic size of the State.

 Size of the overall roadway system and fraction of the system under State control.

 Composition of the State Department of Transportation (DOT) oversight organization.

 State’s documentation and reporting practices.

 State’s performance in reduction of fatalities and serious injuries.

Based on these factors, the scan team visited Alaska, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah on the Scan Tour.

The Scan Tour findings highlighted a number of notable practices related to: documenting HSIP 

processes; coordinating with internal and external partners; understanding the relationship 

between the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and HSIP; making data-driven safety 

decisions; using advanced safety analysis methods and tools; addressing local road needs; 

considering all four “E’s”; establishing multi-year plan and budget; and identifying opportunities 

to streamline project delivery. However, five common initiatives stood out across all of the 

States. Table 1 provides a brief description of each of these initiatives.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

xvi

Table 1. Five common HSIP initiatives.

Initiative Description

Streamlined Access to Crash Data and 

Crash Report Information

The use of electronic crash reporting efforts 

impacts timeliness of data. For each State, the 

crash report information is key in developing 

collision diagrams for projects, supplementing 

road safety audit (RSA) preparation, and 

identifying the causative effects of crashes. Since 

most States do not actually own the crash data, it 

is important that not only the DOT, but all safety 

stakeholders have access to the data. Many States 

have a web portal, or something similar, enabling 

access to crash data. Typically, the DOT was a 

key partner in ensuring this level of accessibility 

exists.

Strong Documentation of System 

Screening and Project Selection Processes

In all States, extensive documentation of the 

screening and project selection processes creates 

accountability for HSIP staff decisions and 

demonstrates transparency, which increases 

accessibility and understanding across the DOT 

and to local agencies.

Pathway for Local Involvement and 

Nomination of Projects

The inclusion of local agency officials, particularly 

those from county highway departments and 

regional planning associations, is imperative if the 

HSIP is to be successful in States with large rural 

systems that are not State-maintained. All host 

States provide a mechanism for local agencies to 

use HSIP funds, either via a set-aside or similar 

program, or competition through the State 

program. 

Extensive Use of RSAs All States identified RSAs as a key component of 

screening, project development, and project 

design. The use of HSIP funds to conduct local 

agency RSAs was found to be particularly helpful 

in engaging local agencies in the identification of 

correctable crashes and potential 

countermeasures. Most notably, several States 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

xvii

Initiative Description

require RSAs as part of project scoping and 

project development, which leads to a more 

robust project that delivers on crash correction.

Deliberate and Documented Assessment 

of Project Performance

Project evaluation is the basis of validating project 

and program performance. All Host States 

complete some form of project evaluation, such 

as reviewing before/after crash history at 

individual project locations, developing measures 

of effectiveness for particular countermeasures 

or evaluating the success of the program as a 

whole. 

It is anticipated that these key practice areas will engage State DOTs in their individual efforts 

to evaluate the HSIP and consider strategic initiatives designed to implement the notable 

practices described in this report. There is more than one means for carrying out a highway 

safety improvement program. Each State must tailor its program to its unique needs and take 

into account existing strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. The goal of this report is to give 

States a better understanding of successful HSIP practices that can help enhance and improve 

their existing HSIP.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

1

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a federally-funded, State-administered 

program with the purpose of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads 

(including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land) through the implementation 

of highway safety improvement projects. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to 

improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. While the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) establishes the program requirements under 23 CFR Part 

924, each State is required to develop and implement processes to support their HSIP planning, 

implementation and evaluation efforts. More information about the HSIP is available at the 

FHWA Office of Safety HSIP Web Site - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/.

Each State submits an annual report to FHWA that describes the current status of HSIP 

implementation efforts and the effectiveness of highway safety improvement projects. FHWA 

uses this information and knowledge of various State programs to identify and publish individual 

HSIP-related noteworthy practices. However, the last time FHWA led a national review of the 

HSIP was in 2001, which predates Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) – the Federal transportation bill that transformed the 

HSIP to what it is today. While there have been several interim review efforts, they have been 

focused on specific aspects of the HSIP (e.g. high risk rural roads, local road safety). Therefore, 

FHWA initiated a scan tour in 2015 to gain a holistic perspective of national HSIP 

implementation efforts. The 2015 HSIP Scan Tour focused on identifying and documenting key 

characteristics of State HSIP administration, planning, implementation, and evaluation practices 

from States known to have strong State HSIP practices that would benefit other States.

SCAN SCOPE

The domestic scan involved a tour of seven States (Host States) by a team of transportation 

professionals from the Federal and State levels. The seven host States were Alaska, Illinois, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah. FHWA and AASHTO 

considered a variety of factors in selecting the seven States, including the geographic size of the 

state, the size of the overall roadway system and fraction of the system under State control, the 

composition of the State DOT oversight organization, the State’s performance in 

documentation and reporting, the State’s performance in reduction of targeted crashes, and the 

accessibility of State DOT information on the HSIP. The selection process involved reviews of 

State HSIP practices and interviews with States selected for advancement to the final selection 

process.

At each of the seven States, the Scan Team conducted a one-day meeting with representatives 

from Federal, State, and local transportation safety organizations. Each meeting began with an 

HSIP overview presentation given by FHWA, followed by a presentation on the State’s HSIP 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

2

practices, presentations from various stakeholder perspectives, and a roundtable discussion. 

The roundtable discussion focused on successful practices; issues that have been faced and how 

they have been overcome; safety initiatives and countermeasures that have been pursued; what 

prompted them and how they have been implemented; how the State is incorporating 

performance measures and preparing for the impending performance measurement/target 

setting requirements; data collection, management, and analysis efforts; funding of noninfrastructure projects; and other topics, as appropriate.

Appendix A includes a list of the Scan Tour State key points of contact.

SCAN TEAM COMPOSITION

Representatives from FHWA and State DOTs participated on the Scan Team. FHWA members 

of the Scan Team included a member from the Headquarters Office of Safety and Division 

Office personnel from Oregon, Indiana, and Tennessee. FHWA and AASHTO selected State 

DOT representatives from Nevada, Kansas, and Georgia, based on interest and geographic 

diversity. FHWA hired a contractor to serve as the Scan Team facilitator and logistics 

coordinator. Appendix B includes the full list of the Scan Team members. 

USING AND APPLYING THIS REPORT

This report provides the findings of the Scan Tour, organized by the top characteristics of a 

successful HSIP. (1) The report includes a chapter on each characteristic, highlighting relevant 

practices that the Host States use to manage and implement their HSIP:

 Chapter 2 - Documentation of HSIP Processes.

 Chapter 3 - Coordination with Internal and External Partners.

 Chapter 4 - Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP.

 Chapter 5 - Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions.

 Chapter 6 - Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools.

 Chapter 7 - Addressing Local Road Needs.

 Chapter 8 - Considering All “4E’s.”

 Chapter 9 - Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery.

 Chapter 10 - Evaluating the Success of the Program.

States can use the information in these chapters to learn more about successful State programs 

and practices, or to help address specific recommendations from program reviews. For 

example, if a program review identifies an opportunity for a State to better streamline project 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

3

delivery, the HSIP Manager from that State could jump to Chapter 9 to learn more about how

the Host States have streamlined their project delivery processes. 

Each chapter contains at least one “Spotlight on Safety.” The “Spotlight on Safety” segments 

highlight practices that stood out as useful or innovative during the Scan Tour. In addition, the 

report highlights several “Safety Innovations.” The “Safety Innovations” contain information that 

may not be directly related to the HSIP, but still may be of interest to State safety programs.

The report concludes with observations that were consistent across all host States, and which 

were derived from an analysis of the common themes and notable practices. 

Appendix C provides a summary of successful practices by State. The intent of this Appendix is 

to enable readers to find all information from each Scan Tour State in one succinct place and to 

view information for the State(s) that most closely match their own State’s characteristics. It 

includes information on the annual HSIP apportionment for each State, the number of roadway 

miles, and the five year average for fatalities, as well as a summary of notable practices in each 

chapter. 

Appendix D provides a list of HSIP resources, including the FHWA Office of Safety HSIP web 

site and links to the Host State HSIP web sites.

FHWA understands that there is more than one means for carrying out a highway safety 

improvement program. Each State must tailor its program to its unique needs and take into 

account existing strengths and weaknesses. However, the goal of this report is to give States a 

better understanding of successful HSIP practices that can help enhance and improve an existing 

HSIP.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

4

 SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 2—DOCUMENTATION OF HSIP PROCESSES

Many States develop clear documentation of the processes they use to administer the HSIP. 

These processes typically define how to identify, evaluate, prioritize, and fund safety 

improvement projects. This documentation not only helps to ensure implementation 

consistency across an agency, but it also helps stakeholders understand the requirements for 

using these funds.

Each of the Host States exhibited comprehensive documentation regarding the HSIP program, 

policies, procedures, outcomes, and safety data. Each of these types of documents are useful 

not only in that they provide a framework for DOT operation but also because they are useful 

tools for the cooperating agencies, particularly assisting them in understanding how to take 

participate in the HSIP. Appendix D provides links to State HSIP documentation.

HSIP Documentation in Alaska 

In Alaska, the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 

(DOT&PF) State Traffic and Safety Engineer has the responsibility 

of maintaining a variety of manuals and project development 

policy documentation. The Alaska HSIP Handbook (Figure 1) is 

evaluated and updated annually and on an as-needed basis to 

address changes in law, program and policy rules, and 

clarifications. Updates also address crash costs and crash 

modification factors (CMF) as needed. The Handbook is readily 

accessible from the Alaska DOT&PF web site, in addition to other 

HSIP documentation. (2) 

The Handbook clearly defines the process of HSIP project 

development, the criteria for project selection, and handling of 

funds and project delivery activities. Development of this 

documentation was the result of a facilitative relationship between the FHWA Division Office 

and the State Traffic and Safety Engineer’s office. The support of the Commissioner ensured 

that resources were available to address the HSIP regulations with appropriate and sufficient 

documentation, ensuring the program would be equitably and consistently applied.

Figure 1. The Alaska 

HSIP Handbook.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

5

PROGRAM HANDBOOKS AND POLICY MANUALS

These handbooks define how the HSIP functions in each State. Alaska, Illinois, Utah, and New 

Hampshire highlighted their extensive and regularly-updated handbooks. These handbooks 

contain direction on how the agency will identify, evaluate, prioritize, and fund safety 

improvement projects. This documentation not only helps to ensure implementation 

consistency across an agency, but it also helps stakeholders understand the requirements for 

using these funds.

In Illinois, the HSIP documentation is organized as an engineering policy memorandum, 

publication Safety 1-06, available from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) web 

site. (3) This publication includes several appendices that provide complete information about 

the program administration and procedures, shown in Table 2. The policy memorandum, which 

is published by the Central Bureau of Safety Engineering (BSE) at the direction of the Bureau 

Chief, is followed by all of the Districts, along with other engineering policy memoranda issued 

by the IDOT Central Office in Springfield.

Table 2. Appendices in IDOT HSIP engineering policy memorandum.

Like Illinois, New Hampshire also provides information useful to local agencies wishing to 

participate in the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) HSIP. Included in 

Appendix Topic

Appendix A Funding Allocation Process Federal HSIP Funding Flow Chart

Appendix B HSIP Project Selection Process

Appendix C Peer Groups and References on Countermeasures

Appendix D Benefit-to-Cost Methodology

Appendix F Safety Improvements-Service Life

Appendix G HSIP Candidate Form

Appendix H Example of Submittal Package
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

6

the appendices of the NHDOT HSIP Manual and Guidance are a sample HSIP Project 

Application spreadsheet and a sample Road Safety Audit Application. The NHDOT Manual is 

developed and updated by the NHDOT HSIP Committee.

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) HSIP Program Manual includes information on 

the non-infrastructure project process, addressing projects related to education, crash data 

improvements, and integration of safety into the planning process. (4) In Oregon, the Highway 

Safety Program Guide addresses the development of all safety projects, including HSIP projects, 

particularly emphasizing the relationship of the projects to the Oregon SHSP.

(5) Oregon’s 

efforts to create a jurisdictionally-blind system are reflected in the Guide’s clear instructions 

regarding applying with the local Region Traffic office.

In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) HSIP Guidelines

address project selection criteria in a policy briefing. Massachusetts, Utah, and North Carolina 

have established practices for conducting Road Safety Audits and those are reflected in the RSA 

documentation maintained by each department.

SAFETY ENGINEERING MANUALS

In addition to the engineering policy memorandum which describes the function and rules of 

the program, States also publish safety engineering documentation to assist agency staff in 

executing the program in a consistent manner. IDOT provides extensive documentation for 

agency staff and consultants, including the Systemic Safety Manual, various spreadsheet-based 

evaluation tools including the Benefit/Cost (b/c) Analysis Tool and Highway Safety Manual 

(HSM) Crash Prediction Tool, and the HSIP Process Flow Chart in Appendix B of the IDOT 

HSIP Policy. IDOT is also developing a Safety Engineering Manual as a supplement to the IDOT 

HSIP policy memorandum, designed to support the deployment of documented safety 

engineering processes. In addition, the BSE is developing a policy regarding safety in project 

development, which will provide guidance for safety-related project advancement decisions for 

all projects, including HSIP-funded work.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) also publishes guidelines related 

to the Safety Warrants, including regular updates to Safety Warrant Criteria , published by the 

Traffic Safety Systems Section of the NCDOT. (6) Publications by MassDOT, UDOT, and the 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) also provide information on how to undertake

the process of safety engineering and ensure that countermeasures and procedures with 

documented success are used in the project development process.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

7

DOCUMENTING SAFETY OUTCOMES

States with strong monitoring and evaluation programs, including Alaska, Illinois, North 

Carolina, Oregon, and Utah, all have developed channels to share the safety outcomes within 

their agencies and outside. North Carolina conducts a Safety Projects Evaluation Program and 

publishes the results of those evaluations on its web site, specifically in the Crash Reduction 

Factor (CRF) List. (7) This list, similar to State-specific lists prepared by UDOT, ODOT, and 

Alaska DOT&PF, provides local context for b/c analysis and addresses limitations associated 

with using non-geographic crash data.

Alaska, Illinois, North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah also participate in the development and 

ongoing growth of the Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse by providing data related to 

HSIP and other safety projects. In addition to publishing data related to safety program 

outcomes in the CRF, the NCDOT also provides access to the completed RSAs associated 

with the HSIP projects.

WEB SITES

Nearly all of the States visited on the Scan Tour maintain web pages dedicated to their HSIP. 

Appendix D provides links to State HSIP web pages. Agencies maintaining public-facing web 

sites generally provide a background of the program and links to resources such as the program 

manual. The IDOT web site provides extensive information on the program and, like 

MassDOT, provides public access to a crash data portal.

North Carolina provides detailed reports on the HSIP projects for past years for each project, 

including roadway sections, intersections, and bicycle/pedestrian projects. This web site is 

available to the public.

(8)

While UDOT’s HSIP web site provides a focus on the engineering fundamentals and program, 

UDOT’s partners maintain web sites focused much more on behavioral aspects, including 

Utah’s Zero Fatalities program and various Department of Public Safety (DPS) initiatives.

ODOT provides HSIP related guidance and materials on its All-Roads Transportation Safety 

(ARTS) web site. (9) This includes a list of 120 safety countermeasures, implementation plans for 

the three focus areas of roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle, and example 

business cases for safety projects. The key to the ARTS program web site is that it provides 

accessibility to all local agencies seeking HSIP funding for a safety project. In addition to 

providing application forms, ODOT also provides example business cases (those with positive 

ratios), including the example business case for an intersection systemic project displayed in 

Figure 2.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT 

8 

Chapter 5 includes further discussion of the countermeasures and implementation plans in the 

section on spot versus systemic improvements.

Figure 2. ODOT project business case - intersection systemic example. 

SUMMARY 

Top-performing HSIP States have developed HSIP documentation, including program 

handbooks, procedure manuals, and documentation regarding statistical information used in 

safety analysis. States with web sites have engaged stakeholders, including local agencies seeking 

to address safety issues using HSIP funding for an eligible project. In an effort to provide 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

9

consistency and assist local agencies and consultants in HSIP and safety program development 

and project design work, several Host States provide safety engineering manuals and other 

documentation related to the HSIP and general safety engineering project development.

 The Alaska HSIP Handbook clearly defines the process of HSIP project development, 

the criteria for project selection, and handling of funds and project delivery activities. 

Alaska DOT&PF evaluates the Handbook annually or on an as-needed basis.

 The NHDOT Handbook, like the IDOT and MassDOT documentation, provides sample 

project and RSA applications, providing local agencies with transparent access to HSIP 

materials.

 Illinois DOT’s HSIP documentation includes their HSIP Engineering Policy Memorandum 

(Safety 1-06), the SharePoint site for the applications, the Systemic Safety Manual, 

various spreadsheet-based evaluation tools including the Benefit/Cost Analysis Tool and 

HSM Crash Prediction Tool, and the HSIP Process Flow Chart in Appendix B of the 

IDOT HSIP Policy. They are also developing a Safety Engineering Manual as a supplement 

to their HSIP policy.

 Both North Carolina and Oregon have developed HSIP documentation which includes 

information such as a list of countermeasures with CMFs identified, implementation 

plans for the three focus areas of roadway departure, intersections, and 

pedestrian/bicycle, and example business cases for safety projects.

 MassDOT provides information on the HSIP in conjunction with the information on 

location and project eligibility related to crash data from the clustering tool, described in 

Chapter 6.

 UDOT has coupled the engineering-oriented HSIP web site with extensive and publicfacing cooperative efforts with the initiatives from DPS and the Zero Fatalities program.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

10

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 3—COORDINATINGWITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL 

PARTNERS

In highly successful programs, internal stakeholders within the DOT (e.g. maintenance, design, 

and finance) hold a shared commitment towards placing safety first and working together to 

facilitate and accelerate the planning, design, and construction of HSIP projects. Likewise, it is 

also important that the HSIP is fully coordinated and integrated with the work of other 

organizations, associations, and stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement, safety advocates, 

metropolitan planning organizations [MPO]) that play a role in reducing fatalities and serious 

injuries. 

INTERNAL COORDINATION

The structure of the traffic safety functions within the Host States was most coordinated when 

it was a top priority of the traffic operations unit or was itself a separate safety engineering unit 

with top-level representation to the transportation chief executive. All States exhibited a 

successful integration of the HSIP into the regional traffic engineering staff, indicating that a core 

function of regional traffic engineers was to understand safety performance and participate, to 

varying degrees, in the development and implementation of highway safety improvement 

projects. In Illinois and Massachusetts, the State’s central safety office retains the ability to fund 

projects with statewide funds controlled directly by that office.

Using a Coordinated Approach to Internally Managing the HSIP in Illinois

In Illinois, the Bureau of Safety Engineering, despite having no corresponding bureau in each of 

the nine Districts, has a specific, targeted mission and has achieved a high degree of cooperation 

with the Central Bureau of Operations and the corresponding Operations, Traffic, and Program 

Development bureaus in each District. The Illinois DOT (IDOT) finds value in using a 

coordinated approach to manage the program. A successful HSIP requires coordination and 

cooperation between the Central Office, the Districts, and contractor support. It also requires 

that the Central Office understands the needs of the Districts and works with them throughout 

the project selection process. 

The IDOT Bureau of Safety Engineering centrally manages the HSIP to ensure the program 

goals are being met. However, the Districts still have broad latitude in developing and 

implementing their programs. Every District has a safety/HSIP coordinator and a safety 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

11

committee, which identifies and reviews the projects and helps prioritize them prior to sending 

them to the Central Office for review. The Central Office reviews and gives final approval for 

implementation of projects and provides funding, typically through the District’s annual 

allocation. 

The Central Office is responsible for performing statewide analysis and network screening, 

identifying statewide trends, and providing analysis results to the districts to develop their 

safety program. The Central Office will identify specific systemic issues and fund improvements 

to address them. This approach allows them to have an overall view of which projects fit best in 

a systemic approach. 

The Central Safety Committee meets annually to select projects for local roads and 

continuously reviews applications from the Districts for their projects. The Committee consists 

of representatives from BSE, the Bureau of Design, the Bureau of Local Roads, and FHWA.

In Illinois, the local share of HSIP funding has increased, becoming a larger portion of the $74 

million allocated annually under MAP-21. Illinois has the challenge of obligating 15 percent of 

HSIP funding for highway-rail grade crossings, which comprise a small amount of the overall 

severe crash risk on account of significant progress in highway-rail safety since 1990. Under 

SAFETEA-LU, IDOT obligated 50 percent of local funding to high-risk rural roads. The BSE held 

$5.5 million of the $35 million annual appropriation for BSE Statewide Safety Funds, to be 

disbursed at BSE discretion. This policy of BSE-designated projects, typically systemic in nature, 

has provided BSE an avenue for addressing statewide safety concerns systematically and across 

District and Region boundaries

Shared Delivery of HSIP

The Alaska DOT&PF delivers their HSIP through 

Headquarters staff, which consists of the traffic safety 

engineering practitioners and program development, and 

the Region staff, which consists of traffic operations 

engineering and project development staff. This 

organizational structure, wherein specialists are available 

from the headquarters and the Regions to carry out dayto-day delivery, is considered a model for other 

processes and functions within the DOT&PF.

The MassDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Section (TESS) is staffed with eight employees and 

is responsible for all statewide HSIP management, crash data management, and the coordination 

of HSIP implementation. Traffic Engineers in each of the six Districts work with the 13 MPOs 

Alaska, Massachusetts, Utah, 

Oregon, and North Carolina 

deliver their HSIPs through a 

combination of Headquarters 

and Region/Division staff, similar 

to Illinois.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

12

and the TESS to identify candidate sites and recommend projects based on the screening 

process, within the structure of the District project development process. TESS has established 

working relationships with MassDOT Planning in order to deliver the HSIP, with TESS providing 

information, the MPOs and Districts working together to identify projects either from TESS list 

or other data-driven means, and the Districts delivering the projects.

In Utah, the Central Office, working in conjunction with Region staff, identifies and selects 

projects, and the Region Engineers deliver the projects. The Traffic and Safety Division develops 

a list of prioritized eligible HSIP projects and then the Safety Programs Engineer, in conjunction 

with the Region Offices, programs the projects. This Safety Leadership comes from the UDOT 

Executive Office and Safety Leadership Committees within UDOT. UDOT staff recognized that 

the reason the program has been so successful is due to the support they receive from 

executive leadership in making decisions.

ODOT delivers their entire HSIP through the ARTS

program, using Central Office-originated screening 

processes that rely on input from the ARTS staff in 

each Region. The Central Office provides guidance and 

policy, while the five ODOT Regions locally manage 

the ARTS program, with ARTS oversight 

responsibilities assigned to the Regional Traffic 

Engineer/Manager. The ARTS staff in the regions select the projects and supervise the design of 

selected projects, delivering them through the conventional capital construction program using 

HSIP funds.

Figure 3. NCDOT traffic safety unit organization chart.

The NCDOT’s Traffic Safety Unit has 43 positions dedicated to improving safety and mobility in 

North Carolina; they are organized into the Traffic Safety Systems Management Section, the 

In Oregon, the Central ODOT 

office provides HSIP guidance 

and policy, but the five ODOT 

Regions locally manage the 

program.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

13

Traffic Field Operations Section, and the Traffic Safety Information Systems Section. The Traffic 

Safety Systems Section is comprised of three groups: Safety Planning, HSIP, and Safety 

Evaluation. Figure 3 depicts the Traffic Safety Unit organization chart.

The State is divided into three geographic Regions (West, Central, and East) that have eight 

Mobility and Safety Traffic Safety Field Engineering offices across the State that are responsible 

for investigations, countermeasure identification, project development, project inspections, 

appeals, regulatory and traffic ordinances, and project recommendations across NCDOT’s 14 

Divisions (100 Counties). All three of these sections (Traffic Safety Systems Section, the Traffic 

Field Operations Section, and the Traffic Safety Information Systems Section) work closely to 

improve and deliver the HSIP as well as other safety programs, initiatives, and traffic engineering 

and regulatory recommendations and responsibilities. 

Centralized Delivery of HSIP

New Hampshire was the only Host State that managed and delivered the HSIP solely from 

Headquarters. NHDOT’s HSIP staff are a part of the Design section and work with the State 

Traffic Engineer and the Highway Safety Engineer to plan, select, deliver, and evaluate projects.

This organizational strategy has been a driver for incorporating highway safety methodologies 

into design for all projects, even those not subject to HSIP funding. NHDOT’s Districts are 

small in geographic size and the District Engineers have solely a maintenance function, as the 

Central Office carries out the functions of planning, design, and traffic operations and safety 

engineering. As with several of the other Host States, NHDOT addresses staffing level issues 

through the use of consultants. NHDOT has two on-call consultant contracts, one for design of 

projects and the other for analysis.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXTERNAL PARTNERS 

Every Host State identified relationships with external partners as key to the success of HSIP. 

This included relationships with the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, Federal agencies, 

State agencies (such as law enforcement), and universities. States typically meet with partners 

through HSIP and Safety Committees. States also had significant relationships with MPOs, which 

is further discussed in Chapter 7 – Addressing Local Road Needs.

HSIP and Safety Committees

In North Carolina, the Secretary of Transportation chairs the Executive Committee for 

Highway Safety and NCDOT executive staff and partner agency representatives are actively 

involved in the committee. The Executive Committee meets three times annually and provides 

oversight and leadership of North Carolinas’ safety efforts, particularly in the area of strategic 

direction and program performance. The Executive Committee is instrumental in achieving 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

14

collaboration and a unified direction with multiple State agencies, including NCDOT. NCDOT 

also has a Safety Project Review & Selection Team comprised of the State Traffic Engineer, 

State Traffic Safety Engineer, Field Operations and Investigations Engineer, Mobility and Safety 

Field Operations (M&SFO) Program Manager, Governor’s Highway Safety Program 

representative, and a representative from the Rail Division. This Team meets quarterly to 

review, assess and provide recommendations for candidate Safety Projects for investment 

under the Department’s State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

In New Hampshire, the Assistant Director of Project 

Development chairs the HSIP Committee. 

Membership on the NHDOT HSIP Committee 

includes representatives from FHWA, a local agency, 

an MPO, a regional planning commission (RPC), and 

various divisions within NHDOT, including design, 

maintenance, traffic, rail and transit, and those 

representing the needs of vulnerable users. The 

committee’s composition helps to deliver a broad 

perspective on both program operations and program 

policy. In addition to reviewing and selecting projects, 

the HSIP Committee also meets annually and as 

necessary to review project progress, identify trends 

in funding and project development, and address policy and compliance issues related to 

program performance and FHWA policy changes and guidance. In their efforts to monitor 

projects, the HSIP Committee examines progress in construction and project cost. If project 

costs are set to exceed a relative value, defined by policy, the Committee undertakes a more 

intensive review. The Committee also evaluates the need for integrating SHSP emphasis areas 

and oversees the project evaluation processes, ensuring that the HSIP investments are 

addressing the SHSP objectives and that those same investments are achieving strategic and 

system safety performance goals such as the targeted return on investment and expected crash 

reduction.

The MassDOT HSIP Task Force consists of seven members. These members include two 

FHWA staff members, three MassDOT staff members (the Chief Engineer and representatives 

from the Bureau of Traffic and Safety and the Bureau of Planning), and members from two 

MPOs. The task force meets annually or as needed to develop guidelines for acceptable HSIP 

projects but does not approve individual projects. The guidelines for the HSIP program and an 

interactive map of eligible locations are both available on the MassDOT web site. (10) The HSIP 

guidelines correlate with programs, projects and systemic approaches in the Massachusetts 

SHSP.

The NHDOT HSIP Committee 

includes representatives from 

FHWA, a local agency, an MPO, 

an RPC, and various NHDOT 

divisions. The committee reviews 

and selects projects, identifies 

trends in funding and project 

development, monitors projects, 

and addresses policy and 

compliance issues. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

15

Governor’s Office of Highway Safety

Relationships with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)-mandated 

Governor’s Office of Highway Safety were often key contributors to the success of public 

outreach campaigns and successful integration of enforcement efforts. 

In Utah, the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety resides within the DPS, and UDOT and DPS 

staff in the Secretary’s Office work closely together to coordinate the work of the DPS and 

UDOT. This relationship has led to coordinated media campaigns, a unified approach to 

expending NHTSA funds that complements UDOT efforts to promote passenger safety and 

combat impaired driving, and a public face that demonstrates that UDOT and the DPS are 

partners in transportation safety work.

The strong relationship between NCDOT and the 

Governor’s Highway Safety Program (GHSP) allows the 

two entities to work together to share information, 

leverage resources, and coordinate efforts. Furthermore, 

a GHSP representative sits on the NCDOT Safety Project 

Review and Selection Team. 

In Illinois, the Governor’s Highway Safety Office manages 

Illinois-apportioned NHTSA funding and works with the 

Illinois State Police (ISP) on traffic safety initiatives 

through the Division of Traffic Safety (DTS), which, like 

the Division of Highways, reports directly to the Illinois 

Secretary of Transportation. In addition to managing 

deployment of NHTSA initiatives, the DTS also provides 

for the collection, entry, and management of the 

Department’s traffic crash data system. IDOT is also 

cooperating with the ISP to use their crash 

reconstruction teams to identify crash trends and 

locations with potential for safety improvement as well as 

to use the “heat map” capabilities of the Department’s 

analysis tools to assist in planning special and emphasis 

enforcement activities. 

Safety Innovation

In Illinois, coordination 

between the Division of 

Highways through its Bureau of 

Safety Engineering and Bureau 

of Operations and the Division 

of Traffic Safety has led to the 

development of policy 

concerning the use of variable 

message signs on freeways for 

traffic safety messages, the 

content of those messages, and 

the refinement and 

development of future 

approaches to public 

information related to 

Department traffic safety 

initiatives.

North Carolina DOT’s Safety 

Project Review and Selection 

Team includes a Governor’s 

Highway Safety Program 

representative. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

16

Federal Agencies

Utah’s Safety Leadership Executive Committee is a 

broad coalition of executive-level State officials and 

partner agency representatives. The Committee 

includes representatives from the DPS, Department 

of Health (DOH), UDOT, FHWA, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and NHTSA, 

providing for coordination between these organizations. UDOT also views FHWA as a 

resource and partner in the HSIP effort and works closely with the FHWA Utah Division Office 

to ensure HSIP program objectives align with FHWA strategic and tactical initiatives. 

Universities

Some States emphasized their relationships with 

universities as key to the success of data evaluation 

improvements, validation of screening and selection 

approaches, and their ability to develop new and 

innovative programs that engage local agencies. 

IDOT worked with the University of Illinois to 

develop their initial set of Safety Performance Functions (SPF) for each roadway type for the 

State highway system. Chapter 5 further describes the use of SPFs to analyze potential projects. 

UDOT’s partnerships with the University of Utah and Brigham Young University have led to 

substantial advancements in the understanding of crash prediction modeling and the success of 

safety countermeasures. Chapter 6 further describes these efforts. 

NCDOT is working in partnership with the University of North Carolina Highway Safety 

Research Center (UNC-HSRC) to deliver a pilot program to introduce communities to the 

concepts required to implement low-cost safety improvements in a data-driven traffic 

engineering program. Chapter 6 further describes this program.

SUMMARY

The traffic safety engineering functions within each of the Host States were most coordinated 

when safety was a top priority of the traffic operations unit or was itself a separate safety 

engineering unit with top-level representation to the transportation chief executive. In Illinois, 

the Bureau of Safety Engineering, despite having no corresponding bureau in each of the nine 

Districts, has a specific, targeted mission and has achieved a high degree of cooperation with 

the Central Bureau of Operations and the corresponding Operations and Traffic bureaus in 

Utah’s Safety Leadership Executive 

Committee includes 

representatives from UDOT, DPS, 

DOH, FMCSA, and NHTSA.

Partnerships with universities can 

help agencies develop tools, new 

approaches, and implement new 

programs to enhance various 

aspects of the HSIP.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

17

each District. In smaller States, such as New Hampshire and Alaska, the centralization of traffic 

safety engineering functions is complemented by the collaborative involvement of local traffic 

engineers and maintenance and operations personnel. 

All States exhibited a successful integration of the HSIP effort at the regional or division level, 

indicating that a core function of regional traffic engineers was to understand safety 

performance and participate, to varying degrees, in the development of the HSIP. In Illinois, this 

means District staff has direct control over evaluation and programming a portion of the HSIP 

dedicated to that District. In North Carolina and Oregon, staff participation in project 

development is supported by a centralized screening of the roadway network. In Alaska, Utah, 

and New Hampshire, the screening of the roadway network is a key function of the central 

office staff. New Hampshire centralizes all project development efforts and thus the HSIP is 

administered from the Planning office.

Every State identified relationships with partners as key to the success of HSIP. Utah and Alaska 

both indicated that relationships with their NHTSA-mandated Governor’s Office of Highway 

Safety were key contributors to the success of public outreach campaigns and successful 

integration of enforcement efforts. Utah, Illinois, and North Carolina emphasized their 

relationships with universities as key to the success of data evaluation improvements, validation 

of screening and selection approaches, and their ability to develop new and innovative programs 

that engage local agencies.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

18

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 4—UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

THE SHSP AND HSIP

One of the basic foundations of the HSIP is the direct linkage between the data-driven priorities 

established in the State’s SHSP and the identification, development and implementation of HSIP 

projects. Understanding the contribution of HSIP projects towards achieving the goals and 

objectives of the SHSP can help guide program decisions and project selections. Every Scan 

Tour State considered an important part of the overall safety program to be the use of the 

SHSP as a tool for defining HSIP initiatives and areas of emphasis.

ALIGNING HSIP PROJECTS WITH THE SHSP

Coordinating HSIP with the SHSP in New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s SHSP addresses nine critical emphasis areas (CEA) – adolescent drivers, 

comprehensive safety data improvement, crash locations, distracted driving, impaired driving, 

motorcycles and vulnerable roadway users, older drivers, speeding, and vehicle occupant 

protection. Each CEA includes strategies for addressing the emphasis area challenges. Datadriven projects that target strategies identified in the State SHSP are the only types of projects 

eligible for HSIP funding in New Hampshire. The crash locations CEA includes lane departure 

crashes and intersection crashes as crash types of special interest and therefore NHDOT 

targets HSIP projects that include these types of crashes. The HSIP Committee makes final 

decisions on project selection in the context of the nine SHSP emphasis areas, prioritizing b/c 

ratio and examining net benefit from reduction of all crashes. NHDOT works to revise the 

SHSP emphasis areas annually, with an overall revision of the document occurring every four 

years. This helps align priorities with emerging trends and encourages internal assessment of 

strategy and direction.

In Oregon, the goal is for HSIP projects to align with 

the SHSP implementation plan and the strategic 

initiatives identified in the plan. This has long been 

done in Oregon with regard to bicycle and pedestrian safety projects. In particular, the Oregon 

Toward Zero Deaths initiative recognizes the importance of high-visibility safety corridors, 

further complementing the SHSP emphasis on correcting behavioral issues.

The Oregon SHSP emphasizes 

correcting behavioral issues.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

19

In Utah, coordination of the HSIP and SHSP is 

accomplished by tailoring HSIP projects to one of three 

areas identified in the SHSP. The Utah SHSP 

framework is built around Emphasis Safety Areas, 

Continuing Safety Areas, and Special Safety Areas. Emphasis areas include behaviors such as 

Roadway Departures and Impaired Driving, while Continuing Safety Areas address Work 

Zones, Bicycle Safety, and Rural Local Road Safety. The Special Safety Areas are Traffic Data, 

Judicial System, and Emergency Services. For each of the Emphasis Safety Areas, a Challenge and 

Direction is identified and Priority Strategies are identified for each of the safety areas in 

accordance with each of the UDOT “5E’s,” which include the fifth “E” of “EVERYONE.”

In Alaska, the DOT&PF develops the SHSP and the 

Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO) develops the 

Highway Safety Plan (HSP) and participates in the 

development of the SHSP which informs future 

implementation of the HSP. The SHSP identifies target 

user groups, behavioral and infrastructure-related 

strategies. The HSP identifies safety strategies, as well as educational, behavior, and data-related 

grants which complement HSP strategies; NHTSA funding constraints; and SHSP strategies. The 

SHSP incorporates educational, behavioral, and engineering strategies, and is implemented 

through HSIP and other initiatives by the DOT&PF. All nominated HSIP projects are developed 

in order to align with one or more of the long-term goals in the SHSP. The long-term goals 

include strategies for improving highway safety, including Strategy 5, which specifically addresses 

improving roadway safety through HSIP-qualified activities and projects.

The Massachusetts SHSP addresses a broad range of 

countermeasures across 15 emphasis areas, divided 

into three groups. The first is “strategic,” for issues 

identified as mature and correctable with validated 

measures. The second group, “proactive,” addresses 

issues where trends indicate an increase in crashes 

and fatalities. The third group of emphasis areas is 

“emerging,” where data may be insufficient to quantify the breadth of the problem at the 

current time. The current emerging areas include driver inattention and data systems, both 

becoming an area of increased focus for MassDOT. Each HSIP project must address a SHSP 

emphasis area and each SHSP emphasis area provides strategies for addressing common safety 

problems. For each emphasis area, the Emphasis Area Teams can identify projects. In general, 

these are considered to be improvements to data analysis and access, and often they can be 

addressed using existing MassDOT staff. 

In Utah, HSIP projects are 

tailored to the three areas of the 

Utah SHSP framework.

The Alaska SHSP includes a strategy 

that specifically addresses improving 

roadway safety through HSIPqualified activities and projects.

In Massachusetts, each HSIP project 

must address a SHSP emphasis area 

and each SHSP emphasis area 

provides strategies for addressing 

common safety problems.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

20

Illinois recently prioritized the emphasis areas within 

its SHSP based on the percentage of fatalities and 

serious injuries. They learned of this approach from 

Washington Department of Transportation. The 

outcome of this analysis, depicted in Figure 4,

divides the SHSP emphasis areas into the three 

priority levels, allowing for focus of efforts on those 

emphasis areas with greatest opportunity for 

reduction in fatalities and serious injuries. 

Figure 4. Illinois SHSP emphasis area priority levels.

USING COUNTY SHSPS FOR NETWORK SCREENING

IDOT funded the development of county SHSPs that address all public roads within a specific 

county with a consultant contract. This effort was specific for the top 35 counties with the 

most fatalities and serious injuries and those additional counties within MPOs. The county 

SHSPs identify opportunities for focus of multi-discipline safety efforts, and in particular HSIP 

implementation, and support performance targets for the MPOs and local agencies as well as 

Illinois divides their SHSP emphasis 

areas into the three priority levels, 

allowing for focus of efforts on 

those emphasis areas with greatest 

opportunity for reduction in 

fatalities and serious injuries. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

21

the IDOT districts. The local SHSP include comparison of safety performance of State and local 

roadways within emphasis areas, heat maps, and data trees to aid local agencies in the network 

screening processes. These align with the statewide SHSP.

SUMMARY

In every Host State, the use of the SHSP as a tool for defining HSIP initiatives and areas of 

emphasis was considered an important part of the overall safety program. New Hampshire 

evaluates updates to its SHSP on an annual basis and the use of SHSP emphasis areas has helped 

build public support for NHDOT safety programs. Alaska has a specific initiative related to the 

HSIP in their SHSP, by addressing improving roadway safety through HSIP-qualified activities 

and projects.

In Utah, Illinois, and Massachusetts, safety emphasis areas are identified in the SHSP. In Utah, 

emphasis area working groups are tasked with identifying strategies and targets, providing 

investment from throughout the organization and from partners. Utah’s strong SHSP coalition, 

which includes dozens of non-UDOT partners, ensures that the SHSP is not only inclusive of 

community and coalition needs, but also widely publicized and supported by invested partners.

In locations not on the State roadway system, Illinois allows the use of county SHSPs for 

network screening processes and the identification of emphasis areas and focus areas, just as in 

the statewide SHSP. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

22

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 5—MAKING DATA-DRIVEN SAFETY DECISIONS

A complete, consistent, and comprehensive data collection process is necessary to assess 

potential safety issues on all roadways in the State. Successful States maintain a statewide 

inventory of crash, roadway and traffic characteristics to locate and evaluate a comprehensive 

program of potential spot and systemic safety projects. A quantitative project prioritization 

process enables the selection of HSIP projects that provide the greatest opportunity for 

reducing fatalities and serious injuries.

CRASH DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS

Several States gave presentations on their crash data collection systems and crash data analysis 

tools. 

Accessing and Analyzing Crash Data in Illinois 

The Illinois DOT (IDOT) provides easy access to crash data through the Safety Portal, a webbased tool that provides access to data related to safety on Illinois roads. Among its tools is 

Crash Manager, which provides a comprehensive searching function for all Illinois motor vehicle 

Traffic Crash Reports submitted to IDOT. Every crash report that has been submitted to IDOT 

in the last 10 years (IDOT’s record retention policy for non-fatal crashes) can be retrieved 

using this utility. This includes crash reports submitted on paper, through IDOT’s current 

Mobile Capture Reporting (MCR) system, and also through a third party XML vendor. The 

Crash Manager utility also allows for searching crash reports that were just received, no matter 

how they were received. Items recently scanned from paper reports can be retrieved, but the 

amount of information available to search for them is considerably less than the reports that 

are received electronically through MCR or third party XML vendors. Crashes can be mapped 

if they have location information. Figure 6 shows an example crash map, the different colored 

dots indicate different years. Figure 5 shows the information that appears when zooming in on a 

crash location.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

23

IDOT utilizes GIS and its SafetyData Mart to perform more detailed safety analysis. This is done 

in addition to IDOT’s annual statewide analysis to calculate the Potential for Safety 

improvement (PSI) for State route intersections and segments and assign each roadway 

segment and intersection to a safety tier in IDOT’s Safer Roads Index (SRI). IDOT has used a 

weighting system for fatalities and serious injuries to develop a local roads 5% List which aids 

local agencies in identifying local roadways with higher potential for safety improvement and 

applying for local HSIP funding. In addition, the statewide analysis has been used to identify 

locations to address specific trends, i.e. curves, roadway departure (rumblestrip prioritization 

maps), pedestrian safety corridors, etc.

Crash Data Collection

In North Carolina, the majority of crash reports are available within one week. State and local 

law enforcement agencies send reports to the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles 

(DMV), submitting 70 percent of crash reports electronically. The DMV owns the data and 

most of the electronically submitted crash reports are fully available within five days, with the 

lag on roughly 30 percent paper reports being typically less than four weeks in duration. The 

four week lag on crash reports submitted on paper is 

primarily due to them being submitted via mail and then 

entered manually into the data system.

NCDOT has comprehensive access to the DMV system, 

including the ability to view images of crash reports with 

the crash diagram and narrative. Data is geo-coded using 

an automated process based on mileposts, but there is 

no dedicated staff for the 30 percent of reports that are 

not on the State-mile post system or that cannot 

The North Carolina DOT has 

comprehensive access to the 

DMV crash data system. 

Because the DMV is part of 

NCDOT, traffic engineering 

staff work closely with DMV 

staff to understand the data and 

its use. 

Figure 5. Example crash map from 

IDOT crash manager. (11)

Figure 6. More detailed crash map 

information from IDOT crash manager. 

(11)
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

24

milepost via automated processes. Because the DMV is part of the NCDOT, the traffic 

engineering staff are able to work closely with DMV staff to help foster an understanding of the 

data and its use, particularly with regard to data compliance and validity concerns, essentially 

offering technical assistance in return for DMV custodianship of the data.

In Massachusetts, safety performance evaluation efforts 

are primarily based on the use of crash data obtained 

from police reporting of the roughly 125,000 statewide 

annual crashes. Massachusetts requires by statute the 

use of a common form and roughly two-thirds of all 

police reports are submitted electronically. The 

MassDOT Division of Highway and Registry of Motor 

Vehicles (RMV) is responsible for entering crash data, 

but is not staffed with analysts. MassDOT’s Traffic 

Safety Section’s Crash Data unit performs attempted 

geo-coding of all crash data obtained from RMV and 

also conducts quality control on crash data, examining 

the information for anomalies in coding and geographic 

disparities. 

Massachusetts also maintains hospitalization data and is undertaking a project to link that data 

with the crash dataset. This project will address MassDOT’s identified shortcomings of the 

Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System.

In addition to accessing crash reports, MassDOT also has the ability to query citation data, but 

citations and crash information are not linked with any guarantee of quality, so the citation 

query is performed independently of the crash information. Citation data has been particularly 

useful to MassDOT as they attempt to understand where behavioral issues are occurring and 

what countermeasures and public outreach campaigns would be most useful in correcting those 

behavioral issues.

In Utah, the DPS developed the statewide crash 

database, which receives electronic input from all of 

Utah’s police agencies whenever a crash report is 

submitted. The Utah Highway Patrol began submitting 

electronic reports in 2003 and other agencies were 

required to participate in the program by 2012. State 

statute requires the electronic submittal of crash reports within 10 days of the incident. 

The Massachusetts DOT 

attempts to geo-code all crash 

data and conducts quality 

control on crash data. 

MassDOT also has the ability 

to query citation data and uses 

that data to understand where 

behavioral issues are occurring 

and what countermeasures and 

public outreach campaigns can 

help correct those issues.

Utah’s statewide crash database 

receives electronic input from all 

Utah police agencies whenever 

they submit a crash report.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

25

Using a Tiered Crash Data Entry System

Alaska statute requires electronic transmission of crash 

reports, but the format is unspecified. Recent changes 

to the crash report itself include fields compliant with 

the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, some 

being additional fields that are often ignored by law 

enforcement. Changes in the police reporting form 

have resulted in an increase in civilian reporting on 

account of the complexity in the police form requiring 

additional officer time for completion.

In lieu of simplifying the reporting categories and losing valuable data, the DOT&PF is studying 

the use of a tiered reporting system, where higher-order crashes would trigger the input of 

additional details, up to and including all available data fields. 

Like Alaska, UDOT is currently undertaking development of a tiered reporting system to 

encourage additional data collection from higher-order crashes. The University of Utah is under 

contract to develop interfaces for the statewide crash database in addition to researching and 

developing the database architecture. The interfaces with the crash data system allow for access 

by discrete users and integration with UDOT GIS systems for display and access from other 

tools.

Crash Data Analysis Tools

The Alaska DOT&PF contracted with the University of 

Alabama in the development of the Alaska eCrash 

system, called CRASH/Alaska CARE, in order to 

improve the accessibility of crash data. It is anticipated 

that this new system will use the conventional traffic 

records coding for severity in crash data. This system 

will provide a portal with access to the latest crash data 

with powerful analysis tools that will aid in network screening and crash data management, 

supporting repeatable network screening processes. Recent changes in reporting requirements 

have necessitated the Municipality of Anchorage to convert prior data to the fields in the new 

crash reporting architecture and DOT&PF is exploring how the eCrash system can be used to 

reduce the municipal burden in data collection and data management. Under the eCrash 

development contract, the DOT&PF is obtaining data entry services for the non-electronicallytransmitted crash records, aiding in reducing the data entry backlog. While the system will be 

available only to DOT&PF employees and potentially to the Municipality of Anchorage, outputs 

Alaska and Utah see value in a 

tiered crash reporting system to 

reduce complexity of crash 

reporting and obtain additional 

details about higher-order 

crashes.

CRASH/Alaska CARE will 

provide a portal with access to 

the latest crash data and will 

include powerful analysis tools to 

aid in network screening.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

26

from the system, including those that demonstrate monitoring of progress in the SHSP

emphasis areas, will be made available to the public.

The MassDOT Crash Analysis Tool produces a 

clustered crash map using GIS tools and the geocoded crash system. The crash clusters use a search 

radius of 25 m from adjacent crashes and a search 

radius of 100 m for bicycle and pedestrian crashes, 

which are clustered separately. MassDOT developed 

the mapping tool in-house using contractor 

assistance and updates the Tool annually based on 

crash data collected in the prior calendar year. Over 

the last three years, roughly 94 percent of crashes have been geo-coded on average statewide, 

with the remainder lacking sufficient information for accurate coding.

The database of crashes for the Crash Analysis tool uses a chaining algorithm, creating a map of 

crashes that is coded by crash type, where possible, and normalized to Equivalent Property 

Damage Only (EPDO) values for the purposes of screening projects. This EPDO normalization 

is the basis of the candidate project selection system, as crashes and crash clusters are ranked 

to create the 5% List, the top five percent of all crashes (the list previously mandated by 

FHWA), ranked by EPDO for each MPO region within the State. MassDOT Planning staff, 

District staff, and MPOs all use ESRI software to examine crash clusters in the process of 

developing the scope of future improvements.

MassDOT generates the 5% List using the clustering process and considers this the HSIPeligible project list. The Crash Analysis Tool enables a visual confirmation of HSIP eligibility.

Users of the tool can see crash clusters and individual crashes, and identification of segments 

with poor safety performance is easily undertaken.

In addition to the Crash Analysis Tool, MassDOT also operates a Crash Portal, which permits 

data distribution of crash information.(12) This tool is available to the general public and is used 

by MPOs, in particular, as they work with local agencies to evaluate locations as potential HSIP 

candidate projects. MassDOT also maintains the Cross-Tabulation Analysis Tool, which was 

recently made externally accessible.

UDOT contracted with Numetric to provide a crash 

query and safety data investigation system. The system 

analyzes crashes in selected locations and along 

segments and suggests countermeasures based on 

CMFs for low-cost safety improvements. As with all 

Utah HSIP projects, CMFs are only applied to targeted 

MassDOT’s Crash Analysis Tool 

provides a clustered crash map, 

coded by crash type and 

normalized to EPDO values for 

screening projects. MassDOT uses 

this tool to generate the HSIPeligible projects list.

Utah’s crash system analyzes 

crashes and suggested 

countermeasures for low cost 

safety improvements.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

27

crashes, producing conservative b/c ratios.

SYSTEM SCREENING, PROJECT NOMINATION, AND PROJECT SELECTION

Each Host State used a documented process for system screening, project nomination, and 

project selection. Among all States, North Carolina, Illinois, and Alaska offered the highest 

degree of flexibility for project nomination and selection. Several Host States made extensive 

use of regional engineering staff in the process of scoping potential improvements. While all of 

these agencies have centralized the system screening process, the deployment of local 

resources in scope and contract plans development was seen as key to effective cost control 

and identification of projects appropriate for the system.

Using Safety Warrants to Screen and Select Projects

NCDOT uses a safety warrants system for project screening, prioritizing and selecting projects 

on the basis of b/c ratio and a safety index decision support tool. This warrant system is divided 

into three areas, those being Intersections, Highway Sections (non-freeway, freeway, and citymaintained), and Bicycle and Pedestrian sites. The Safety Warrants are updated on a routine 

basis using crash data analysis, part of the overall evaluation process in North Carolina.

NCDOT identified intersection warrants, using frequency, severity, and combinatory factors to 

justify investments. When the location meets the warrants it is categorized as potentially 

hazardous. The goal is to identify correctable locations, with Potentially Hazardous (PH) 

locations prioritized using weighting factors for frequency, severity, and percentage of target 

crashes. Weighting factors are summed for locations that meet multiple warrants.

The NCDOT GIS portal uses a sliding window application to assist in identifying segments. The 

GIS portal displays both intersection and segment locations, permitting a view of present-year 

and prior-year PH sites, a useful tool for evaluating changes over time. Analysts segregate 

freeway sections based on minimum total crash and minimum crash-per-mile values, while 

persons bicycling and persons walking crash locations must have a minimum of five crashes in a 

ten year period.

An annual Potentially Hazardous Listing report is created based on the Safety Warrant 

Screening process. The current report includes 1,819 intersections, 491 sections, and 127 

bicycle/pedestrian locations. NCDOT believes that this report is a strong demonstration of 

their commitment to correcting traffic safety deficiencies, with project selection from the 

report occurring on a quarterly basis, one means of advancing an HSIP project in North 

Carolina. Because this network screening process is based on pattern recognition, NCDOT 

believes the generated list provides highest-value projects.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

28

Following the identification of a PH site (site for investigation), HSIP staff research and conduct 

a detailed crash analysis using the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System— a North 

Carolina developed, web-based system for crash data access, analysis, and collision diagram data 

export capabilities. HSIP staff submit the findings from this investigation to the Field (Regional 

Traffic) Engineering staff for additional analysis, research, and engineering field investigations and 

assessments. Based on the evidence-driven findings, observational analysis, and professional 

recommendations of the Field Engineer, a location may require additional analysis. It may also 

yield countermeasure recommendations and initiate either project development, project 

recommendation for inclusion in other active project, or a more immediate maintenance action. 

In some cases, the Engineer will determine and recommend no further action or treatment.

The Transportation Mobility and Safety (M&S) Regional Traffic Engineering (RTE) professional 

staff investigation includes evaluation of traffic control devices and operations, driver factors, 

and regulatory factors in conjunction with the collision diagram and crash form narrative 

content. The RTE:

 Researches the projects.

 Identifies active projects and recent condition changes.

 Conducts a thorough site investigation.

 Analyzes patterns and conditions to determine appropriate and feasible 

countermeasures (treatment scenarios).

 Collaborates with local Division and local stakeholders.

 Develops a project work scope (design, right of way _+ utilities, and construction) and 

engineering cost estimate.

 Completes a safety b/c analysis worksheet (based on the CRF), as appropriate for the 

candidate safety project.

This is all done using the project development resources of the field engineering office. For all 

projects advanced to preliminary design, the RTE coordinates with the Division public hearings, 

designs review sessions and press releases, and facilitates the project planning process. Mobility 

and Safety’s Field Engineers (RTE’s) are all Professional Engineers, and all safety project packets

require the seal of a Professional Engineer.

Using an Electronic Application Process to Screen and Select Projects

In Illinois, project identification may occur at the District level or at the Central Office. 

Typically Central Office driven projects focus on statewide systemic safety improvements, i.e., 

wrong way driving, curves, pedestrians, etc. The nomination of all HSIP projects in Illinois 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

29

occurs through an electronic application process. Figure 7 depicts a portion of the application 

form. The Districts and local agencies complete the same project candidate forms and have use 

of all of the web-based analysis tools, including the crash data portal. Documentation and tools 

for the program include the Systemic Safety Manual, various spreadsheet-based evaluation tools 

including the Benefit/Cost Analysis Tool and HSM Crash Prediction Tool, and the HSIP Project 

Selection Process Flow Chart shown in Figure 8 and found in Appendix B of the IDOT HSIP 

Policy.

(13) This allows for statewide tracking of HSIP projects, monitoring performance, and ease 

of annual reporting.

Figure 7. IDOT HSIP candidate application form.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

30

Figure 8. IDOT HSIP project selection process flow chart. 

(14)

Districts have access to an HSIP SharePoint site to submit projects throughout the year. IDOT 

solicits local agency projects on an annual basis and local agency officials submit candidate 

projects to the Districts. This is to allow the District staff to review the projects, ensure that 

the proposed location is not a State route and that the agency submitting the application is the 

roadway owner and has authority over the roadway itself, determine if the proposed project 

meets the criteria of HSIP and if the proposed scope of work is reasonable, and that either the 

supporting documentation is included or additional information is needed. The submission 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

31

process for the Districts is open throughout the year, as previous submission deadlines were 

the cause of a large receipt of submissions in a very short period prior to the deadline.

In Illinois, all projects are subjected to the same criteria for evaluation by the Central Safety 

Committee. The Committee considers the following criteria:

 SHSP emphasis areas.

 Crash data.

 5 percent Location and PSI rating.

 Crash types and identification of safety problem.

 Countermeasure selection with attention paid to low-cost safety improvements.

 Proportion of project funding from HSIP.

 CMF selection.

 Cost reasonable and accurate.

 B/C ratio.

 Screening for a “project looking for a funding source.”

The process of selecting HSIP projects includes submission, review, notification of 

approval/denial, planning and programming, Federal authorization, project design, letting and 

award, and, in parallel, HSIP funding. 

Using Crash Data to Screen and Select Projects 

Figure 9 depicts the Alaska DOT&PF project selection process. DOT&PF Traffic & Safety (T&S) 

performs an annual screening for all roads, using five years of crash data. This screening 

identifies the need and serves as the basis for new project nominations of spot and systemic 

improvements on the entire system, as the DOT&PF includes local roadway systems in the 

screening process, providing a solid basis for determining the ranking of projects based on 

correctable crashes. The Districts can use this information or other data-driven means to 

identify HSIP candidate projects. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

32

Figure 9. Alaska HSIP project selection process. 

(15)

T&S prepares the generated list of projects from lists submitted by regional engineers. This 

results in a list of projects identified as “ranked,” “non-ranked,” and “systemic.” Each regional 

traffic engineer nominates local projects based on the screening process. Local agencies can 

nominate a project with informal DOT&PF assistance in selecting the project limits, 

countermeasures, and computational metrics. Projects are prioritized for funding according to 

the HSIP Handbook. Ranked projects with the highest benefit-cost ratio are the first priority in 

funding, regardless of the lower benefit-cost projects or threshold.

The DOT&PF employs the recommendations of National Cooperative Highway Research Program

(NCHRP) Special Report 214 Designing Safer Roads, using a formula from the Alaska HSIP

Handbook to describe the methodology for computing the b/c ratio when employing multiple 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

33

countermeasures. This approach handles the additive effects of multiple CMF applied to a spot 

improvement. Projects are considered “ranked” when they can be assigned a CMF and a 

calculated b/c ratio is available. The Ranked Projects are prioritized ahead of other projects 

based on the b/c ratio, while also considering history of fatal or serious injury crashes, 

deliverability, and project duration, as well as a cost factor. DOT&PF accepts projects with b/c 

less than 1 because a ratio of 0.2:1 can still eliminate crashes, and DOT&PF does not want to 

fail to obligate safety funding to any location where a crash reduction could occur based on the 

application of a safety countermeasure. 

“Non-Ranked” projects are classified based on the absence of a CMF history of correctable 

crashes, which typically means that no b/c ratio can be computed. There are two categories of 

non-ranked projects, those with crashes at the location and lacking a CMF for the particular 

countermeasure and those without crashes at the location. This list exists primarily to allow 

safety engineering staff to apply engineering judgment in the development and recommendation 

of projects that have a high likelihood of reducing crashes, but may not have statistically-valid 

sample sets or are lacking other data necessary to complete the computational process. For 

example, there may be locations where barrier terminal end treatments are not compliant with 

NCHRP 350, yet are absent any record of crashes. However, speed and volume may 

demonstrate a high risk of severe crashes and engineering judgement would indicate that 

upgrading the end treatments would be an investment that, given any crash history, would have 

a high b/c ratio.

Non-ranked projects are prioritized among other projects based on history of fatal or serious 

injury crashes, deliverability, project duration, and a cost factor. Non-ranked projects require a 

narrative and, when a crash history exists, a sensitivity analysis to help evaluate project 

effectiveness. The sensitivity analysis is computed by performing two projected benefit-cost 

ratios assuming CRFs of 5 percent and 100 percent for historical crashes susceptible to 

correction. The minimum b/c ratio for ranked projects (those with a crash history and a known 

CRF for the countermeasure) is 0.2:1 in order to be considered eligible for funding. . Nonranked project sensitivity analysis has been conducted since 2008, as DOT&PF staff wanted to 

avoid poorly-performing HSIP projects. 

Applying Additional Factors in Screening

The NCDOT Spot Safety process uses a Safety Index 

Decision Support tool with the Safety Index comprising 

both Safety and Responsiveness indices. The Safety 

Index is weighted with 50 percent b/c, 10 percent 

severity, and 10 percent programmatic, with 

responsiveness being an aggregate measure of local 

priorities for 30 percent of the total weight. The 

In North Carolina, spot 

improvement projects are 

identified using a Safety Index 

Decision Support Tool, which is 

comprised of both safety and 

responsiveness indices.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

34

programmatic weighting factor reflects the degree to which the project satisfies the objectives 

of the overall HSIP, such as concurrence with SHSP or addressing a targeted strategic need (or 

a recommendation for an HSIP or RSA Identified Improvement).

SPOT VERSUS SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENTS

Several Host States employ a comprehensive program of spot and systemic improvements.

IDOT does not utilize a set proportion for allocation of 

spot and systemic improvements. By means of data 

collection and analysis and identification of trends, IDOT 

expects to balance systemic and spot improvements, 

recognizing that both types of improvements are 

necessary to achieve safety outcomes. The Central 

Office can provide information to the Districts through 

the two types of analysis, assisting the Districts in the 

development of a District-specific safety program that 

includes an appropriate proportion of systemic 

improvements. Most Districts typically have project-level focused projects, and the Central 

Office identifies and funds the majority of systemic projects.

The Central Office develops and provides to all 

Districts the SRI and Safety Tier information (further 

described in Chapter 5), data trees, heat maps, and 

systemic safety analysis results of safety issues such as 

curves, pedestrians, and roadway departure (i.e., 

rumblestrip prioritization and wrong way driving). The 

Districts then use this information in conjunction with 

District knowledge (i.e., emerging trends or most recent 

high severe crash location) to identify their District 

safety needs and priorities, and ultimately their District 

safety program. In one District, staff first works to 

identify the safety performance information in the 

Planning and Programming System, using the SRI and Safety Tiers provided by BSE with 

emphasis on roadway departure, curve, and pedestrian crashes. That particular district weights 

safety improvements for project priority selection. In another District, they utilize the 

information provided by the Central Office to develop a safety analysis report, which includes 

data, reports, and a Safety Tier map with the 5% List included on the map. The District utilizes 

the District data tree to identify significant needs, using the Safety Committee to select projects 

based on this analysis. District 5 prefers to program typical spot improvements, such as friction 

surface courses, hot-mix asphalt shoulders, and systemic rumble strips. They apply CMFs to 

IDOT does not utilize a set 

proportion for allocation of 

funding to spot and systemic 

improvements. Instead they 

expect to balance both types of 

improvements, recognizing that 

both are important to improving 

safety.

The IDOT BSE provides the 

data analysis results for 

network screening to the 

Districts and they use it in 

various ways to develop their 

own District safety program. 

All IDOT Districts use CMFs 

associated with the safety 

strategies selected and they all 

perform a benefit cost analysis.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

35

SPFs to predict crash frequency and they use crash maps to identify locations with critical PSIs. 

Applying this analysis in the project development process for all SMART, 3P, and 3R projects 

facilitates the inclusion of safety improvements in all projects, even those without an HSIP 

funding component. (“SMART” (Surface Maintenance at the Right Time) and “3P” are pavement 

preservation project categories within IDOT. Projects classified as “3R” are a resurfacing, 

rehabilitation, and restoration projects per the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976.) District 5 

applies b/c ratios across all projects in project development, not limiting that analysis to HSIP 

projects alone. In District 1, the project implementation process for spot improvements 

includes location screening with the 5% List, data trees, emphasis tables, correlation with BSE 

initiatives, and district-sourced information such as the daily fatality report. The District studies 

each location for crash and roadway data, identifies crash types, and identifies countermeasures, 

with an emphasis on reducing severe crashes. In the data tree analysis, IDOT divides crashes 

into categories that can be further subdivided for an examination of crash types and 

circumstances that contribute the greatest to the overall crashes. The project selection criteria 

include the frequency of severe crashes, PSI values, crash trends, b/c ratios, and emphasis areas. 

The multi-disciplinary District Safety Committee (DSC) selects projects, assigns them to the 

project schedule, and submits an application for HSIP consideration. The DSC once again 

reviews any non-selected projects for HSIP. Some projects, including those rejected, could be 

implemented with internal forces when funding permits.

IDOT uses systemic improvements (those deployed on segments and at locations with specific 

characteristics) in a systematic way, that is, everywhere on the system. HSIP funds can also be 

used for engineering work for project development and implementation, but typically for 

engineering design services. Within IDOT, systemic improvements are one driver for policy 

changes, particularly in engineering design, because the success of systemic improvements 

demonstrates the validity of engineering countermeasures.

Each IDOT District can select emphasis areas for systemic improvements. For example, District 

5 selected clear zones. IDOT District 4 selected flashing yellow arrows, offset left turns, and 

yielding behavior in medians. Additionally, systemic projects for curves addressed critical types 

of curves, based on all crash data. The District initially considered using a traditional “KABC” 

(fatality/injury total) analysis method but instead analyzed the curves using an approach that 

examines system safety performance based on roadway characteristics. District 3, based on 

further analysis of identified curves through statewide analysis, determined the existing 

superelevation was a contributing factor to severe crashes. They developed projects that 

provided superelevation correction called for by policy, added bituminous shoulders and high 

friction surface treatments, and installed delineation. In District 4, Peoria County acted as the 

lead agency for a multi-county chevron installation program for curves, an arrangement that 

reduced administrative and project delivery costs.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

36

Districts 3 and 4 have developed a systemic safety detailed analysis process which uses an 

extended 5-year analysis period (from the 3-year period typical of IDOT analyses). First, they 

analyze the data using the Safety Portal web tool, downloading police reports with photographs 

to study crash locations. They compare the generated list to the BSE screening list, including 

local roads, and parity is typically found between KABCP crashes and using EPDO/weighted 

crash methods. Other agencies use GIS queries to identify locations based on characteristics 

such as rumble strips on shoulders and guardrail end treatments. The Districts gather existing 

conditions, with District 3 typically using summer work program employees. The project 

implementation process includes priority evaluation, field reviews, selection of 

countermeasures, calculation of b/c ratios, and construction of the improvements. 

Implementation of the systemic improvements is typically “district-wide” and follows a 

comparison of corridor-wide or systematic improvement expected outcomes, undertaken by 

the District Safety Committee. Implementing new strategies at a District level rather than a 

statewide level helps gain buy-in and get other Districts to implement the same types of 

strategies. 

NCDOT funds the delivery of safety projects using two primary 

investment mechanisms, the Federally-funded HSIP (formerly 

referred to as Hazard Elimination) and the State funded “Spot 

Safety” program. The primary difference between the HSIP and 

Spot Safety programs in North Carolina is that the Spot Safety 

program projects are smaller scale /quicker implement type 

projects (maximum investment $400,000) funded primarily with 

State funds (but eligible to compete for HSIP funding). HSIP 

annual investments of $40 million contrast with Spot Safety 

annual investments of approximately $12 million, with Spot 

Safety projects subjected to the above mentioned project cap –

although companion funding and leverage is encouraged. On 

average NCDOT Mobility and Safety Division invests between 

$10 and $12 million in safety funding (Federal + State) on a 

quarterly basis. Candidate HSIP projects in excess of $900,000 require specific advance 

approval of the State Traffic Engineer. Table 3 compares the HSIP and the Spot Safety Program.

NCDOT allocates 20 to 30 

percent of their annual HSIP 

appropriation to systemic 

projects. They also use a Statefunded Spot Safety program, in 

addition to HSIP funding, to 

fund smaller scale/quicker 

implementation types of 

projects. A decision support 

tool is used to prioritize and 

review the systemic and Spot 

projects.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

37

Table 3. Comparison of NCDOT's HSIP and SPOT safety programs.

HSIP Spot Safety

Federal Funds & Rules State Funded 

$66 M Annually / $40 M Programmable for 

Safety 

$13.1 M per Year 

Projects above $1.0 M require advance 

justification and STE Authorization 

$400K Cap per Project 

Can be Combined with Other TIP Projects Companion Funding Encouraged 

Selected Quarterly Selected Quarterly 

Safety B/C Prioritization + Systemic 

Investments 

Spot Safety Index Decision Support Tool 

Advanced PE funds for Improved Surveys and 

better project estimates.

Vulnerable User and Administrative and 

Expedite Mechanisms when historical data may 

not reflect full safety circumstances or urgency 

of improvement.

Division-wide with Streamlined Programming Intended for readily constructible projects – on 

the ground within 12 to 18 months of funding 

approval. 

Systemic projects and initiatives in North Carolina are funded using a dedicated portion of HSIP 

funding, currently estimated at approximately 20 to 30 percent of the State’s annual 

appropriation. As with Spot Safety improvements delivered through HSIP and the Spot Safety 

program, North Carolina’s goal is to obtain the highest return for each investment.

The Mobility & Safety Division and the Traffic Safety Unit are working toward a unified Safety 

Project selection and funding process that fully integrates HSIP and Spot Safety programs.

Currently, a project selection committee comprised of NCDOT Headquarters staff selects 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

38

projects on a quarterly basis. NCDOT selects HSIP projects on the basis of safety b/c and

prioritizes and reviews systemic and Spot Safety projects using a decision support tool (Safety 

Index) and the detailed project packets) further described in Chapter 5. The committee also 

meets bi-monthly to review the status of current HSIP projects, particularly with regard to cost 

and delivery (progress in construction).

NCDOT is focused on “readiness and delivery” and emphasizes the need for accurate cost 

estimates, realistic project scopes, community support, and expedited construction as a means 

of maintaining public support for the safety programs. NCDOT works to ensure that smaller 

projects are incorporated into the program and not eliminated on account of the funding 

demands from larger high-profile projects. Projects exceeding $1 million must have State Traffic 

Engineer advance approval prior to submission. Smaller Spot Safety projects, when indicated 

that federal funds are acceptable, will automatically be considered for both Spot Safety and HSIP 

funding opportunities (this can help with systemic and vulnerable user project programming). 

NCDOT also provides incentives (bounty) to encourage investment in systemic HSIP projects 

that address systemic issues systematically, such as full movement crossover modifications on 

high speed routes. For this program, when systemic improvements are identified that may not 

have a b/c ratio that meets the general criteria, a funding amount can be allocated to the 

project. This funding amount, presently $350,000, is credited to the project cost, thereby 

improving the b/c ratio. NCDOT also encourages the use of companion funding to leverage 

limited safety dollars, by using only the Safety fund cost component in the safety b/c analyses.

ODOT delivers their entire HSIP through ARTS, using 

Central Office-originated screening processes that rely 

on input from the ARTS staff in each Region. The ARTS 

staff in the regions then select the projects and 

supervise the design of selected projects, delivering 

them through the conventional capital construction 

program using HSIP funds

ARTS is a data-driven program, based on crash 

performance and b/c analyses. Oregon divides their 

program into two parts, delivering spot improvements 

and systemic improvements based on scoping and 

selection processes carried out in the Regions. ODOT hired a consultant to develop a region 

specific “150% list” of potential spot improvement projects. Project selection is based on Fatal 

and Injury A crashes only. ODOT, local agencies, and the consultant work together to identify 

countermeasures, with attention paid to the CMF and treatment use in Oregon. ODOT 

Central Office staff, in consultation with Regional ARTS staff, decide which spot improvement 

CMFs are made available in order to provide for consistent comparisons between projects. As 

ODOT delivers spot and 

systemic improvements based 

on scoping and selection 

processes carried out in the 

Regions. Fatal and Injury A 

crashes are used to identify 

spot improvement projects, 

while an application process is 

used for systemic projects.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

39

part of the ARTS Program, ODOT developed a list of countermeasures, known as the ODOT 

CRF List, which will be revised as new countermeasures become available.

ODOT spot improvement projects are prioritized using the b/c ratio. Local agencies did not 

utilize this safety project selection process prior to the effort in 2013. Thus, the new 150% list 

has no predecessor that can permit a comparison to projects previously identified and 

discarded because of a lack of consistent screening of local agency roads prior to the existence 

of the ARTS program. The initial ranking during the ARTS project selection was based on 

EPDO Average Crash Frequency, but the current process does not normalize EPDO initially, 

relying only on serious crashes in the screening process and EPDO for ranking of crashes.

ODOT uses a conventional approach to systemic improvements and provides a wide range of 

validated countermeasures available to local agencies. Countermeasures implemented by local 

agencies using HSIP funds must be selected from the approved ODOT CRF list. ODOT does 

not require systemic project locations to demonstrate a history of Fatal and Injury-A crashes, 

recognizing that systemic project implementations are often undertaken in locations that are 

characteristically similar to locations with demonstrated crash histories. The b/c calculation for 

systemic improvements in those cases would consider B, C, and PDO crashes in the benefit 

analysis, and these projects are ranked using the b/c ratio, along with projects with 

demonstrated crash history with F and A severities. This ensures that systemic improvements 

are applied throughout the system and in locations where future F and A crashes could be 

prevented.

The treatments to be used on priority corridors are identified in ODOT’s Systemic Plans 

document. ODOT has 120 countermeasures available, with the complete list available on the 

ARTS web site. (9) About half of these countermeasures were identified as systemic 

countermeasures. The Systemic Plans are driven by ODOT’s recognition that patterns of 

consistent similar crashes could be corrected more cost-effectively with planned systemic 

improvements. Unlike the hot spot process, the systemic process was an application-based 

process and the goal was to generate a region-specific “150% list” for each emphasis area. 

These separate lists for Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrians and Bicycles are the 

basis of the systemic project selection process. The funding allocation for systemic projects is 

further divided between these three emphasis areas based on the proportion of Fatal and

Injury-A crashes occurring in these areas. The approximate allocations of HSIP funding, within 

the ARTS program, by spot and systemic projects, is displayed in Figure 10.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

40

Figure 10. ODOT ARTS program funding allocations and crash proportions.

Oregon’s systemic project prioritization is based on b/c ratios for the roadway departure and 

intersection projects. Pedestrian and bicycle crashes are random enough that insufficient data 

exists for a benefit computation. ODOT uses the Cost-Effectiveness-Index (CEI) for 

bicycle/pedestrian projects. The CEI is the proportion of the number of correctable 

bicycle/pedestrian crashes to the cost of the bicycle/pedestrian project. ODOT considers the 

CEI to be a tool for data-driven evaluation of bicycle- and pedestrian-focused HSIP projects.

UDOT differentiates between spot improvements 

(reactive projects) and systemic improvements 

(proactive projects). The UDOT HSIP screening 

process uses analysis of crash data to study

roadways with similar characteristics in an effort to 

determine systemic improvements that can be 

implemented system-wide. Some system-wide 

projects use a prioritization system, which uses 

crash performance to allocate projects among 

multiple levels of priority, including use of a 

weighted average for Fatal and Injury-A crashes. 

This approach has been successful in fully 

UDOT differentiates between spot 

improvements and systemic 

improvements and recognizes that 

successfully addressing spot crash 

locations will lead to the need for 

more and more systemic programs. 

Improved data collection systems 

and enhanced analysis tools will aid 

in making more systemic 

improvements.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

41

implementing systemic improvements, which has been recognized as the key to eliminating the 

entire crash problem across all segments. While data on specific locations for systemic 

improvements may not indicate a crash trend, UDOT’s systemic efforts have been successful in 

eliminating targeted crashes when the entire systemic project was completed, proving the 

merits of the systemic approach. One example of systemic improvements in the absence of 

crash trends is the installation of cable median barrier, where installation was predicated on a 

decision tree using factors such as traffic volumes, median widths, and curve radii. In some 

locations with characteristics matching the highest-risk criteria, crashes were occurring and the 

systemic project corrected the majority of system crashes, as Figure 11indicates. However, the 

completion of the cable median barrier project throughout the system was necessary to nearly 

entirely eliminate those crash types.

Figure 11. UDOT cable median barrier crash trends.

UDOT has observed a difference between public perception and data-driven safety 

management reality and is sensitive to the need to make the case for safety projects and 

behavioral programs. Utah recognizes that successfully addressing spot crash locations will lead 

to the need for more and more systemic programs. This change will be facilitated with 

improved data collection systems and enhanced analysis tools. UDOT’s success in safety 

management outcomes is largely driven by policy that supports funding only those projects 

which can be related to a performance measure.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

42

SUMMARY

The Host States use a variety of crash data collection and analysis tools to assist in making datadriven safety decisions. For each State, crash report information is key in developing collision 

diagrams for projects, supplementing RSA preparation, and identifying the causative effects of 

crashes. Since most States do not actually own the crash data, it is important that not only the 

DOT, but all safety stakeholders have access to the data. Many States have a web portal, or 

something similar, enabling access to crash data. Typically, the DOT was a key partner in 

ensuring this level of accessibility exists.

In many of the host States, a lag in data collection, coding, and entry was evident. Both Alaska 

and Utah have worked to address these issues with academic partnerships aimed at improving 

crash data collection and the timeliness of coding. 

Each Host State uses a documented process for system screening, project nomination, and 

project selection. In Illinois, the use of an online portal for the submission of project 

nominations enables their Bureau of Safety Engineering to track every project while also 

facilitating local submission of project nominations. The IDOT system screening process relies 

on the Safer Roads Index, a numerical value indicating the potential for safety improvement on 

roadway segments, derived from SPFs and current crash statistics.

Among all States, Illinois and North Carolina offered the highest degree of flexibility for project 

nomination and selection. North Carolina’s wide variety of Safety Warrants provide HSIP staff 

with a time-tested method of evaluating improvements. In Illinois, the strong collaboration with 

the District engineers and the Bureau of Safety Engineering retention of statewide funds 

provided two primary IDOT-led project nomination channels, facilitating the statewide 

perspective and the regional perspective.

North Carolina, Oregon, and Alaska, in particular, make extensive use of regional engineering 

staff in the process of scoping potential improvements. While all of these agencies have

centralized the system screening, the deployment of local resources in scope and contract plans 

development was seen as key to effective cost control and projects appropriate for the system.

In Massachusetts, where crash data is provided in an online tool, local agencies and planning 

organizations are particularly empowered to undertake locally-sourced screening (with 

MassDOT assistance) in the effort to identify problem areas and generate projects for the 

State’s multi-year plan.

Most States differentiate between spot and systemic improvements. In Illinois and Utah, strong 

investment in systemic projects was seen as a key means of reducing system-wide fatal and 

serious injury crashes, particularly in areas where crash concentrations were insufficient to 

trigger a spot investment in the screening process.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

43

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 6—USING ADVANCED SAFETY ANALYSIS METHODS 

AND TOOLS

The HSM provides States with new tools to more effectively predict the effectiveness of 

alternative safety strategies and countermeasures. High-performing States are not only using 

these tools, but are incorporating them into their processes for evaluating and prioritizing 

potential HSIP projects.

New Hampshire’s Use of Safety Analyst 

The effort to evaluate and integrate Safety Analyst into the HSIP and other NHDOT programs 

began in 2009, under the impetus of the then-in-force FHWA mandate for development of a 5% 

List. Additionally, NHDOT was struggling to evaluate the effects of systemic improvements 

such as signing and was seeking a robust analysis solution. Initially, the program’s staff validated 

roadway data on State facilities. The most significant hurdle was the development of the data 

integration protocols for Safety Analyst, including a 2-year process to develop the intersection 

database and conduct supplemental data collection. Roadway segments were added first, 

starting with the State system and then the local system. Intersections and ramps were added in 

subsequent years. For segments between intersections, the road inventory database was 

translated into the format for Safety Analyst, with post-import calibration and post-processing. 

Prior to beginning this work, the Assistant Highway Safety Engineer conducted a data mapping 

exercise and correlated fields in existing databases with Safety Analyst fields, laying the 

groundwork for adding roadway data to the program and developing an intimate knowledge of 

the program architecture, processes, and data development needs. 

The key for New Hampshire was the statewide existence of a Linear Referencing System and 

Road Inventory data, which exists for all public roads including intersection and ramps. HSIP 

funding was used for improvements to the inventory systems so that Safety Analyst 

development could take place without significant data integration challenges. NHDOT is 

working to improve data for local traffic volumes and local intersection traffic control types. 

With most roadway data included in the program and subsequent data needs well-defined, the 

analysis of crashes and safety outcomes is less intensive. 

The Network Screening Module of Safety Analyst is used the most in New Hampshire, 

primarily because it assembles collision diagrams and crash data in one place. Safety Analyst 

reduces the expenditure of time for network screening and has been the driving factor for 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

44

multiple screenings with a variety of criteria, providing in-depth views of safety hazards and 

potential countermeasures. Prior to the implementation of Safety Analyst, NHDOT expended a 

large amount of time on data analysis in the development of safety efforts, but now data 

manipulation has replaced analysis as the time-consuming activity. The software’s use of data for 

analysis beyond the fundamental data elements and network performance HSM-based

methodologies has produced high-quality projects, particularly because of the availability of 

network-wide data. In particular, Safety Analyst’s use of predictive methods mitigates the effects 

that occur on account of infrequent or non-existent crashes at specific sites. 

The local planning agencies are trained to use Safety Analyst and have begun using the 

predictive method tools for evaluating safety performance of roadways in the course of capital 

improvement planning work. The 10-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) is populated 

using planning agency solicitations of projects and the State Transportation Improvement Plan, a 

3-year plan, includes projects identified using safety performance as one of the selection 

criteria. This use of Safety Analyst transportation planning beyond the safety program 

implementation is believed to be unique to New Hampshire and is particularly notable because 

of the effort to involve MPOs in the planning process by training them to use Safety Analyst as 

well. 

NHDOT’s first use of the Safety Analyst Effectiveness Evaluation module involved using beforeand-after data to test the HSM evaluation process against the observed crashes method of 

evaluation. The eventual goal is to construct prior-to-project and subsequent-to-project SPFs, 

enabling cost-per-countermeasure evaluations to validate project performance and the return 

on investment.

ANALYSIS TOOLS

The delivery of the UDOT HSIP is partially based on 

information obtained from several primary analysis 

tools. Those tools are the crash query and safety data 

investigation system created by Numetric, the FHWA 

Systemic Safety Project SelectionTool, United States 

Road Assessment Program (usRAP), and the Utah 

Crash Prediction Model (CPM) developed jointly with 

Brigham Young University. 

The FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool analyzes input based on network crash data. 

The output is a visualization tool that helps understand crash trends and types throughout the 

system, aiding in selecting targeted areas for investment strategies.

UDOT delivers their HSIP using 

several analysis tools, including a 

tool developed by Numetric, the 

FHWA Systemic Safety Tool, 

usRAP, and the Utah Crash 

Prediction Model.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

45

The usRAP Safer Roads Investment Plan considers risk factors from roadway features and 

computes benefit cost ratios using safety performance functions to determine the potential for 

future crashes, computing a b/c ratio with UDOTs value of life inputs. The output from the 

Safer Roads Investment Plan explicitly considers risk to users by mode and provides a strategy 

for investment that maximizes benefit.

The Utah CPM is a Bayesian statistical model created in cooperation with Brigham Young 

University. The CPM examines risk factors and estimates the crash risk, a precursor to Safety 

Performance Function development. This independent network screening is also used to 

identify candidate HSIP projects. UDOT’s partnership with the academic institutions has even 

led to positive media coverage on how the “science” of safety management involves this type of 

in-depth, rigorous data analysis. Figure 12 shows the output of the CPM. 

Figure 12. Output of Utah's crash prediction model.

USE OF SAFETY INDEXES

Illinois uses safety performance functions (SPF) for 

State-maintained routes to predict the average number 

of crashes as a function of exposure based on 

infrastructure characteristics (roadway segment versus 

intersection). IDOT uses the PSI, as described in the 

HSM Part B, in its effort to determine what percentage 

of the crashes observed exceed the predicted amount 

The IDOT Safer Roads Index 

(SRI) improves the integration of 

quantitative safety performance 

in transportation project planning 

and programming.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

46

for similar type roadways or intersections within assigned peer groups. IDOT uses weighted PSI 

to incorporate severity of crashes into the analysis methods. Using the KABCO scale, severe 

crashes are weighted 25 for fatal (K) crashes, 10 for A-injury crashes, and 1 for B-injury 

crashes. This method was used originally to develop IDOT’s 5% List and was expanded to a 

“100% List.”

IDOT developed the SRI with Safety Tiers and uses the PSI values for each roadway segment or 

intersection to move beyond the simple test of identifying whether or not a location is a 5%

location and improve the integration of quantitative safety performance in transportation 

project planning and programming. Safety Tiers categorizes roadways segments and 

intersections based on their level of safety performance and opportunity for improvement, 

providing a rating for relative comparison. The Safety Tiers include a Critical/5 percent, High, 

Medium, Low, or Minimal designation. Safety Tiers allow transportation officials to understand 

relative performance of a location compared to similar types of roadways or intersections. For 

example, a rural 2-lane roadway segment would be compared to other similar types of rural 2-

lane roadways statewide and would not be compared to an urban multi-lane facility. The Safety 

Tiers allow more locations to be identified and analyzed for similar roadway features and 

potential crash trends.

The SRI classifies locations (segments and intersections) based on the Safety Tiers and, in a GIS 

tool, assigns colors to each one consistent with the level of priority, as demonstrated in Figure 

13. 

Figure 13. Illinois DOT safety tier classification.

The “High” classification locations are the second-highest category behind the “Critical or 5% 

List,” comprising of locations (segments or intersections) which reflect 5 to 10 percent of the 

mileage within a peer group and the associated fatalities and serious injuries within the peer 

group. The “Medium” classification comprises of locations (segments or intersections) which 

reflect 10 to 25 percent of the mileage within a peer group and the associated fatalities and 

serious injuries within the peer group. These 3 top tiers account for approximately 25 to 50 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

47

percent of the fatalities and serious injuries on the State system. The SRI values, by segment, 

when used in mapping tools, allow direct segment-by-segment comparisons between the SRI

and pavement data for the Condition Rating Survey (CRS) and the International Roughness 

Index (IRI). This tool is a visual and tactical aid found to be invaluable for programming of 

general capital improvement projects that accomplish all of three of these strategic objectives.

The analysis tools enabled by the SPFs in the SRI are allowing IDOT to transition from an 

emphasis on site-specific projects to system-wide and systemic projects and further to 

complete optimization of safety investments. For example, cable median barrier (“cable rail”) 

installation research uncovered that on just 19 percent of the system, 49 percent of crashes 

occurred, typically in areas with a 40-ft median and average daily traffic in excess of 20,000 

vehicles. Understanding the roadway segments that would benefit from systemic investment is 

just one outcome of the SRI. In addition, instead of a few intersections being identified and 

evaluated based on a 5% List, corridors of intersections can be evaluated to determine trends 

and potential policy changes.

The University of Illinois developed the SPFs for IDOT in 2007 at a cost of roughly $100,000. 

IDOT considers their investment in setting up the SPFs to be a programmatic investment with a 

substantial ongoing return. Use of the SPFs allows IDOT to direct efforts to appropriate

locations, broaden areas of focus, and improve analysis of corridors and system-wide safety 

improvements. The Districts have embraced the SRI, which has helped IDOT to institutionalize 

safety as part of their culture. 

IDOT intends to include SRI and Safety Tier information in the statewide roadway inventory, 

providing planning and programming staff a means of readily accessing this information as they 

make decisions within the planning and programming process, which includes evaluation of 

pavement and bridge performance. 

SUMMARY

The Host States use a variety of methods and analysis tools to identify safety concerns and 

countermeasures. New Hampshire DOT’s use of Safety Analyst helps reduce the expenditure 

of time for network screening and has been the driving factor for multiple screenings with a 

variety of criteria, providing in-depth views of safety hazards and potential countermeasures.

UDOT delivers their HSIP using several analysis tools from Numetric, the FHWA Systemic 

Safety Tool, usRAP, and the Utah Crash Prediction Model. IDOT uses a SRI to incorporate 

safety into their overall transportation management process and improve the integration of 

quantitative safety performance in transportation project planning and programming. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

48

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 7—ADDRESSING LOCAL ROAD NEEDS

Where a high percentage of crashes occur off the State system, DOTs with high-performing 

HSIPs work with local jurisdictions to help them develop and implement HSIP projects that 

address priority safety issues on locally-owned roadways. In some States this is done by 

allocating safety funds to local organizations. In other States, the State DOT leads the design 

and construction of these projects.

Forming a Positive Relationship with Local Agencies in Oregon

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) worked with the Association of Oregon 

Counties (AOC) and the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) to create a jurisdictionally-blind 

process for project nomination and selection through their ARTS program. All public roads are 

included in the program, regardless of agency ownership or responsibility. Oregon uses the 

ARTS program to facilitate the expenditures of federal funds with local agency liaisons who 

assist in project nomination, development, and delivery. The involvement of the ODOT Central 

Office technical staff, in cooperation with the local agencies throughout the selection process, 

was a major contributor to local understanding of how projects were prioritized and what 

factors contributed to a project not being selected, with local agencies viewing the Central 

Office involvement as highly objective. Additionally, ODOT’s use of consultants in screening 

and project development efforts results in a greater degree of local agency acceptance because 

the consultants serve as an independent third party following the process. In Oregon, the local 

agencies have generally been very receptive to the ARTS program and appreciate ODOT’s 

desire to provide assistance in screening and project development. 

Many local agencies identified the ODOT-managed screening process as an asset, given local 

agency staff limitations. In particular, medium-sized cities such as Salem lack the staff necessary 

to conduct their own screening, and the ODOT screening process is helpful because it helps 

identify priorities. The results of the screening are considered successful on account of the 

statewide process of distributing funds managed by the State. Local agencies find the application 

process to be straightforward and they appreciate the ability to participate in the selection of 

countermeasures. The applications are available directly from the ARTS web site and Region 

ARTS staff have been extremely approachable and helpful as agencies looked to apply for 

projects to be included in the selection process. Some regions hold workshops with 

stakeholders to identify locations that are candidates for applications. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

49

While local agencies in Oregon were occasionally unfamiliar with some countermeasures, 

particularly those related to signal operations and unusual intersection treatments, the 

knowledge transfer associated with local access to ARTS personnel has been extremely helpful.

ASSISTING LOCAL AGENCIES

The North Carolina Local Safety Partnership is a pilot 

program involving a cooperative effort between 

NCDOT and the UNC-HSRC. The purpose of the 

program is to introduce communities to the concepts 

required to implement low-cost safety improvements in 

a data-driven traffic engineering program. The project is 

funded by NCDOT and is deployed in six pilot

communities where NCDOT is providing $50,000 for 

HSIP-funded Low-Cost Safety Improvements as an 

incentive for participation.

NCDOT data indicates that 70 percent of all crashes occur in the 72 municipalities with 

populations over 10,000. The development of locally-driven safety programs is a critical element 

in addressing deficiencies in infrastructure that may contribute to some of these crashes. 

Recognizing that many smaller agencies do not uniformly practice the “traditional” process of 

screening, evaluation, project selection, and funding provision, the program staff developed a 

program of site identification using HSIP funds for low-cost safety improvement 

implementation. The fundamentals of safety engineering and network screening are provided in 

a classroom environment, with local agencies learning the essentials of understanding crash 

data, identifying locations, interpreting collision diagrams, selecting interventions, and executing 

evaluations using various methods. The expectation is that local agencies will establish some 

formal safety engineering procedures and policies, based on these experiences and the 

program’s evaluation of project performance. The program’s goal of creating safety engineering 

functionality in communities will be evaluated based on project outcomes and community 

investment in safety program development, serving as a potential model for future iterations of 

the program.

In Utah, UDOT assists the local agencies by providing 

network screening and data analysis. This information is 

obtained easily by the local agency officials, largely due 

to the accessibility of UDOT’s Region and Central 

Office traffic and safety engineering staff. Local agency 

staff can use a toolbox of proven countermeasures 

developed by UDOT to address safety problems, 

North Carolina’s Local Safety 

Partnership is a cooperative 

effort between NCDOT and 

UNC-HSRC. The program is 

helping six pilot communities 

learn about implementing lowcost safety improvements.

UDOT provides network 

screening and data analysis for 

local agencies, as well as a 

toolbox of proven safety 

countermeasures.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

50

particularly in the preparation of HSIP project applications, which are available online. The 

overall participation of local agencies, however, depends on the scale of the agency and its 

ability to utilize internal resources to leverage the valuable crash analysis information received 

from UDOT. Local agencies lacking the resources necessary to examine the crash data 

provided by UDOT have the option to request UDOT assistance with crash analysis.

In Illinois, the Central Bureau of Local Roads and 

Streets provides programmatic, policy, and technical 

assistance to Local Roads Bureaus in each District. 

Between the Central office and the Districts’ Bureau of 

Local Roads, these offices function as IDOT’s means of 

assisting local agencies with funding, policy, and design 

issues. The Bureau of Safety Engineering works with 

these offices and the local agencies specifically for safety 

and HSIP implementation. The District offices provide 

additional technical support to and coordination with 

local agencies to advance HSIP implementation. IDOT allocates 20 percent of its HSIP funds 

toward local roadway safety improvements. Typically, local agency HSIP projects are 90 percent 

federal HSIP funding with the remaining 10 percent share being a local match. The exception is 

where IDOT has provided the 10 percent match using State funds specifically for IDOT’s rural 

local roads sign upgrade program. IDOT allocated $13.3 million for local agencies in FY 2015. 

IDOT provides one-day workshops to local agencies seeking HSIP funding. These workshops 

help agencies understand the HSIP program goals, the basics of crash analysis, spot and systemic 

safety improvements, the mechanics of funding and delivering projects, and the process for 

preparing an HSIP project application. IDOT also provides bid advertisement services for 

locally-delivered safety improvements using its regular letting calendar, relieving local agencies 

of the expense of supporting a bid advertisement system for infrequent and small 

advertisements. In some cases, such as the rural local sign upgrade program, IDOT purchased 

signs using HSIP funding and the local agency installed the signs.

Other funding sources in Illinois for local projects include the Surface Transportation Program 

for Federal Aid highways and bridges, which allocates $190 million annually to local agencies. 

The Safe Routes to School Program, State Motor Fuel Tax, and other funding sources are used 

to deliver projects with occasional coordination with HSIP.

Even when 100 percent funding is available, participation of local agencies is not guaranteed, as 

local agencies do find some federal funding rules to be a challenge. As a result, some 2008 

obligations remain unspent, leading IDOT to set a 2-year limit on obligations for local agencies. 

IDOT assists local agencies with 

funding, policy and design issues 

by providing workshops to help 

agencies understand the HSIP 

application and delivery process 

and providing bid advertisement 

services for local projects, 

among other efforts. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

51

WORKING WITH METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS

Because MassDOT does not have a local assistance program, the origination of projects and 

HSIP candidate project submission activities are the responsibility of the MPOs. For HSIP 

projects, MassDOT provides the 10 percent federally matching funds against the HSIP portion, 

eliminating the need for local agencies to provide matching funds for HSIP projects. This 

eliminates cost as a barrier to local agency use of the HSIP.

In Massachusetts, municipalities may be responsible for 

the development of the design for HSIP projects, but for 

projects on the local system, those agencies are 

responsible for ROW acquisition, with assistance from 

MassDOT if those purchases involve HSIP or State funds.

MassDOT allocates $10 million of the annual program to 

regional needs, to be disbursed by the 13 MPOs. The 

MPOs have a great deal of flexibility in disbursing these HSIP funds, as they can be applied to 

local agency projects as well as projects on the State-owned system, creating a jurisdictionallyindependent disbursement for the MPO-allocated HSIP funding. Likewise, the Statewide HSIP 

category (where MassDOT HQ allocates the HSIP funds) can conversely be used to fund 

projects on locally-owned roadways.

One Massachusetts MPO has identified and maintained a list of the 100 most “dangerous” 

intersections in the region. This list has helped focus their efforts on mitigating intersection 

crashes, consistent with the SHSP and other priorities. That same MPO, in the prior fiscal year, 

allocated $896,000 to HSIP projects, an amount the MPO has found insufficient to cover 

intersection crash needs. However, MPO relationships with the Districts and with TESS ensure 

that MPO perspectives are brought forward in the HSIP planning process. In addition to 

representation on the HSIP Committee, MPO officials also conduct regular meetings with the 

District traffic engineering staff and with TESS staff administering the MassDOT HSIP. The 

purpose of these meetings is to ensure that the Districts and TESS are aware of MPO concerns, 

updated on MPO efforts to program HSIP projects, and MPO feedback on HSIP projects.

In Illinois, some MPOs have demonstrated a desire to 

become more involved in assisting local agencies with 

safety planning and HSIP project development activities.

The Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area 

Transportation Study (CUUATS) has a safety 

philosophy, wherein the MPO developed a safety goal 

and remains strongly interested in further developing 

safety projects that reflect the organization’s desire to 

meet that goal. CUUATS analyzes safety data to help locals with grant applications, having 

MassDOT eliminates cost as a 

barrier to local agency use of the 

HSIP by providing the 10 percent 

federally matching funds against 

the HSIP portion of funds.

In Illinois, some MPOs have 

demonstrated a desire to 

become more involved in 

assisting local agencies with 

safety planning and HSIP project 

development activities.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

52

developed its own analysis tools. The key to MPO involvement is BSE’s use and deployment of 

management and support tools, especially data portal access and clear program documentation.

Additionally, MPOs provide support to local agencies in the process of completing HSIP 

applications.

DELIVERING LOCAL SAFETY PROJECTS

States deliver local-agency projects with varying levels of support. Some States facilitate HSIP 

project applications, funding allocations, and design coordination, while others participate 

directly in the delivery process by providing the local agency with access to the State’s bidding 

services, as is done in Illinois.

The Alaska DOT&PF undertakes design (or manages consulting designers) and delivers local 

projects with the exception of those projects where the City of Anchorage will conduct design 

engineering and construction engineering and management functions. This improves the project 

outcomes, including consistency in the application of engineering standards and the quality of 

materials and construction.

In some cases, local safety project delivery can be carried out more efficiently with State DOT 

assistance. In Massachusetts, where right-of-way can be complicated by the historic nature of 

records, MassDOT’s Right-of-Way (ROW) Bureau works through its Community Compliance 

Section to ensure that right-of-way acquisition for Local Public Agency (LPA) projects is 

conducted in compliance with the Uniform Act. The Bureau provides training on the ROW 

processes because LPAs are responsible for the ROW acquisition process for LPA-owned 

facilities. MassDOT-funded projects are not advertised for bids until the Bureau has issued a 

ROW certificate, underscoring the importance of LPA coordination and compliance for 

MassDOT-funded projects. MassDOT attention to ROW policies and procedures has 

significantly shortened the timeframe for ROW delivery to less than nine months in most cases.

SUMMARY

Some Host States, such as North Carolina, Utah, and Alaska, have limited roadway miles owned 

and operated by local agencies, but still focus efforts on local agency partnerships. Other States, 

such as Oregon, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, made extensive use of local 

agency partnerships to address local road safety issues.

The Alaska DOT&PF undertakes design (or manages consulting designers) and delivers local 

projects with the exception of projects in Anchorage. UDOT provides network screening and 

data analysis for local agencies, as well as a toolbox of proven safety countermeasures. NCDOT 

partners with the UNC-HSRC to deliver the North Carolina Local Safety Partnership, a pilot 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

53

program to introduce communities to the concepts required to implement low-cost safety 

improvements in a data-driven traffic engineering program. 

In New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the regional planning authorities provide the State 

DOTs with support in identifying projects, coordinating with local agencies to procure contract

documents, and other activities necessary to prepare a project for contract advertisement. In 

Massachusetts, the regional planning authorities have specific responsibilities related to the 

programming of projects. MassDOT eliminates cost as a barrier to local agency use of the HSIP 

by providing the 10 percent federally matching funds against the HSIP portion of funds.

In Illinois and Oregon, established county and municipal governments are engaged with regional 

DOT contacts. In Oregon, this is done with the All Roads Transportation Safety Program, an 

effort that specifically targets local engagement and a jurisdictionally-blind project submission 

and screening process. In Illinois, some MPOs have demonstrated a desire to become more 

involved in assisting local agencies with safety planning and HSIP project development activities.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

54

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 8—CONSIDERING ALL "4E'S"

Highly successful programs look beyond just engineering solutions to address safety issues. 

When appropriate, consideration is given to possible solutions and countermeasures in all 

"4E's" (i.e. Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Engineering). In some cases, 

States have developed alternate procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of these projects so 

they can be included in the overall ranking of HSIP projects.

Utah’s Zero Fatalities Program 

UDOT has a coordinated effort to send consistent messages related to Zero Fatalities. The 

campaign promotes the message of Zero Fatalities, which originated with “Put the Brakes on 

Fatalities Day.” All public information campaigns are branded as a joint effort, showing the 

cooperative atmosphere, and developed to address some behavioral issues identified in the 

SHSP. Funding is appropriated for paid media and public outreach activities. Outreach efforts 

include more than 50 events every year, including some at high schools that target typical risky 

behaviors associated with younger drivers. The biennial Zero Fatalities conference is another 

way in which UDOT brings partners together to advance the traffic safety culture within Utah. 

UDOT has collected data on behavioral-related crashes that demonstrate it has addressed 

driver behavior issues, particularly in the area of restraint use. 

The Traffic and Safety Division manages the Zero Fatalities program, reporting directly to the 

Safety Programs Engineer and Director of Traffic and Safety. The Zero Fatalities program office 

has obtained grassroots-originated ideas and support through its extensive public involvement 

program. Roughly 90 percent of citizens in the State recognize the program. The program is 

funded with an appropriation of approximately $2 million annually. UDOT used HSIP funds for 

this activity in the past but, are no longer eligible under the new federal transportation bill, the 

December 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The Traffic and Safety 

Division is working to find other sources of funding to keep the Zero Fatalities program 

running into the future. 

Utah’s approach to safety outreach has been to create positive and/or thought-provoking 

messages, particularly related to restraint use and driving habits. As UDOT and DPS have 

worked together to achieve saturation in their public relations efforts, the agencies have made 

use of many available outlets, including variable message signs. The “Monday Messages” set a 

safety theme for a given week by displaying a safety-focused message on variable message sign 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

55

boards throughout the State. Utah’s Zero Fatalities staff manage an active social media 

presence, using social media and video sharing platforms with a single, cohesive marketing 

strategy to disseminate the message using conventional and social media outlets and in 

cooperation with UDOT Traffic Operations. Figure 14 demonstrates the public’s interest in 

UDOT’s social media outreach efforts.

Social Media

Figure 14. UDOT's zero fatalities Facebook posts reach a large audience.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT

In many of the Host States, public information campaigns and public involvement were key 

features of HSIP implementation. Utah’s DPS and Zero Fatalities offices coordinate extensive 

public information campaigns and NHDOT provides SHSP and Driving Toward Zero outreach 

at community events that reach the substantial number of out-of-State visitors, particularly 

motorcyclists.

Addressing Driver Behavioral Issues

UDOT recognition that 93 percent of crashes have 

a correctable behavioral component has led to the 

development of a strong behavioral education 

program. This necessarily involves extensive 

coordination with the DPS, the agency responsible 

for administering NHTSA funding. In Utah, the DPS 

and UDOT have executive-level coordination 

concerning traffic safety, providing for a coordinated and cooperative approach. Utah outreach 

efforts also include explaining and building support for safety engineering analyses.

UDOT and Utah DPS coordinate 

to deliver a strong driver 

behavioral education program using 

HSIP funding.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

56

The Utah Department of Public Safety began using HSIP funds a decade ago as a result of 

limitations in other funding options. For example, 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405b funds are restricted 

for use solely in seatbelt outreach efforts. HSIP helps supplement these efforts to target areas 

that cannot be covered with 402 and 405b funds. HSIP funds are transferred for a specific 

project or enforcement activity area and UDOT is billed by DPS for reimbursement by means 

of a memorandum of understanding between the agencies. At this time, DPS receives 

reimbursement only for enforcement programs related to seat belt use, exceeding the posted 

speed limit, and aggressive driving. DPS and UDOT share the view that behavioral change is the 

responsibility of all State agencies with activities not merely limited to law enforcement 

initiatives. Everything within DPS that is funded is designed to support a specific performance 

measure.

In Oregon, all projects have a community outreach 

component, typically managed by ODOT staff. These 

behavioral programs involve coordination between the 

GHSO (Governor’s Highway Safety Office)

Transportation Safety Division (TSD) Region Safety 

Coordinator and ARTS staff in each Region. The 

importance of involving the public in the project 

development process was explicitly identified as a key 

to project success. ODOT indicated that the solicitation of public input on project scope and 

content increases public satisfaction with projects and provides a platform for conveying the 

importance of highway safety investments. 

MassDOT is addressing bicycle and pedestrian issues 

with a specific bicycle/pedestrian safety program which 

includes enforcement, awareness, education and 

infrastructure. A $500,000 behavioral public information 

campaign for bicycle/pedestrian crashes is being used to 

address all modes and yielding/right-of-way behavior in 

particular. Because of its relationships with local law 

enforcement agencies and the State Police, MassDOT 

has been able to partner with regional advocacy groups 

MassBike and Walk Boston in an effort to deliver 

messages regarding effective behavioral campaigns to 

law enforcement personnel. MassBike partnered with the Boston Police Department and the 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health and produced a series of videos regarding the 

application of traffic laws related to bicycles, raising awareness of how often motorists and 

vulnerable users engage in unsafe behavior. (16) The videos are shown during the police 

department roll calls so that police personnel can immediately apply what they have learned.

ODOT coordinates with the 

GHSO Region Safety 

Coordinator and ARTS staff in 

each Region to deliver 

community outreach behavioral 

programs.

MassDOT’s partnership with 

regional advocacy groups, local 

law enforcement, and the 

Massachusetts DPH has helped 

with delivery of a 

bicycle/pedestrian safety 

program that includes 

enforcement, awareness, 

education, and infrastructure.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

57

Zero Fatalities Messaging and Media Outreach

NHDOT selected “Driving Toward Zero” as an 

alternative to “Toward Zero Deaths,” emphasizing the 

positive aspect of the program and its focus on the goal 

and not the present outcomes. When NHDOT 

developed the Driving Toward Zero (DTZ) campaign, 

the initial goal of the campaign was to raise awareness 

of DTZ, including branding and marketing. The 

program, deployed by 

the NHDOT staff, was 

the impetus in 

transforming the SHSP

from an engineering document to an easily-understandable 

resource that is a tool for engaging the public. NHDOT issued a 

contract to a marketing firm and worked with that firm to 

publicize DTZ throughout New Hampshire, including through 

the use of trained DTZ ambassadors who staffed the various 

festivals and events throughout NH, reaching both residents and 

visitors. HSIP funding was used to conduct this effort, amounting 

to $250,000 for this and a second contract.

Using a second marketing contract, NHDOT performed public 

outreach activities related to the goals of the new SHSP, building 

on the awareness efforts and illustrating their partnerships with 

the New Hampshire State Police (NHSP) and other State 

agencies. SHSP strategies have aided agencies in their efforts to 

target resources on emphasis areas, such as exceeding the 

posted speed limit, distracted driving, and, notably, Liquor 

Control Board efforts to use driving under the influence arrest 

information to target liquor establishments in high-risk areas and 

ensure compliance to liquor service laws. In addition, the 

program’s efforts have created public outreach tools related to 

the new hands-free legislation.

The emphasis on achieving the DTZ goal has led to change within the State government as well, 

such as including the New Hampshire Office of Highway Safety in the Department of Safety, 

with oversight from the New Hampshire State Police. NHDOT and NHSP are working closely 

together, using established relationships, to leverage this new arrangement in promoting the 

SHSP and maximizing the investment of HSIP funds. 

NHDOT contracts with 

marketing firms to assist in the 

delivery of their Driving 

Toward Zero campaign. The 

campaign also involves 

coordination between NHDOT 

and the New Hampshire State 

Police to promote the SHSP 

strategies and maximize the 

investment of HSIP funds. 

Figure 15. Brochure 

created under NHDOT's 

Driving Toward Zero 

program.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

58

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

All of these campaigns, delivered on a contract overseen by NHDOT, require approval from 

the Governor’s office. Obtaining support from that office to use HSIP funds for this purpose 

was instrumental in developing trust that NHDOT was promoting the interests of official policy 

through the campaign.

Tribal Outreach Efforts

Utah has conducted tribal outreach efforts focusing on data collection on tribal lands. The Four 

Corners Conference helps tribes plan for traffic safety outcomes with a focus on child 

passenger safety and teen driving. The Department of Public Safety’s work with the Native 

American Advisory group is leading to successful efforts to promote occupant protection by 

using HSIP funds to supply car seats in tribal areas.

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Nearly every Scan Tour State identified RSAs as a key component of screening, project 

development, and project design.

Requiring RSAs for all HSIP Projects in Massachusetts 

Massachusetts was the only Scan Tour State to require the completion of an RSA for all project 

development activities that include locations on the 5% List, including non-HSIP projects. This 

use of RSAs ensures that successful evaluation of project alternatives is undertaken in project 

development, increasing the effectiveness of chosen countermeasures. Figure 16 depicts the 

incorporation of the RSA into design in Massachusetts. 

Figure 16. Incorporating RSA into design in Massachusetts.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

59

In Massachusetts, RSAs are required to be completed prior to the submission of the 25 

percent-level design plans and Functional Design Report for all HSIP projects. In addition to 

using RSAs as a tool for HSIP projects, RSAs are also required for all projects which include any 

element within the boundary of a 5% List location and the same 25 percent-level submission 

requirement exists. 

Headquarters performs design reviews of 25 percent-level submissions in project development, 

determining if the RSA has been properly evaluated and incorporated into the project design. 

Just as HSIP projects often begin with an RSA, the 25 percent-level RSAs for non-HSIP projects 

are likewise developed prior to the initial design, although RSAs occasionally may not be 

conducted until near the end of the process of preparing the 25 percent-level submission. An 

RSA consultant handles the 20 percent of cases where the RSAs are not submitted. 

The Functional Design Report includes the resolution to RSA elements, closing the loop on the 

RSA process and providing a means of ensuring that the value of RSAs is captured in the design 

process. The MassDOT web site includes all RSA reports, divided by District to permit for easy 

access. (17) 

Towns may request RSAs and MPOs participate in MassDOT RSAs and local-agency-initiated 

RSAs, bringing local perspectives to projects. In those cases, MassDOT funding covers the 

$5,000 cost of the RSA, eliminating the barrier of cost and facilitating local efforts aimed at 

addressing traffic safety issues. In typical project development, however, the cost of the RSA is 

incorporated into the preliminary design activities and paid for by the facility owner, as 

appropriate.

NCDOT’s Road Safety Review/Audit (RSA) Program is 

designed and managed to reduce crashes and injuries by 

generating safety projects/actions, assist field staff in 

addressing persistent safety problem areas, and improve 

collaboration amongst stakeholders. NCDOT’s RSA 

Program is managed to be flexible in addressing multiple 

strategic focus areas. RSAs are conducted to address 

both rural and urban safety concerns, but the process 

has also been used to address motorcycle, bicycle, 

pedestrian, and truck related concerns. 

Local stakeholders can request RSAs. All RSAs are intended to result in a variety of actions and 

projects that lead to a reduction in fatalities, injuries, and crashes. Local agencies can bring 

these RSA requests forward for both State-maintained and non-State maintained roadways and 

NCDOT will assist in either case. NCDOT funds approximately 15 RSAs on an annual basis.

Safety Innovation

While not considered an RSA, 

NCDOT is moving towards 

requiring a safety analysis for all 

Traffic Impact Studies for 

improvements on the highway 

system.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

60

Not only does NCDOT conduct RSAs on corridors 

with multiple HSIP locations, they also query the Field 

Engineers and Field Division staff for locations where 

RSAs could lead to potential HSIP projects. NCDOT 

staff and consultants conduct the RSAs, with staff from 

the TSSS in the Central Office leading the audit team. 

Typically, the Central Office expends 160 hours per 

RSA and Central Office-led RSA teams include 

representatives from other Regions within NCDOT. 

These representatives include maintenance and 

operations personnel who bring the perspective of 

other Regions to the RSA process and ensure practice-sharing and consistency throughout 

North Carolina.

NCDOT requires that local agencies provide a response to the RSA documents within 90 days, 

addressing how the agency will respond to the issues identified in the RSA. For NCDOT’s own 

RSAs, the RTE prepares a response for the Region on 

handling the specific issues identified.

NHDOT established an RSA process to assist the local 

planning agencies and municipal governments in their

efforts to identify and address road safety issues, aiding 

responsiveness to inquiries regarding safety issues in a 

community or along a roadway segment. Figure 17

depicts the RSA process. The program was originally 

conducted entirely with NHDOT staff, but now a 

consultant is responsible for execution of the program. 

The municipal or town government coordinates with 

the Regional Planning Commission to complete the 

RSA application, which is required for each locallysourced RSA request. This coordination enables the 

gathering of crash data and other information, followed by submission of the application to the 

Highway Safety Engineer. 

New Hampshire’s RSA process 

defines responsibilities and 

outcomes. It is a useful tool for 

identifying the potential scope 

of safety improvements and it 

can serve as a pre-screening for 

HSIP projects on local facilities, 

particularly those that are not 

highly-ranked in the network 

screening process.

In North Carolina, Central 

Office-led RSA teams include 

maintenance and operations 

personnel from other Regions, 

bringing multiple Regional 

perspectives to the audit and 

ensuring practice sharing and 

consistency throughout the 

State. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

61

Figure 17. NHDOT RSA process.

Because the NHDOT RSA process defines responsibility and outcomes, it is a useful tool for 

identifying the potential scope of safety improvements and it can serve as a pre-screening for 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

62

HSIP projects on local facilities, particularly those that are not highly-ranked in the network 

screening process. The District Engineers participate in the RSA process, in addition to Central 

Office, regional planning, and local agency staff, providing valuable input from the perspective of 

maintenance operations. The RSA costs roughly $10,000 and provides documentation of 

potential safety hazards and defines the responsibility for correcting those, a key driver in 

generating HSIP projects.

The New Hampshire RSA requests are screened on the basis of crash performance, which is 

developed using crash data typically obtained from the local police agency so that crash report 

details are available. RSA applications are accepted at any time and screened annually, and 

projects advanced to the HSIP candidate list are evaluated with all other RSAs sourced from 

throughout New Hampshire. NHDOT is considering moving toward an annual solicitation of 

RSA applications.

IDOT policy requires HSIP projects over $1 million to 

procure for design documentation an independentlyconducted Road Safety Audit/Assessment (RSA) or 

internal Road Safety Review. IDOT staff conducts 

approximately 12 RSAs annually and IDOT has made 

use of T2 funding for travel for law enforcement 

officials for RSAs. In addition, the McHenry County 

Department of Transportation (MCDOT) performs its 

own RSAs after observing how IDOT used the process 

to identify safety countermeasures and facilitate local 

involvement. MCDOT makes use of consultant services in the preparation of RSAs for highcrash intersections, a practice that delivers insights for HSIP projects.

SAFETY CORRIDORS

Alaska established the four Alaska Traffic Safety Corridors (ATSC), based on the presence of 

high-crash locations and approved by the commissioners of Transportation and Public Safety.

The Bureau of Highway Patrol, part of the Department of Public Safety’s Alaska State Troopers, 

provides enhanced enforcement in ATSCs. The program is loosely modeled after Oregon and 

Ohio safety corridor programs. Corridor implementation was coupled with a public 

information campaign, including commissioners explaining the Report Every Dangerous Driver 

Immediately (REDDI) program.

(18) HSIP funds are used within the limits of ATSCs. This has been 

one of the more effective ways of addressing the ATSC issues in a timely manner. Because HSIP 

projects are smaller and more focused, HSIP funds can be used to implement relatively lowercost improvements sooner than a typical infrastructure solution, which allows a greater degree 

of flexibility in the corridors where project implementation is often part of a broader and 

swiftly-deployed strategy to deal with a particular safety issue

IDOT requires all HSIP projects 

over $1 million to have an RSA. 

One county in Illinois now 

performs its own RSAs after 

observing how IDOT’s process 

helped identify safety 

countermeasures and facilitate 

local involvement.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

63

Fatal and injury crashes on the ATSCs were reduced by 42 percent overall, over a 5-year 

period. The DOT&PF AHSO web site includes the reports related to the ATSC program. (19)

In Alaska, the TSCs are not decommissioned when a crash reduction is observed, unless the 

DOT&PF and the police agency with jurisdiction agree the ATSC is no longer effective or 

conditions have changed in a way that make it unnecessary. It is believed that ATSC presence, 

characterized by implementation of appropriate measures (including education, enforcement 

and engineering) has a beneficial effect on safety and compliance with traffic laws when the 

public conversation is fed by interagency cooperation and consistent messaging. Alaska’s initial 

experience with the ATSCs was seen as a paradigm shift from addressing total crashes to 

focusing on the high benefits of successfully curtailing Fatal and Injury-A crashes.

ENFORCEMENT AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

Utah’s bi-annual Safety Summit attracts over 500 practitioners from throughout Utah to 

collaborate and advance transportation safety in Utah. The participants represent a truly multidisciplinary coalition, including engineering, public safety, and public health. The Summit is jointly 

funded by the DPS and UDOT, with DPS using a variety of funds and UDOT using HSIP funds 

exclusively.

In addition, UDOT’s partnerships with local and regional emergency services providers and 

cooperation with local agencies facilitated the implementation of Emergency Medical Services 

traffic signal pre-emption in a majority of corridors, particularly along the Wasatch Front. 

Other efforts related to incident management and responsiveness include providing the Utah 

Highway Patrol with drones and advanced surveying equipment to assist in crash clearance 

efforts.

SUMMARY

The Host States undertake a variety of efforts related to the 4E’s to improve safety in their 

States. This includes conducting public information campaigns and public involvement, 

conducting RSAs, identifying safety corridors, and coordinating with law enforcement and 

emergency responders.

In many Host States, public information campaigns and public involvement are key features of 

HSIP implementations. Utah, Alaska, and New Hampshire make extensive use of public 

information campaigns related to highway safety, with both Utah and New Hampshire strongly 

emphasizing a zero deaths initiative as the core of the public information campaign. Utah also 

conducts significant tribal outreach efforts, focusing on data collection on tribal land and helping 

tribes plan for traffic safety outcomes with a focus on child passenger safety and teen driving. In 

Massachusetts, innovative partnerships with advocacy groups have resulted in informed law 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

64

enforcement agencies improving efforts related to enforcement of bicycle and pedestrian laws, 

for both motor vehicle operators and vulnerable users.

In Oregon, the importance of involving the public in the project development process was 

explicitly identified as a key to project success. ODOT indicated that the solicitation of public 

input on project scope and content increases public satisfaction with projects and provides a 

platform for conveying the importance of highway safety investments.

Nearly every Host State identified RSAs as a key component of screening, project development, 

and project design. In North Carolina and Massachusetts, RSAs are conducted at State DOT 

expense and can be initiated at the request of the local agency.

Massachusetts was the only Host State to require the completion of an RSA for all project 

development activities that included locations on the 5% List, including non-HSIP projects. This 

use of RSAs, similar to the New Hampshire requirement for the completion of an RSA for all 

HSIP projects, ensures that successful evaluation of project alternatives is undertaken in project 

development, increasing the effectiveness of chosen countermeasures, particularly in States 

without a strong HSM emphasis.

The Alaska DOT&PF established four Alaska Traffic Safety Corridors based on the presence of 

high crash locations. DOT&PF uses education, enforcement, and engineering to reduce crashes 

in the ATSCs. Similarly, Utah uses a multi-disciplinary approach to safety through partnerships 

with public safety providers, public health providers, and tribal communities. The Utah 

Department of Public Safety uses HSIP funds for enforcement programs related to seat belt use, 

exceeding the posted speed limit, and aggressive driving.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

65

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 9—IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES TO STREAMLINE 

PROJECT DELIVERY

Many States face challenges in advancing HSIP-funded projects through design and construction 

in a timely manner. In highly successful programs, processes have been implemented to 

streamline and expedite the design and construction of HSIP-funded safety improvements on 

State and local roads. Examples of these processes include the use of consultants to support 

the design and construction of highway safety improvement projects and multiple agency 

partnerships.

Improving Project Delivery Timelines and Reducing Costs in North Carolina 

The NCDOT is evaluating a variety of methods to improve project delivery timelines and 

reduce the overall cost of delivering HSIP projects. Examples include combining multiple related 

safety projects in a single contract, the use of the design-build delivery mechanism for fast-track 

delivery of projects with well-defined scope, and the use of on-call contractors to facilitate 

immediate delivery of identified projects. Established limited services agreements (LSA) provide 

an opportunity to use on-call contractors to quickly deploy and conduct surveys (for improved 

estimates), and to project hearings and expedited designs for safety projects without the need 

for additional contract advertisement and the associated time and cost impacts. Using 

consultants for design also helps balance NCDOT staff workloads while addressing budget 

constraints with effective interim projects in cases where the full recommended project cannot 

be delivered.

COORDINATION OF PROJECT DELIVERY

The Alaska DOT&PF established a close working 

relationship between the regional traffic safety 

engineers, project development and engineering 

staff in the three Regions, and the traffic safety 

practitioners at the Headquarters. This working 

relationship promotes the highly-focused scoping 

of projects, resulting in excellent cost control 

and improved transition of projects from 

approval and funding into successful construction. Within the DOT&PF, the regional traffic and 

Coordination between Headquarters 

and the Regions in Alaska helps with 

effective scoping of projects, cost 

control, and the transition of projects 

from approval and funding to successful 

construction.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

66

safety engineers work with design engineers at the Region level to keep HSIP projects targeted 

at cost efficient safety improvements and on schedule. Design engineers serve as project 

managers and are responsible for delivering projects from the time the project funds are 

obligated for advancement through the preparation of construction contract documents. The 

project managers within DOT&PF also bring the DOT&PF “tunnel vision” approach to safety 

engineering to public meetings and apply it throughout HSIP project development. The “tunnel 

vision” approach in Alaska provides for a singular focus on safety outcomes as the driving factor 

behind infrastructure decisions for HSIP projects, such that project decisions that have 

outcomes other than safety are not part of the vision.

MassDOT has dedicated District project managers 

responsible for project delivery. These project 

managers oversee the preparation of reports, 

preliminary design and final design, the design waiver 

process for Design Exception Reports, and all other 

aspects of project development and delivery once a 

project is approved to advance to design, for all 

projects delivered by MassDOT. The MassDOT HSIP 

Program Manager works to coordinate project 

readiness with advertisement for bid schedules and 

works closely with the project managers to ensure the timely completion of all of the elements 

required for project delivery and construction. This working relationship has been the key to 

obligating HSIP funds to the full programmed amount.

USE OF CONTRACTORS/CONSULTANTS

The IDOT Central Office uses one consultant contract 

to support the implementation of the HSIP through 

tasks such as data analysis and development of analysis 

tools, policy and guidance development, and reporting. 

Having one consultant ensures continuity and provides 

a common approach in terms of statewide 

implementation. Districts do have the ability to use 

their HSIP funding to hire their own consultant. Currently, District 1 in Northeastern Illinois is 

the only District that hires their own consultant.

IDOT uses one consultant to 

assist with support of HSIP 

implementation, providing 

consistency across statewide 

implementation.

MassDOT’s use of dedicated 

District project managers for

project delivery working in 

close coordination with the 

MassDOT HSIP Program 

Manager has been key to 

obligating HSIP funds to the full 

programmed amount.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

67

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

With the exception of Alaska, the other Host States also referenced the use of consultants to 

assist with their HSIP:

 In Utah, consultants have developed some of the safety analysis and project tracking 

tools, including consultants retained to assist UDOT in managing the HSIP.

 North Carolina uses consultants for design, project evaluation, and conducting RSAs.

 Oregon hired a consultant to draft a list of potential hot spot locations when 

implementing the ARTS program. During the initiation of ARTS, two ODOT Regions 

hired consultants to help local agencies fill the applications for systemic projects. In 

addition, ODOT uses consultants for screening and project development.

 New Hampshire maintains two on-call consultant contracts, one for design of projects 

and the other for analysis. In addition a consultant is responsible for managing 

NHDOT’s RSA program.

 In Massachusetts, a consultant works with Headquarters to scope potential HSIP 

improvements. MassDOT also hires consultants to assist with RSAs.

PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS

All States demonstrated a strong ability to manage the HSIP, particularly with regard to tracking 

funding obligations, project status, and project performance. 

Using Program and Project Management Tools to Manage the HSIP in Illinois 

The Illinois DOT maintains several tools to help manage the HSIP. This includes the HSIP 

SharePoint site, a Benefit/Cost Tool, and a Funding Allocation Spreadsheet. 

The HSIP SharePoint is used to manage all State and local HSIP projects. Internal IDOT staff 

created the tool on the internal SharePoint site, sourcing data from the application forms. The 

SharePoint site has the HSIP application, assigns each HSIP candidate an “HSIP number” for 

tracking purposes, and incorporates criteria considered in support of the Illinois SHSP (i.e. 

emphasis areas) and the HSIP implementation. It includes project cost, type of improvement 

related to the SHSP emphasis area, scope of project, Benefit-Cost, crash data, and supporting 

documentation. The HSIP assigned number is required to input the HSIP project into IDOT’s 

Planning and Programming System and when entering the project into FHWA’s Financial 

Management Information System (FMIS) for federal authorization. The database generated from 

the SharePoint site is used to assist with queries on emphasis areas and improvement types for 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

68

the purposes of HSIP reporting. The elimination of paper applications was necessary to 

streamline processes. The management tool does not follow the life of the project, a process 

that occurs at the District level with District tools. IDOT has also developed a statewide GIS 

layer identifying all HSIP projects which can be used as part of the evaluation process. 

Additionally, IDOT provides FHWA’s safety staff with access to the system so that they can 

review the scope of work and authorize HSIP funds. 

Districts are responsible for maintaining their own project tracking tools. Some Districts, such 

as District 1, maintain a spreadsheet that includes information on where projects are in the 

project development process in order to manage their large number of projects. Districts with 

smaller HSIP programs tend to work on a year-to-year basis and tracking projects in a 

spreadsheet has evolved over time as those districts have programmed additional projects. The 

Districts upload all project information from the Districts to the SharePoint site, which can be 

queried as needed or reviewed to determine if there is a large enough sample size for 

evaluation of a specific project type or countermeasure.

IDOT used the HSIP consultant team to create the Benefit/Cost Tool, and aid in calculating b/c 

estimates using crash data and countermeasures proposed. The consultants designed the tool 

to offer the flexibility of user-defined crashes and benefits while also offering a library of 

common crash types and countermeasures with attributes that have been validated by research 

and use. This tool has been provided to other States for their modification and use. 

BSE uses the Funding Allocation Tracking Spreadsheet, with a separate tool used in District 1, 

to determine the funding that has been allocated and obligated to projects. This tool, combined 

with the strong project development process and preparation of engineering estimates by 

IDOT staff, ensures that funding obligations are consistent with annual appropriations, 

facilitating a high obligation rate and reducing the potential lapsed funding.

The Alaska DOT&PF HSIP Funding Plan illustrates 

anticipated annual obligation by project, phase, and 

funding source for the current federal fiscal year. All 

new and on-going HSIP projects appear in the funding 

plan. It provides a mechanism for aligning projects 

with funding sources to assure funding sources will 

be fully utilized during each federal fiscal year. The 

HSIP Funding Plan is prepared by headquarters Traffic 

and Safety staff in cooperation with Program 

Development staff to allocate available funding to 

scheduled project phases according to priority. When the plan shows applicable funding sources 

are fully allocated, project phases that remain unallocated are assigned to advanced 

Alaska DOT&PF uses an HSIP 

Funding Plan and Project Tracking 

Spreadsheet to manage their HSIP, 

allocate funding to scheduled 

project phases according to 

priority, anticipate future funding 

needs, and estimate new project 

funding requirement.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

69

construction. Advancement on the construction calendar is a process that uses available funding 

to move projects forward in the bid advertisement schedule, meaning that projects and the 

corresponding improvements can be delivered sooner. This provides regional decision-makers 

the option to reallocate funds from one project to another in reaction to changes in project 

development schedules.

DOT&PF’s Project Tracking Spreadsheet is a critically-important element of the success of the 

HSIP. The Project Tracking Spreadsheet is used to track obligations on all new and on-going 

projects. DOT&PF develops it in the Fall to align with expected obligations in the HSIP Funding 

Plan. When a region requests approval to obligate funds on an HSIP project, T&S staff verify the 

project is identified in the HSIP Funding Plan (or in a previous Funding Plan, in the case of a 

construction overrun or change order), then record the amount and the funding type in the 

spreadsheet (along with date and reason). The region then submits the T&S approval along with 

other paperwork to the staff in Capital Improvement Projects for processing and final funding 

approval by FHWA.

The Project Tracking Spreadsheet provides a point-in-time snapshot of progress toward 

DOT&PF’s goal of full program obligation. Actual project obligations and timing of the 

obligations often differ from what is anticipated in the HSIP Funding Plan, so the funding 

situation during the fiscal year is fluid. The tool gives DOT&PF the ability to anticipate and 

respond to changes in the plan, for example, needing to request special attention on a High Risk 

Rural Roads project or railroad crossing project to ensure obligation of those funding types 

before the end of the fiscal year.

The Project Tracking Spreadsheet is not considered fully accurate as the Capital Improvement 

Program has the authoritative data and they may alter funding types or deobligate funds without 

T&S’s knowledge after they approve a funding request (and record it in the Project Tracking 

Spreadsheet). However, it is extremely useful as a tool to follow the annual obligation of funds.

The Project Tracking Spreadsheet also allows the DOT&PF to identify funding that is 

unallocated, funding to be returned from projects constructed under bid price, and projects 

being held for future construction. Funds originally designated for HSIP all remain within the 

Alaska HSIP, providing flexibility in programming work. The DOT&PF Regions are responsible 

for maintaining a historical listing of HSIP Projects and are responsible for submitting annual 

reports to headquarters staff.

The New Hampshire DOT developed a spreadsheetbased tracking system for project origination 

method, scope, progress in project development, 

HSIP data, and project delivery information. A 

second spreadsheet-based tracking system was 

New Hampshire DOT maintains 

two spreadsheet-based tracking 

systems to help manage their HSIP 

and track the funding of HSIP 

projects. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

70

developed to track the funding of HSIP projects. Both of these tools have grown in scope and 

size, but NHDOT staff continue to manage them in-house, permitting immediate access to data 

in a structure that is consistent with NHDOT’s approach to HSIP program delivery. 

In an effort to manage project cost increases, NHDOT established Cost Thresholds for 

triggering a review of projects that exceed the obligated amount by a set percentage. The Cost 

Threshold values and process for handling projects falling within are included in the NHDOT 

HSIP Manual and Guidance, which is managed by the HSIP Committee and are shown in Figure 

18.

Figure 18. New Hampshire DOT cost thresholds.

Being dependent on the size of a given HSIP project, the cost threshold policy divides projects 

into three size groups and identifies cost thresholds in whole dollars or a percentage of the 

project. If a project is trending toward exceeding the obligation amount plus the cost threshold, 

the project is referred to the HSIP Committee for review. The HSIP Committee can 

recommend changes to the scope of the project, identify issues related to project cost 

increases, and if necessary, terminate a project that will not provide an adequate return on 

investment.

UDOT developed the WorkFlow Manager (WFMan) tool, with support from a consultant, to 

enter, view, evaluate, rank, program, and track all UDOT HSIP applications and projects. Access 

is provided via a web interface and allows for unlimited users, including UDOT staff, 

consultants, and local government partners. WFMan provides HSIP funding applicants the ability 

to submit applications, perform real-time edits and revisions, receive summary notifications, and 

track the status of each application as it progresses through the evaluation, ranking, and 

programming process. 

UDOT HSIP program managers use WFMan to review and qualify applications based on 

standardized ranking and eligibility criteria. Once ranked, program managers place applications 

into a 3-year program and ensure that annual budgets are efficiently allocated. As projects are 

initiated, WFMan tracks key project information to provide program managers the ability to 

monitor schedules, track project and program cash flow, document project-related decisions, 

and inform leadership. Figure 19 shows a screenshot of WFMan.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

71

Figure 19. Screenshot of the UDOT WorkFlow Manager tool.

HSIP IN THE STIP

The Scan Tour highlighted various ways that States include the HSIP in the STIP. 

IDOT uses a single category, Statewide Safety, in its STIP for safety projects, including railroad 

safety projects. This enables them to refer to just one STIP number when receiving federallyauthorized funding and eliminates the impediments caused by using line items for safety 

projects. States often find that it is difficult to spend all available funding when line items are 

required in the STIP, as projects and programs are constantly changing. 23 CFR part 450.216 

describes the use of grouping in the STIP. 

Likewise, in Alaska, the HSIP is in the STIP as an 

“umbrella project,” providing broad flexibility to the 

DOT&PF. In order to encourage flexibility in project 

development and the highest degree of success in 

correcting safety deficiencies, HSIP funds in Alaska are 

available to deliver safety improvements within other 

projects, provided that the funds are used in compliance 

with Section 1.4 of the Alaska HSIP Handbook.

In Massachusetts, the 13 MPOs represent the 

municipalities and towns in the statewide transportation 

planning processes. For each MPO, the local Joint 

Illinois and Alaska use a single 

umbrella category for HSIP 

projects in the STIP, while 

Massachusetts uses a 

combination of an umbrella 

category and individually 

programmed safety projects in 

the STIP, and Oregon programs 

individual safety projects in the 

STIP.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

72

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

Transportation Planning Group determines which projects will be included in the statewide 

STIP, serving as a bridge between the community and MassDOT. This identification of projects 

(not just HSIP projects) is based on evaluation criteria in which safety features and anticipated 

outcomes account for 24 out of 99 points. The projects are ranked by the total score for 

inclusion in the STIP. In addition, there is an SHSP emphasis area line item included in the STIP 

as a separate project, dedicating funding to addressing these issues. MassDOT has numerous 

safety projects that are individually programmed in the STIP. However, they also have a 

placeholder for "HSIP projects to address SHSP strategies." This enables MassDOT to quickly 

let projects as they come up from various SHSP Emphasis Area meetings. 

In Oregon, under the ARTS Program, most selected projects are programmed into the STIP on 

an individual basis. ODOT anticipates that all projects under the ARTS Program will be standalone safety projects. However, Regions might decide to bundle similar safety projects into 

larger projects for efficient project development and delivery.

ESTABLISH A MULTI-YEAR PLAN AND BUDGET

The HSIP is a multi-year program that in any one year simultaneously supports the collection 

and analysis of data, the identification of highway safety improvement projects, the evaluation of 

countermeasures, and the design and construction of projects. States that plan and budget for 

the program on a multi-year basis can better coordinate and leverage all opportunities to 

advance HSIP implementation efforts and use all available funds efficiently and effectively to 

reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

New Hampshire’s Multi-year Program

New Hampshire delivers systemic projects on a multi-year program, focusing on both 

infrastructure, behavioral, and data solutions. Upgrading guardrail from cable to beam, barrier 

end-terminal upgrades, rumble strip installation, and signal improvements including reflectorized 

backplates are characteristic of New Hampshire’s infrastructure-based systemic projects. 

NHDOT has used the multi-year delivery approach to ensure the completion of projects, even 

if completed over time, and provide for program flexibility when identifying and funding other 

needs. In years where HSIP funding is needed for a larger project or group of projects, 

NHDOT can lower the investment in systemic projects while remaining confident that the 

projects will be completed over time.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

73

In Utah, the Safety Programs Engineer programs all HSIP projects, working closely with the 

Department’s project development staff. In general, the HSIP is programmed in excess of annual 

apportionment, with the expectation of returned funds from closed projects and constructed 

projects with less-than-expected bids. Additionally, programming in excess of apportionment 

also accounts for delayed projects. The programming of a 3-year STIP provides UDOT with 

opportunities to advance projects for construction and ensures flexibility for the addition of 

new projects to address emerging issues. Included in this flexibility is UDOT’s preference to 

deliver projects that are able to be completed quickly, those with a smaller scope and those 

projects that have completed project delivery checklists for advertising and construction.

In Alaska, a similar statewide multi-year programming approach is taken, with projects being 

programmed and monitored by DOT&PF headquarters staff. The multi-year plan allows 

DOT&PF the flexibility to shift project start dates to account for readiness, availability of 

funding, and other factors, ensuring that multi-year objectives are being met. In addition, 

DOT&PF recognizes that development of a multi-year implementation for a systemic project 

can deliver cost efficiencies in project and construction management when larger projects are 

used for delivery.

SUMMARY

The streamlining and coordination of project delivery efforts was a key contribution to HSIP 

performance in terms of project timelines and cost control. This included efforts such as using 

contractors/consultants to assist with HSIP efforts, using program and project management 

tools, programming HSIP projects as an umbrella category in the STIP, and establishing multiyear plans and budgets. 

Alaska, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire exhibited strong performance in the coordination 

with project development staff and project managers. In Massachusetts, close working 

relationships with project development and Federal Aid program staff ensured that project 

delivery was not encumbered by the availability of funding or incomplete contract plans. 

NCDOT is evaluating a variety of methods to improve project delivery timelines and reduce 

the overall cost of delivering HSIP projects. This includes combining multiple related safety 

projects in a single contract, the use of the design-build delivery mechanism for fast-track 

delivery of projects with well-defined scope, and the use of on-call contractors to facilitate 

immediate delivery of identified projects.

All States demonstrated a strong ability to manage the HSIP, particularly with regard to tracking 

funding obligations, project status, and project performance. In Illinois, one District created and 

maintained its own project tracking system, owing to the size of the HSIP obligation in that 

District. In New Hampshire, North Carolina, Alaska, and Utah, the central office tracks project 

obligations and status in the interest of ensuring projects continue to progress. New Hampshire 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

74

also tracks project budgets and has developed a documented means of dealing with projects 

that exceed the appropriation by a set amount so that a review of the project can be triggered.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

75

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY:

CHAPTER 10—EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM

By regularly evaluating their programs, States can continuously improve their strategies for 

achieving their SHSP goals and targets, as well as their own efficiency and effectiveness. Tracking 

and evaluating the effectiveness of completed HSIP projects is also a means to determine if 

those improvements are providing their predicted benefits. States with highly successful 

programs also "benchmark" themselves against other States, adopting new practices they find 

promising.

All States had developed some form of before-and-after project analysis. Alaska, Utah, Illinois, 

and North Carolina have strong evaluation programs that are being used to directly inform the 

development of safety performance functions (SPF), CRFs, and other values used in the 

screening and analysis portion of HSIP project development.

Safety Evaluations in North Carolina

The NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit conducts a Safety Evaluation for all completed safety projects. 

This evaluation includes project information, collision diagrams, and analysis of before and after 

crash frequency and severity. The analysis period is typically three years, but it can be extended

for sites with a low pre-project crash rate. The Safety Unit executes roughly 120 safety project 

and program type evaluations each year and has trained consultant staff to perform evaluations 

in addition to in-house staff. Advanced evaluations are generally performed by NCDOT staff, 

such as the Empirical Bayes analysis of multiple sites.

There are three aspects to the NCDOT evaluation process. The first is NCDOT’s evaluation 

of every HSIP, Spot Safety, and hazard elimination project, a site-specific, simple before/after 

review of crashes. Headquarters provides the regions with the reports generated from these 

project-level reviews. (20)

The second is NCDOT’s Empirical Bayes evaluation of multiple site locations with similar 

countermeasure installations, which facilitates distinguishing between different treatments and 

the development of CMFs. The evaluations can be site-specific or taken across multiple similar 

sites. This was done for a variety of Intersection Cross-Road Warning System (ICWS) 

treatments and can be used to compare the effectiveness of varying treatment implementations.

The third aspect is a program-wide evaluation, undertaken program-wide for a Spot Safety or 

HSIP project. In the case of the Spot Safety program, NCDOT calculated a 14:1 b/c ratio for all 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

76

improvements in the program across 600 projects.

One of the significant outcomes of NCDOT’s evaluation programs is the validation of CRF. 

NCDOT data collection efforts for projects, both prior to and subsequent to the construction 

of improvements, enables staff to conduct network-wide and site-specific evaluations of CRFs. 

This work, particularly with deployment of ICWS, has been crucial in preserving effective 

treatments for future implementations while permitting culling of less-effective treatments on 

the basis of location characteristics and countermeasure performance.

To that end, the NCDOT has developed an internal CRF list, covering roughly 260 

countermeasures, and regularly correlates internal data with the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse. 

An in-house committee of technical experts performs the estimations of the CRFs, and the 

internal CRF lists are supported by the evaluations, all of which are included on the NCDOT 

web site.

The institutional establishment of this evaluation program and the various facets it encompasses 

has assisted NCDOT staff in retaining safety project funding and even obtaining increases in 

funding. The evaluation of project performance has also impacted other areas of NCDOT 

operations, leading to increased confidence in NCDOT investments.

HSIP PROJECT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION AND MONITORING

IDOT has not yet established a formal evaluation 

process. IDOT currently undertakes the evaluation of 

safety projects with three individual approaches.

 Evaluation occurs at a programmatic level. For 

example, District 1 has a significant number of 

intersection HSIP projects. By looking at 

performance on State routes, where funding is directed, and identifying if there has been 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries, Districts can determine whether 

or not the strategies they are applying are working at the program level.

 Districts evaluate projects using before and after data, although this is an informal 

process and there is a significant delay in obtaining crash data. 

 The Illinois Center for Transportation and the Safety Engineering Technical Advisory 

Group, which is chaired by the State Safety Engineer, conducted three research 

projects, funded by SP&R, to evaluate system-wide safety improvements.

The Illinois Center for Transportation is conducting the three research projects, which focus 

on evaluation of the effectiveness of flashing yellow arrows, right-turn islands, and interchange 

Although they do not yet have a

formal evaluation process, IDOT 

has informally evaluated safety 

projects at the programmatic, 

project, and systemic levels. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

77

improvements to prevent wrong-way movements. The Safety Technical Advisory Group within

the Illinois Center for Transportation selected the research projects. The Technical Advisory 

Group solicits research proposals, and can also submit their own proposals. Research projects 

are selected based on what the Group perceives as priority research needs. For example, the 

SPFs used for statewide network screening and the basis for the SRI were selected by that 

group in 2007. It is important to note that if a researcher on the TAG submits a research topic 

proposal, they are not included in the review and approval of the project. 

IDOT reviews the number of sites with implementation of countermeasures in order to 

determine which countermeasures to advance to evaluation in the research projects. Having a 

large sample size is important to obtaining system-wide before and after data. The research is 

reviewing the application of the strategies to over 100 intersections and over 400 interchanges. 

The results of the research projects will be used to develop State-specific CMFs and SPFs. 

IDOT also conducts evaluations of experimental features when implementing new 

countermeasures. Doing so allows them to identify challenges, successes, and lessons learned, 

as well as develop policy based on what worked best. For example, when implementing cable 

rail, IDOT used different manufacturers on specific corridors so they could evaluate each type 

of system on its installation, maintenance, and by looking at crashes. They were then able to 

determine which types of cable rail to add to their approved products list. While the overall 

analysis of the cable rail was done as a corridor due to the fact that some segments may have 

not had any fatalities or injuries, but the corridor-wide data would show a different picture, the 

HSIP projects that came out of the analysis were done by funding segments.

The Alaska DOT&PF developed a methodology for 

demonstrating the effectiveness of HSIP projects. 

The Region Traffic Engineer prepares a Project 

Evaluation Worksheet for each project, evaluating 

the project based on 3-year post-construction data. 

The data is annualized for computation, and the cost 

of the project includes both the construction cost 

and the maintenance costs over the analysis period.

The DOT&PF regions also use a project tracking report for HSIP that is turned into the 

Headquarters. The project report, which is separate from the HSIP Project Tracking 

Spreadsheet discussed in Chapter 9, evaluates targeted crashes for the before/after analysis and 

provides an overview of project performance. Incapacitating injuries are evaluated with fatalities 

to account for infrequency and isolation of crashes.

The DOT&PF has anticipated reductions in b/c ratios on account of the systemic approach that 

broadens applicability and breadth of a project, and these reductions are accepted as a result of 

The Alaska DOT&PF evaluates 

projects based on 3-year postconstruction data. They also use a 

program-wide b/c ratio to track 

performance of the overall HSIP.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

78

the program’s initial effectiveness at addressing high-benefit locations. The b/c ratio for each 

project is calculated, when possible, and then aggregated to develop a program-wide b/c ratio, 

which is also an important metric of performance for DOT&PF.

CMF DEVELOPMENT

UDOT uses 3-year before/after comparisons of completed projects to analyze the performance 

of every HSIP project. Utah has developed a State specific CMF registry, which provides 

discrete CMFs and serves as a resource for project planning and screening. UDOT applies only 

one CMF to the targeted crashes identified for each project as part of the b/c analysis. This 

practice eliminates the additive effects of CMFs and ensures reliable b/c projections.

Enforcement presence can have an effect on traffic safety and the Alaska DOT&PF is conducting 

a research project to develop a CMF for enforcement presence (another means of quantifying 

the benefit of enforcement expenditures), particularly in the Alaska Transportation Safety 

Corridors. The research effort would be primarily focused on time spent on enforcement, 

providing the basis for a cost associated with potential benefits.

SUMMARY

All Host States have developed some form of before-and-after project analysis. Utah, Illinois, 

and North Carolina have strong evaluation programs that are being used to directly inform the 

development of SPF modifications, CRFs, and other values used in the screening and analysis 

portion of HSIP project development.

In both Alaska and North Carolina, each project is evaluated based on a standard evaluation 

form and methodology, using up-to-date crash data and measures of effectiveness appropriate 

for the countermeasures selected for use in the project. IDOT has an informal evaluation 

process that occurs at both the project and programmatic levels. In addition, IDOT is 

conducting research projects to evaluate system-wide safety improvements.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

79

CHAPTER 11—OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

While the Scan Tour helped identify a number of notable practices in each State, the Scan Team 

observed that there were five overall characteristics that were consistent across all Host 

States:

 Streamlined Access to Crash Data and Crash Report Information.

 Strong Documentation of System Screening and Project Selection Processes.

 Pathway for Local Involvement and Nomination of Projects.

 Extensive Use of RSAs.

 Deliberate and Documented Assessment of Project Performance.

STREAMLINED ACCESS TO CRASH DATA AND CRASH REPORT 

INFORMATION

North Carolina and Alaska demonstrated that immediate and complete access to crash data 

was the foundation of a successful data development and screening effort, improving 

responsiveness to emerging issues and supporting timely evaluation of crash trends. The use of 

electronic crash reporting efforts, particularly those that parse electronic data submissions (as 

opposed to electronic submission of crash report images), has an impact on timeliness of data, 

whereas coding of crash reports can be affected by staffing levels and other complications. For 

each State, the specifics of crash report information were considered key in developing collision 

diagrams for projects, supplementing RSA preparation, and identifying the causative effects of 

crashes.

STRONG DOCUMENTATION OF SYSTEM SCREENING AND PROJECT 

SELECTION PROCESSES

In all States, extensive documentation of the screening and project selection processes creates 

accountability for HSIP staff decisions and demonstrates transparency, which increases 

accessibility across the DOT and to local agencies. In Utah, Illinois, and New Hampshire, the 

development of uniformity with the HSM predictive methods has been the basis of strong 

consistency in evaluation processes throughout each State, supportive of graphical tools that 

greatly assist in program development decisions and processes.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

80

PATHWAY FOR LOCAL INVOLVEMENT AND NOMINATION OF PROJECTS

The inclusion of local agency officials, particularly those from county highway departments and 

regional planning associations, is imperative if the HSIP is to be successful in States with large 

rural systems that are not State-maintained. In New Hampshire, Illinois, and Oregon, local 

agencies can directly nominate projects to the State HSIP. In Alaska and North Carolina, State 

DOT relationships with municipal agencies are an important component of HSIP project 

development for the local agency and significant DOT support is offered to these agencies. In 

Massachusetts, extensive involvement with the MPOs provides a pathway for locally-initiated 

projects while Utah works directly with local agencies to assist them in pursuing HSIP funding 

for projects.

EXTENSIVE USE OF RSAS

RSAs were identified as a key component of screening, project development, and project 

design. States such as Massachusetts and New Hampshire require RSAs for all HSIP projects 

(MassDOT also requires RSAs for certain non-HSIP projects), with MassDOT (as well as 

IDOT) funding RSAs for local agencies. The use of HSIP funds to conduct local agency RSAs 

was found to be particularly helpful in engaging local agencies in the identification of correctable 

crashes and potential countermeasures. Most notably, the requirement that RSAs are used in 

project scoping and project development leads to a more robust project that delivers on crash 

correction. Like MassDOT, NHDOT uses RSAs to support HSIP project development efforts. 

The regional planning authorities can request an RSA and, using that information, determine the 

potential scope of an HSIP project. In North Carolina, the RSA process is a means of engaging 

Region staff in project development while providing the outside perspective that comes from a 

diversity of staff on the audit team.

DELIBERATE AND DOCUMENTED ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT 

PERFORMANCE

The strongest project evaluation performance was noted in Alaska, Illinois, and North Carolina, 

where long-term project evaluations are undertaken according to established policies. In all of 

these States, project evaluation was the basis of validating CRFs and formed the basis of 

observations related to project performance, including the effectiveness of systemic 

countermeasures applied across multiple locations.

CONCLUSION

The Scan Team observed that State DOT staff dedicated to HSIP were passionate about the 

success of the program and invested in the goal of saving lives. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

81

In general, the internal coordination within the State DOT, particularly with regard to project 

delivery and funding allocation, is just as important as coordination with external partners. 

Relationships with the agencies collecting and coding crash data are an essential part of 

understanding the crash problem and scoping appropriate improvements.

The 2015 HSIP National Scan Tour resulted in the identification of key characteristics of

successful HSIP administration, planning, implementation and evaluation practices. These 

findings come from States of varying sizes, with different roadway characteristics and safety 

concerns. The findings from the HSIP National Scan Tour provide a resource for all 

transportation safety practitioners to improve and enhance their HSIP processes and program 

implementation efforts. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

82

APPENDIX A—KEY CONTACTS FROM HOST STATES

This report would not be possible without support from the Host States. Host States provided 

preliminary information prior to the visit, organized participants for the scheduled scan date, 

and supplied subsequent follow up information. The key participants in each State are presented 

below.

Alaska

 Jeff Jeffers, State Traffic and Safety Engineer

 Randy Warden, Assistant Division Administrator, FHWA

 Matt Walker, Assistant State Traffic and Safety Engineer

 Clint Farr, State Crash Data Manager

 Scott Thomas, Central Region Traffic and Safety Engineer

 Carla Smith, Project Manager, Central Region

 Pamela Golden, Northern Region Traffic and Safety Engineer

 Stephanie Mormilo, Municipal Traffic Engineer, Municipality of Anchorage

 David Epstein, Southcoast Region Traffic and Safety Engineer

 Jon Knowles, Central Region HSIP Coordinator

 Mark Neidhold, Chief of Design and Construction Standards

 Miles Brookes, FARS Analyst, Governor’s Office of Highway Safety

Illinois

 Priscilla Tobias, Central Bureau Chief of Safety Engineering

 Aaron Weatherholt, Deputy Director, Division of Highways

 Tim Sheehan, Bureau of Safety Engineering

 Mike Gillette, Bureau of Safety Engineering

 Katherine Beckett, Bureau of Safety Engineering

 Traci Sisk, Office of Planning and Programming

 Kathy McNeill, Central Office of Planning and Programming

 Leigh Ann Lareau, Central Bureau of Planning and Programming 

 John Paris, Office of Planning and Programming, Bureau of Local Roads Services
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

83

 Karen Shoup, Office of Planning and Programming, Bureau of Urban Planning

 Lisa Heaven-Baum, District 1 Bureau of Traffic

 Jonathan Lloyd, District 1 Bureau of Traffic

 Rob Macklin, District 7, Bureau of Program Development

 Peter Stresino, District 1 Bureau of Traffic 

 Kevin Marchek, District 2 Bureau of Program Development

 Scott Ferguson, District 3 Bureau of Program Development

 Sean Coyle, District 4 Bureau of Program Development

 Maureen Addis, District 4 Bureau of Program Development 

 Jeannie Bland, District 5 Bureau of Program Development

 Jeff Myers, District 6 Bureau of Program Development

 Marshall Metcalf, District 6 Bureau of Operations

 Kahn Kellams, District 7 Bureau of Operations

 Doug Keirn, District 9 Bureau of Program Development

 Alan Ho, FHWA Illinois Division Office

 Greg Piland, FHWA Illinois Division Office

 Rita Morocorma-Black, Champaign-Urbana MPO

 Wally Dittrich, McHenry County DOT

 Kim Kolody, CH2MHill

 Tommy Myszka, CH2MHill

Massachusetts

 Bonnie Polin, HSIP Program Manager

 Neil Boudreau, State Traffic Engineer

 John Mastera, Road Safety Audit Program Engineer

 Jennifer Inzana, Transportation GIS Safety Specialist

 Rick Conard, Safety/Traffic Engineering Crash Data Specialist

 Pam Marquis, Right-of-Way Compliance Administrator

 Bill Betts, Federal Aid Programming and Reimbursement Office (FAPRO)
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

84

 Carrie Lavallee, Project Manager

 Pam Haznar, District 5 Program Development Engineer

 Promise Otaluka, FHWA Massachusetts Division Office

 Lisa Estrela-Pedro, Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District

New Hampshire

 William Oldenburg, Assistant Director of Project Development

 Mike Dugas, Chief of Preliminary Design

 Bill Lambert, State Traffic Engineer

 Tim Harmon, Assistant Highway Safety Engineer

 Jim Marshall, Administrator of Highway Design and Program Manager of HSIP

 Michelle Marshall, Highway Safety Engineer

 Martin Calawa, FHWA New Hampshire Division Office

 Donna Bean, NH Office of Highway Safety

 LuAnn Speikers, NH Office of Highway Safety

 Bob Hudson, LPA Program

 Nate Miller, Upper Valley/Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission

 Bruce Thomas, City of Manchester Public Works

North Carolina

 J. Kevin Lacy, State Traffic Engineer

 Terry Hopkins, State Traffic Safety Engineer

 Tony Wyatt, Field Operations & Investigations Engineer

 Kelly Becker, Capital Regional Traffic Engineer

 Brian Mayhew, Traffic Safety Systems Engineer

 Shawn Troy, Safety Evaluation Engineer

 Stephen Lowry, HSIP Engineer

 Daniel Carter, UNC-Highway Safety Research Center (via telephone)

 Brad Hibbs, FHWA North Carolina Division Office
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

85

Oregon

 Doug Bish, Traffic Services Engineer

 Kevin Haas, Traffic Investigations Engineer

 Zahidul Siddique, State Highway Safety Engineer

 Sue D’Agnese, Region 1 Regional Traffic Manager

 Chris Woods, FHWA Division Office

 Julia Uravich, Marion County Public Works

 Kevin Hottman, City of Salem

 Dorothy Upton, Region 2 Regional Traffic Engineer

 Derek Moore, DKS and Associates

 Scott Mansur, DKS and Associates

Utah

 Jason Davis, Director of Operations

 Robert Miles, Director of Traffic and Safety

 W. Scott Jones, Safety Programs Engineer

 Joseph Walker, Communications Director

 Kristen Hoschouer, Zero Fatalities Program Manager

 Stacy Johnson, Zero Fatalities Team - Consultant (Penna Powers)

 Kristy Rigby, Director of DPS Highway Safety Office

 Carrie Silcox, Deputy Director of DPS Highway Safety Office

 Roland Stanger, FHWA Utah Division Safety Engineer

 Erik Brondum, City Traffic Engineer, West Valley City

 RJ Porter, Professor, University of Utah

 Grant Schultz, Professor, Brigham Young University

 Tim Taylor, UDOT Safety Programs – Consultant (WCEC Engineers)

 Clancy Black, UDOT Traffic & Safety – Consultant (Numetric)

 Travis Jensen, UDOT Safety Programs Consultant (WCEC Engineers)
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

86

APPENDIX B—SCAN TEAM MEMBERS

FHWA Members

 Karen Scurry, Office of Safety

 Nick Fortey, Oregon Division

 Rick Drumm, Indiana Division

 Jessica Rich, Tennessee Division

State DOT Members

 Steven Buckley, Kansas DOT

 Ken Mammen, Nevada DOT

 Michael Turpeau, Jr., Georgia DOT

AASHTO Members

 Kelly Hardy, Senior Engineering Program Manager for Safety

 Tracy Lovell, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (on assignment to AASHTO)

Contractor Facilitators

 Bruce Ibarguen, Toxcel

 Scott Kuznicki, Toxcel
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

87

APPENDIX C—NOTABLE PRACTICES BY STATE

This Appendix provides the notable practices described in the report organized by each Host 

State. The subheadings under each State link back to the relevant chapters. Table 4 summarizes 

information about each Host State and provides links to each Host State section. 

Table 4. Host State statistics.

State FY14 HSIP 

Apportionment

State-Owned 

Roadway Miles

Non-State 

Owned 

Roadway Miles

5 Yr Average 

Fatality Rate

Alaska $29,668,529 5,591 10,089 1.26

Illinois $73,695,955 15,986 129,722 0.90

Massachusetts $32,218,108 3,018 33,352 0.64

New 

Hampshire

$7,924,497 3,921 12,176 0.88

North 

Carolina

$57,438,779 79,546 26,656 1.24

Oregon $28,137,964 7,661 63,568 1.00

Utah $19,948,410 5,869 40,385 0.89
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

88

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: ALASKA

Documentation of HSIP Processes

In Alaska, the DOT&PF State Traffic and Safety Engineer has the responsibility of maintaining a 

variety of manuals and project development policy documentation. The Alaska HSIP Handbook is 

evaulated and upated annually or on an as-needed basis to address changes in law, program and 

policy rules, and clarifications. Updates also address crash costs and CMFs as needed. The 

Handbook is readily accessible from the Alaska DOT&PF web site, in addition to other HSIP

documentation - http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/hsip.shtml.

The Handbook clearly defines the process of HSIP project development, the criteria for project 

selection, and handling of funds and project delivery activities. Development of this 

documentation was the result of a facilitative relationship between the FHWA Division Office 

and the State Traffic and Safety Engineer’s office. The support of the Commissioner ensured 

that resources were available to address the HSIP regulations with appropriate and sufficient 

documentation, ensuring the program would be equitably and consistently applied.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

 DOT&PF delivers the Alaska HSIP through headquarters staff, which consists of the 

traffic safety engineering practitioners and program development, and the Region staff, 

which consists of traffic operations engineering staff and project development staff.

 The detailed documentation and program requirements and policies have greatly 

facilitated the involvement of Anchorage and other local agencies that lack engineering 

support.

 The FHWA Alaska Division Office has helped to facilitate the development of HSIP 

“champions” within the program, those on staff at Headquarters who cooperate closely 

with FHWA and have a passion for advancing the mission of the HSIP and achieving 

collaboration and results.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

 All nominated HSIP projects are developed in order to align with one or more of the 

action items and long-term goals in the SHSP.

 The Alaska SHSP features a specific section devoted to the HSIP, describing its function 

and role in the State’s strategic approach to safety management on the roadway system.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

89

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

 Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.

o DOT&PF contracted with the University of Alabama to develop a crash 

information portal known as CRASH/Alaska CARE.

o Electronic reporting of crashes improves reliability and speed data delivery.

o Considering a tiered reporting system to encourage additional data collection 

from higher-order crashes, which also improves FARS reporting.

o Cooperation with local municipalities for data sharing agreements and transition 

to improved electronic reporting response rates.

 System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.

o Annual screening of all roads, including local roads.

o Local agency nomination process is supported by DOT&PF region personnel.

o The project ranking process allows for a tiered list of projects, including ranked, 

non-ranked and systemic projects.

o A narrative for all non-ranked projects and a sensitivity analysis for non-ranked 

projects with a crash history determine suitability for HSIP investments.

Addressing Local Road Needs

 DOT&PF is cooperating with local municipalities for data sharing agreements and 

transition to improved electronic reporting response rates.

 Local agencies can nominate a project with informal DOT&PF assistance in selecting the 

project limits, countermeasures, and computational metrics.

 Alaska DOT&PF undertakes design (or manages consulting designers) and delivers local 

projects, with the exception of projects in Anchorage.

Considering All “4E’s”

 Public Outreach and Involvement.

o The primary safety-related public outreach activities of the DOT&PF are taking 

place through the efforts of the Regions, particularly in the Region public 

information staff, which has achieved AASHTO recognition for Public Service 

Announcements related to highway safety.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

90

o The headquarters public information staff participates in the outreach efforts as 

well.

 Safety Corridors.

o Alaska established the four Alaska Traffic Safety Corridors (ATSCs), based on 

the presence of high-crash locations and approved by the commissioners of 

Transportation and Public Safety. 

o Traffic Safety Corridor successes are documented and form the foundation for 

future expansion of the program as funding for enforcement is available.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

 Coordination of Project Delivery.

o Coordination between Headquarters and the Regions in Alaska helps with 

effective scoping of projects, cost control, and the transition of projects from 

approval and funding to successful construction.

o DOT&PF traffic safety and project development staff work very closely together 

to ensure project scoping is accurate and appropriate, controlling costs.

o HSIP analysis targets fatal and serious injury crashes where 1R and 3R formulas 

do not identify a problem.

 Program and Project Management Tools.

o Alaska DOT&PF uses an HSIP Funding Plan and a Funding Tracking Spreadsheet 

to help manage their HSIP, allocate funding to scheduled project phases 

according to priority, anticipate future funding needs, and estimate new project 

funding requirement.

 HSIP in the STIP.

o HSIP is in the STIP as an “umbrella project,” providing broad flexibility to the 

DOT&PF. 

o In order to encourage flexibility in project development and the highest degree 

of success in correcting safety deficiencies, HSIP funds in Alaska are available to 

deliver safety improvements within other projects, provided that the funds are 

used in compliance with Section 1.4 of the Alaska HSIP Handbook.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

 Project Evaluation Worksheets are locally administered and reported to headquarters.

 Project evaluation occurs over a three-year period.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

91

 Annualized benefits are evaluated against construction cost and maintenance costs.

 DOT&PF has also calculated an overall b/c ratio for the entire HSIP program, using data 

obtained in the program evaluation process.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: ILLINOIS

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The Illinois DOT (IDOT) has extensive HSIP documentation to help deliver their program, 

available at http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/local-transportationpartners/county-engineers-and-local-public-agencies/funding-opportunities/highway-safetyimprovement-program. This includes the IDOT HSIP Policy, the Systemic Safety Manual, and 

various spreadsheet-based evaluation tools, including the Benefit/Cost Analysis Tool and HSM 

Crash Prediction Tool. IDOT is also developing a Safety Engineering Manual as a supplement to 

their HSIP policy, designed to support the deployment of documented safety engineering 

processes. In addition, they are developing a policy regarding safety in project development, 

which will provide guidance for safety-related project advancement decisions.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

 IDOT has a centralized, yet coordinated approach to managing HSIP that also allows for 

flexibility within the Districts.

 The Central Office works with Districts to understand their needs and ensure they are 

comfortable with processes being implemented.

 Districts meet together on a periodic basis to share best practices and lessons learned.

 Gathering of District input to develop a statewide safety briefing.

 IDOT worked with the University of Illinois to develop their initial set of Safety 

Performance Functions for each roadway and intersection type for the State highway 

system. This was based on the peer groups identified in Safety Analyst.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

 The SHSP emphasizes impaired drivers, roadway departure, occupant protection, 

intersections, and information systems. IDOT prioritizes the emphasis areas within its 

SHSP based on the percentage of fatalities and serious injuries.

 Each HSIP application requires an SHSP emphasis area to be identified to ensure 

alignment between SHSP and HSIP.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

92

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

 Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.

o IDOT has staff dedicated to the creation, maintenance, and web-based 

dissemination of a variety of safety analysis tools.

o The Safety Portal provides all agencies with one interface for accessing the 

statewide crash database. IDOT also utilizes a Safety DataMart and GIS to 

perform safety analysis. The GIS includes various layers that include the SRI and 

other analysis results.

 System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.

o IDOT solicits local agency projects on an annual basis and local agency officials 

submit candidate projects to the Districts.

o All projects are subjected to the same criteria for evaluation by the Central 

Safety Committee, which meets annually to select projects for local roads and 

continuously reviews applications from the Districts for their projects. The 

Committee consists of representatives from BSE, the Bureau of Design, the 

Bureau of Local Roads, and FHWA. 

o IDOT uses an electronic application process for the nomination of all HSIP 

projects by Districts and local agencies. The submission process is open 

throughout the year for the districts to submit candidate projects. The 

SharePoint tool for project nomination centralizes all nominations in electronic 

and accessible format, providing automation to the approval process and 

reducing paperwork.

o Benefit/cost tool ensures consistency throughout IDOT as Districts generate b/c

ratios based on project-specific inputs.

o BSE has final say in selection of projects.

o Districts can create their own systemic and systematic focus areas.

o BSE gets a statewide HSIP allocation, which allows IDOT to address statewide 

safety issues across district lines. BSE can distribute funds using reserved 

appropriation.

 Spot Versus Systematic Improvements.

o IDOT does not utilize a set proportion for allocation of funding to spot and 

systemic improvements. Instead they expect to balance both types of 

improvements, recognizing that both are important to improving safety.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

93

o While the Districts have been told that funding is available to pursue systemic 

projects, most Districts are typically project-level focused and the Central Office 

identifies and funds the majority of systemic projects.

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools

 IDOT uses safety performance functions developed through the University of Illinois to 

perform network screening and identify those roadway segments and intersections with 

high potential for safety improvement.

 The IDOT Safer Roads Index improves the integration of quantitative safety 

performance in transportation project planning and programming.

 Safety Tiers categorizes roadways segments and intersections based on their level of 

safety performance and opportunity for improvement, providing a rating for relative 

comparison - Critical/5 percent, High, Medium, Low or Minimal.

 Safety Tiers allow transportation officials to understand relative performance of a 

location compared to similar types of roadways or intersections.

 The SRI classifies locations (segments and intersections) based on the Safety Tiers and, 

in a GIS tool, assigns colors to each one consistent with the level of priority. The SRI 

values, by segment, when used in mapping tools, allow direct segment-by-segment 

comparisons between the SRI and pavement data for the CRS and the IRI. This tool is a 

visual and tactical aid found to be invaluable for programming of general capital 

improvement projects that accomplish all three of these strategic objectives.

Addressing Local Road Needs

 IDOT assists local agencies with funding, policy, and design issues by providing 

workshops to help agencies understand the HSIP application and delivery process and 

providing bid advertisement services for local projects, among other efforts. 

 IDOT BSE has funding set-aside dedicated to local agency safety projects and 

administers that funding through their HSIP application/nomination and award process.

 MPOs are valuable partners in Illinois, even as strong local agency programs exist. Some 

MPOs have taken an active role in safety analysis for their jurisdictional areas, using that 

data to develop and submit HSIP project applications and obtaining funding for the 

construction of those safety improvements.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

94

Considering All “4E’s”

 RSAs.

o IDOT policy requires projects over $1 million to procure for design 

documentation an independently-conducted RSA or internal Road Safety Review.

o IDOT supports local agencies, particularly county highway departments, in 

conducting RSAs by providing funding and technical support. One agency, having 

seen the benefit of the RSAs in project prioritization and development, now selffunds its own RSA program.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

 Coordination of Project Delivery.

o IDOT has strong project development and delivery processes.

o District tracking system allows for control of scope, schedule, and cost while 

ensuring that projects are coordinated with letting and project delivery 

schedules.

o Uploading of District tracking information to SharePoint enables querying of all 

projects and determining which countermeasures have a large enough sample 

size for evaluation.

o IDOT uses a Funding Allocation Tracking Spreadsheet, with a separate tool used 

in District 1, to determine the funding that has been allocated and obligated to 

projects. This tool, combined with the strong project development process and 

preparation of engineering estimates by IDOT staff, ensures that funding 

obligations are consistent with annual appropriations, facilitating a high obligation 

rate and reducing the potential lapsed funding.

o Implementing new strategies at a District level rather than statewide allows 

other Districts to see how their counterparts are benefitting and makes them 

more likely to implement similar strategies.

 Use of Contractors/Consultants.

o IDOT uses one consultant to assist with HSIP implementation, providing 

consistency across statewide implementation.

 Program and Project Management Tools.

o The Illinois DOT maintains several tools to help manage the HSIP. This includes 

the HSIP SharePoint site, a Benefit/Cost Tool, and a Funding Allocation 

Spreadsheet. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

95

 HSIP in the STIP.

o IDOT uses a single category, Statewide Safety, in its STIP for safety projects, 

including railroad safety projects.

o In locations not on the State roadway system, Illinois allows the use of county 

SHSPs for network screening processes, in addition to the identification of 

emphasis areas and focus areas, just as in the statewide SHSP. IDOT funded the 

development of the SHSPs with a consultant contract for HSIP support for the 

35 counties with the most fatalities and serious injuries and those additional 

counties within MPOs.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

 IDOT does not have a formal evaluation process but uses multiple methods of 

evaluation to gather both project-level results and system-wide results. This includes 

evaluation at the program level and using before and after data to evaluate projects.

 IDOT uses SP&R funding for research projects to evaluate countermeasures and 

develop CMFs and SPFs.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: MASSACHUSETTS

Documentation of HSIP Processes

All Massachusetts HSIP documentation is available at 

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/TrafficandSafetyEngineering/HighwaySafe

ty/HighwaySafetyImprovementProgram.aspx. Documentation includes HSIP Guidelines and a 

Crash Clusters map. 

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

 Within the headquarters office of the Highway division, the TESS cooperates with other 

bureaus, including Construction, Design, and Project Management, to deliver the 

Massachusetts HSIP.

 The TESS supports the Districts in understanding the HSIP program and providing RSA 

services. The Districts develop the cooperative relationship with the MPOs to ensure 

that central office objectives for highway safety and the HSIP tools promoted by TESS 

are available and used by the MPOs as they plan and program projects to the STIP.

 TESS has established working relationships with MassDOT Planning in order to deliver 

the HSIP, with TESS providing information and the Districts delivering the projects.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

96

MassDOT Planning supports the HSIP by assisting in programming the projects into the 

STIP and ensuring funding is allocated and available.

 The MassDOT HSIP Task Force consists of seven members. These members include 

two FHWA staff members, three MassDOT staff members (the Chief Engineer and 

representatives from the Bureau of Traffic and Safety and the Bureau of Planning), and 

members from two MPOs. The task force meets annually or as needed to develop 

guidelines for acceptable HSIP projects but does not approve individual projects.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

 Each HSIP project must address a SHSP emphasis area and each SHSP emphasis area 

provides strategies for addressing common safety problems.

 Because bicycle issues are considered a proactive emphasis area, MassDOT is addressing 

them with a specific bicycle/pedestrian safety program which includes enforcement,

awareness, education, and infrastructure.

 In Massachusetts, HSIP projects are each separately nominated to the STIP.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

 Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.

o The Crash Analysis Tool provides a hierarchal screening process in the absence 

of exposure and severity data, permitting data-driven selection of candidate 

projects. The Crash Analysis Tool produces a clustered crash map using GIS 

tools and the geo-coded crash system. MassDOT developed the mapping tool inhouse using contractor assistance, and the Tool is updated annually based on 

crash data collected in a prior calendar year. The tool is used to generate the 

HSIP-eligible projects list.

o The Crash Portal allows for open access of crash information to the general 

public and MassDOT partners.

o MassDOT is undertaking a project to link hospitalization data with their crash 

dataset. 

o MassDOT can also query citation data independently of crash information. 

MassDOT uses the citation data to better understand and address behavioral 

issues.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

97

 System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.

o Traffic Engineers in each District work with the MPO and the TESS to identify 

candidate sites and recommend projects based on the screening process, within 

the structure of the District project development process.

o The TESS works with a consultant for scoping of potential HSIP improvements. 

o HSIP projects in Massachusetts address intersections with both spot and 

systemic improvements, in addition to roadway departure and vulnerable user 

projects.

o MassDOT has used HSIP funds to conduct non-infrastructure improvements for

safety data collection.

o MassDOT traffic engineers have also examined using HSIP funds to improve 

safety in work zones, and are presently funding enhanced enforcement efforts in 

work zones.

Addressing Local Road Needs

 MPOs have significant responsibilities in programming projects for local agencies, in 

addition to programming State DOT projects.

 The MPO use of the Crash Analysis Portal stratifies projects by jurisdiction while also 

providing for an objective process where availability of traditional exposure data is 

limited.

 MassDOT provides project funds for matching the HSIP contribution for local agency 

projects, eliminating need for local agency matching funds.

 MassDOT provides local agencies with training the right-of-way processes because LPAs 

are responsible for the ROW acquisition process for LPA-owned facilities. MassDOTfunded projects are not advertised for bids until the Bureau has issued a ROW 

certificate, underscoring the importance of LPA coordination and compliance for 

MassDOT-funded projects.

Considering All “4E’s”

 RSAs.

o RSAs are required as part of the Functional Design Report for all HSIP 

projects. RSAs are incorporated into the project development process for all 

projects that encompass 5% List locations and segments, even when not HSIPfunded.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

98

o Local involvement in RSAs is solicited and is required.

o The HSIP portion of projects funded from multiple sources is typically based on 

items identified in RSAs.

o MassDOT uses the Highway Safety Corridor Program as a means to address 

driver behavioral issues within designated corridors. MassDOT’s efforts focus on 

excessive speed and impaired driving and often include roadside advertising and 

mobile data collection of vehicle speeds.

 Public Outreach.

o A $500,000 behavioral public information campaign for bicycle/pedestrian 

crashes is being used to address all modes and yielding/right-of-way behavior in 

particular.

o MassDOT has partnered with regional advocacy groups MassBike and Walk 

Boston in an effort to deliver messages regarding effective behavioral campaigns 

to law enforcement personnel.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

 Coordination of Project Delivery.

o MassDOT has dedicated project managers responsible for project delivery.

These project managers oversee the preparation of reports, preliminary design 

and final design, the design waiver process for Design Exception Reports, and all 

other aspects of project development and delivery once a project is approved to 

advance to design, for all projects delivered by MassDOT.

o The MassDOT HSIP Program Manager works to coordinate project readiness 

with advertisement for bid schedules, and works closely with the Project 

Managers to ensure the timely completion of all of the elements required for 

project delivery and construction.

o The design and funding of projects occur on concurrent tracks. In some cases, 

funding is appropriated before the project is ready for construction.

o Ensuring that HSIP projects are prepared for construction is a priority for the 

TESS.

o Most projects are delivered with mixed funding sources and project managers 

are able to work in parallel with the funding staff to ensure that the project is 

prepared for delivery and is aligned with the proposed funding sources.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

99

 Use of Contractors/Consultants.

o A consultant works with Headquarters to scope potential HSIP improvements. 

MassDOT also hires consultants to assist with RSAs.

 HSIP in the STIP.

o SHSP emphasis area projects are included in the STIP as a separate project, 

dedicating funding to addressing these issues.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

 MassDOT has not yet begun a full-scale evaluation program for project success and 

derivation of CMFs.

 MassDOT’s safety performance evaluation efforts are primarily based on the use of 

crash data obtained from police reporting of the roughly 125,000 statewide annual 

crashes.

 Citation data has been particularly useful to MassDOT as they attempt to understand 

where behavioral issues are occurring and what countermeasures and public outreach 

campaigns would be most useful in correcting those behavioral issues.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: NEW HAMPSHIRE

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The New Hampshire DOT does not have an HSIP web site, but does maintain HSIP policy and 

guidelines in their HSIP Manual and Guidance document. The HSIP Manual and Guidance

document addresses safety data, project screening, project selection, and project administration 

and management. It includes an RSA application (and accompanying process flow diagram) and 

an HSIP project application, placing all information needed to complete the process in one 

place.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

 The NHDOT Executive Office is aware of and involved in the HSIP program, and HSIP 

receives significant support from the FHWA Division Office.

 HSIP staff are a part of the Design section and work with the State Traffic Engineer and 

the Highway Safety Engineer to plan, select, deliver, and evaluate projects.

 District Engineers have a solely maintenance function, as the Central Office carries out 

the functions of planning, design, and traffic operations and safety engineering.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

100

 The NHDOT HSIP Committee includes representatives from FHWA, a local agency, an 

MPO, an RPC, and various divisions within NHDOT, including design, maintenance, 

traffic, rail and transit, and those representing the needs of vulnerable users. The 

Committee reviews and selects projects and meets annually and as necessary to review 

project progress, identify trends in funding and project development, and address policy 

and compliance issues related to program performance and FHWA policy changes and 

guidance.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

 The SHSP addresses nine critical emphasis areas, including impaired driving, distracted 

driving, and motorcyclists and vulnerable users. Allocation of funding to SHSP initiatives 

is related to the cause of crashes in the emphasis areas.

 The HSIP Committee evaluates the need for integrating SHSP emphasis areas and 

oversees the project evaluation processes, ensuring that the HSIP investments are 

addressing the SHSP objectives and that those same investments are achieving strategic 

and system safety performance goals, such as the targeted return on investment and 

expected crash reduction.

 SHSP emphasis areas were the basis of priorities for other agencies, including those 

responsible for enforcement of non-traffic regulations, such as the liquor control agency 

and agencies responsible for on-sale serving establishments.

 NHDOT revises the SHSP emphasis areas annually, with an overall revision of the 

document occurring every four years. This helps align priorities with emerging trends 

and encourages internal assessment of strategy and direction.

 The SHSP has also emphasized non-infrastructure, non-behavioral needs, particularly by 

elevating crash data reporting to be an area of emphasis.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

 System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.

o There are three means of submitting a project for consideration in the HSIP. The 

“traditional approach” involves the network screening process and the generated 

5% List.

o The other State-generated candidates are in the “systematic program,” which is 

New Hampshire’s means of delivering systemic projects throughout the State 

highway system.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

101

o Finally, some projects are placed on the candidate list as a result of the RSA 

program.

o Each of the three candidate generation processes produces a separate list of 

candidate projects.

o NHDOT does not set a funding allocation for the “traditional,” systemic, and 

RSA-initiated project types.

o The HSIP committee examines the candidate project list, with projects chosen 

based on the project’s size, its ability to be designed and constructed in the 

short-term, and the b/c ratio generated in the project screening and scoping 

process, typically obtained from Safety Analyst. 

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools

 NHDOT expended a multi-year effort on Safety Analyst development, particularly in the 

area of data management, data manipulation, and correlation with traditional methods.

 Network screening and multi-criteria screening methods ensure comprehensive 

examination of corridor, segment, and intersection performance.

 Integration of Safety Analyst into capital investment planning will yield long-term 

results. Safety Analyst has provided for the transition from observed crash evaluations 

to SPF-based evaluations and cost-per-countermeasure evaluations.

 Safety Analyst is used by local planning organizations in the development of public works 

transportation projects.

Addressing Local Road Needs

 Membership on the NHDOT HSIP Committee includes representatives from within 

NHDOT, from a local agency, an MPO, and an RPC.

 The NHDOT HSIP Committee has been a catalyst for local agency involvement in safety 

engineering work and traffic safety initiatives in New Hampshire, particularly on account 

of the four positions for MPO and RPC representatives.

 The RPC/MPO agencies are extremely involved and all nine agencies have the 

opportunity to participate over the course of a decade as committee members rotate.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

102

Considering All “4E’s”

 RSAs.

o NHDOT established a RSA process to assist the local planning agencies and 

municipal governments in their efforts to identify and address road safety issues, 

aiding responsiveness to inquiries regarding safety issues in a community or along 

a roadway segment.

o RSA process is State-funded but advanced by local agencies through an 

application process.

o RSAs can serve as HSIP project precursors, identifying the scope of 

improvements in an effort to ensure improved project outcomes.

o Executing an RSA involves staff from multiple agencies at various levels, including 

NHDOT maintenance staff from the field offices and RPC/MPO staff.

o RSA applications are accepted at any time and screened annually, and projects 

advanced to the HSIP candidate list are evaluated with all other HSIP projects 

sourced from throughout New Hampshire.

o NHDOT is considering moving toward an annual solicitation of RSA applications.

 Public Outreach.

o NHDOT selected “Driving Toward Zero” as an alternative to “Toward Zero 

Deaths,” emphasizing the positive aspect of the program and its focus on the 

goal and not the present outcomes. The program, deployed by the NHDOT staff 

and managed by a contractor, was the impetus in transforming the SHSP from an 

engineering document to an easily-understandable resource that is a tool for 

engaging the public.

o Using a second marketing contract, NHDOT performed public outreach 

activities related to the goals of the new SHSP, building on the awareness efforts 

and illustrating their partnerships with NHSP and other State agencies.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

 Coordination of Project Delivery.

o The HSIP Committee meets annually and as necessary to review project 

progress, identify trends in funding and project development, and address policy 

and compliance issues related to program performance and FHWA policy 

changes and guidance.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

103

 Use of Contractors/Consultants.

o New Hampshire maintains two on-call consultant contracts, one for design of 

projects and the other for analysis. In addition, a consultant is responsible for 

managing NHDOT’s RSA program.

 Program and Project Management Tools.

o NHDOT developed a spreadsheet-based tracking system for project origination 

method, scope, progress in project development, HSIP data, and project delivery 

information.

o A second spreadsheet-based tracking system was developed to track the funding 

of HSIP projects.

o Both of these tools have grown in scope and size, but NHDOT staff continue to 

manage them in-house, permitting immediate access to data in a structure that is 

consistent with NHDOT’s approach to HSIP program delivery.

 Cost Control and B/C Ratio Preservation.

o Initial calculations of b/c ratios uses costs with a contingency of 30 percent or 

more in order to accurately predict the true b/c ratio.

o NHDOT tracks the expected total cost of a project. Those projects exceeding a 

cost threshold beyond a percentage of given project cost based on project size 

are referred to the HSIP Committee for a review to determine continued 

project eligibility for HSIP funds.

 Establish a Multi-Year Plan and Budget.

o New Hampshire delivers systemic projects on a multi-year program, focusing on 

infrastructure, behavioral, and data solutions. The multi-year delivery approach 

ensures the completion of projects, even if completed over time, and provides 

for program flexibility when identifying and funding other needs.

 HSIP in the STIP.

o SHSP emphasis area projects are included in the STIP within the HSIP umbrella 

project 

Evaluating the Success of the Program

 Project evaluation tools provide for the evaluation of projects based on changes in 

crashes and the outcome b/c ratio.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

104

 NHDOT’s evaluation period can include up to six years prior to construction and three 

to four years following construction; longer periods are key factors in identifying project 

performance where limited crash frequency impacts statistical variability.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: NORTH CAROLINA

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The North Carolina DOT maintains all HSIP documentation on 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NC-Highway-Safety-Program-andProjects.aspx. This includes mapped HSIP locations from 2010-2014, HSIP Potentially 

Hazardous Location Detailed Reports by county, intersection reports, bike/pedestrian reports, 

the active spot safety project list, and the NCDOT Crash Reduction Factor list.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

 NCDOT has an experienced and capable Traffic Safety Unit within Headquarters. The 

Traffic Safety Unit manages and includes eight (8) Field Traffic Engineering and Safety 

offices that serve all of NCDOT’s 14 Transportation Divisions and North Carolina’s 100 

counties. 

 In addition to the M&SFO sections, there is a Traffic Safety Systems Section and a 

Mobility and Safety Information Section. The Traffic Safety Systems Section is comprised 

of three units, Safety Planning, HSIP, and Safety Evaluation. All three of these units work 

together to deliver the HSIP in North Carolina, in addition to other safety programs.

 The Traffic Safety Unit’s relationship with the GHSP is positive and strong. The Mobility 

and Safety and GHSP Teams work together to share information, initiatives, leverage 

resources and coordinate efforts. The GHSP was one of NCDOT’s 42 core safety 

partners in the development of the SHSP development process and GHSP and its 

Director serve a vital role in NC’s Executive Committee for Highway Safety. The

Secretary of Transportation chairs the Executive Committee for Highway Safety and 

NCDOT executive staff and partner agency representatives are actively involved in the 

committee. The Executive Committee meets three times annually and provides 

oversight and leadership of North Carolina’s safety efforts, particularly in the area of 

strategic direction and program performance.

 Headquarters conducts network screening to identify potential project locations, 

Headquarters and Regions work together to identify potential projects, and a project 

selection committee that includes Headquarters staff and other partner agencies selects 

the projects. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

105

 NCDOT has a Safety Project Review & Selection Team comprised of the State Traffic 

Engineer, State Traffic Safety Engineer, Field Operations and Investigations Engineer, 

M&S Program Manager, Governor’s Highway Safety Program representative, and a 

representative from the Rail Division. They meet quarterly to review, assess, and 

provide recommendations for candidate Safety Projects for investment under the 

Department’s STIP.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

 The GHSO was one of NCDOT’s 42 partners in the development of the SHSP 

development process.

 The nine emphasis areas in the plan are developed collaboratively with Emphasis Area 

Working Groups, establishing the problem and goals for each emphasis area.

 The plan drives the Vision Zero initiative in North Carolina and progress toward that is 

reflected in the SHSP Progress Dashboard, a public-facing web portal.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

 Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.

o Near-immediate availability of crash data owing to relationship with DMV and 

data held within NCDOT. 

o State and local law enforcement agencies send reports to the North Carolina 

DMV, submitting 70 percent of crash reports electronically. 

o The DMV system provides comprehensive access to the NCDOT.

o Availability of all crash report images electronically for instant access to collision 

diagrams and narratives, provided from central source.

o NCDOT commitment to open data has provided public-appropriate views of 

agency performance in safety program delivery, through their online dashboard.

 System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.

o NCDOT uses a safety warrants system for project screening, prioritizing, and 

selecting projects on the basis of b/c ratio. The safety warrants system is used to 

identify locations that have a demonstrated need for safety improvements. This 

warrant system is divided into three areas: Intersections, Highway Sections (nonfreeway, freeway, and city-maintained), and Bicycle and Pedestrian sites. 

o NCDOT also uses a Safety Index Decision Support Tool to provide for analysis 

of projects where b/c data availability is insufficient.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

106

o The Safety Warrants are updated on a routine basis using crash data analysis.

o All projects are selected quarterly by a project selection process and team

comprised of Headquarters staff.

o NCDOT selects HSIP projects on the basis of safety b/c and prioritizes and 

reviews systemic and Spot Safety projects using a decision support tool (Safety 

Index) and the detailed project packets.

o NCDOT works to ensure that smaller projects are incorporated into the 

program and not eliminated on account of the funding demands from larger highprofile projects.

o The NCDOT Spot Safety process uses a Safety Index Decision Support tool with 

the Safety Index comprising both Safety and Responsiveness indices. The Safety 

Index Decision Support tool provides a programmatic approach to project 

selection from an overall list, whether or not the project is HSIP-involved. The 

entire process is driven by data (field verified) and rigorous analysis, with 

extensive documentation of criteria.

Addressing Local Road Needs

 The North Carolina Local Safety Partnership is a pilot program involving a cooperative 

effort between NCDOT and the UNC-HSRC. The purpose of the program is to 

introduce communities to the concepts required to implement low-cost safety 

improvements in a data-driven traffic engineering program.

 NCDOT funds are used to establish a training program for local agency staff to 

strengthen their safety programs (understanding crash analyses and the importance of 

documented evaluation procedures) as well as sharing ideas quarterly in conference call 

setting.

 HSIP funding is used to deploy low-cost safety improvements, minimizing impact on 

community budgets.

 Evaluation of the partnership program focuses both on safety outcomes and policy 

outcomes for community public works departments.

Considering All “4E’s”

 RSAs.

o NCDOT’s Road Safety Review/Audit (RSA) Program is designed and managed to 

reduce crashes and injuries by generating safety projects/actions, assist field staff 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

107

in addressing persistent safety problem areas, and improve collaboration 

amongst stakeholders.

o NCDOT conducts RSAs in an effort to support HSIP project origination and 

project development.

o NCDOT RSAs are conducted with Department-wide support to ensure 

perspectives of trained personnel who understand NCDOT policy and 

procedures.

o Local stakeholders can bring RSA requests forward for both State-maintained 

and non-State maintained roadways and NCDOT will assist in either case.

o NCDOT conducts RSAs on corridors with multiple HSIP locations, and they also 

query the Field Engineers and Field Division staff for locations where RSAs could 

lead to potential HSIP projects.

o Staff from regions throughout the State participate in the RSAs in other regions, 

ensuring an outside perspective is obtained in the RSA process.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

 Coordination of Project Delivery.

o NCDOT funds the delivery of safety projects using two primary investment 

mechanisms: the Federally-funded HSIP and the State funded Spot Safety 

program.

o Delivery in both programs, for design, bidding, and construction, is overseen by 

M&S Division through the regional offices, the M&S Programs Manager and in 

coordination with the 14 Division Offices and NCDOT Program Management. 

o Systemic projects and initiatives in North Carolina are funded using a dedicated 

portion of HSIP funding, currently estimated at 20-30 percent of the State’s 

annual appropriation.

o NCDOT makes extensive use of headquarters, Division and District staff, and 

including the RTE and M&S personnel, for the purposes of developing project 

scope, design, and project delivery. NCDOT is evaluating a variety of methods 

to improve project delivery timelines and reduce the overall cost of delivering 

HSIP projects. Examples include combining multiple related safety projects in a 

single contract, the use of the design-build delivery mechanism for fast-track 

delivery of projects with well-defined scope, and the use of on-call contractors 

to facilitate immediate delivery of identified projects.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

108

 Use of Contractors/Consultants.

o North Carolina uses consultants for design, project evaluation.

o Established LSAs provide an opportunity to use on-call contractors to deploy

and conduct surveys quickly (for improved estimates), project hearings and 

expedited designs for safety projects without the need for additional contract 

advertisement and the associated time and cost impacts.

 HSIP in the STIP.

o Generally, each HSIP project location has its own individual STIP 

number. However, NCDOT also programs projects that have multiple locations 

with a certain type of improvement. For example, they have had projects in each 

Division to install 6 in. long life pavement markings over numerous routes. Each 

of those Division projects had one STIP number; e.g., 14 Divisions, 14 STIP 

numbers, numerous routes per Division.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

 A publicly-available Organizational Performance Dashboard provides such metrics as the 

fatality rate and fatality and crash trends, delivery rate for projects, delay due to 

incidents, and other information related to the NCDOT programs and outcomes.

 For each completed safety project, the NCDOT M&S Traffic Safety Unit conducts a 

Safety Evaluation. This evaluation includes project information, collision diagrams, and 

analysis of before and after crash frequency and severity. The analysis period is typically 

three years, but it can be extended for sites with a low pre-project crash rate. This 

Safety Evaluation is shared with the Region staff and demonstrates the success of the 

investment.

 NCDOT also conducts Empirical Bayes evaluation of multiple site locations with similar 

countermeasure installations, which facilitates distinguishing between different 

treatments and the development of CMFs. The evaluations can be site-specific or taken 

across multiple similar sites. 

 NCDOT also conducts a program-wide evaluation, undertaken program-wide for a Spot 

Safety or HSIP projects.

 The institutional establishment of this evaluation program and the various facets it 

encompasses has assisted NCDOT staff in retaining safety project funding from 

NCDOT and even obtaining increases in funding.

 The evaluation of project performance has also impacted other areas of NCDOT 

operations, leading to increased confidence in NCDOT investments.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

109

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: OREGON

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The Oregon Department of Transportation provides HSIP related guidance and materials on its 

ARTS web site - http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx. 

This includes a list of 120 safety countermeasures, safety implementation plans for the three 

focus areas of roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle, and example business 

cases for safety projects. 

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

 HSIP is delivered through the All-Roads Transportation Safety Program (ARTS).

Oregon delivers the HSIP using Central Office-originated screening processes that rely 

on input from the ARTS staff in each Region. The five ODOT Regions locally manage 

the ARTS program, with ARTS oversight responsibilities assigned to the Regional Traffic 

Engineer/Manager. The ARTS staff in the regions then select the projects and supervise 

the design of selected projects, delivering them through the conventional capital 

construction program using HSIP funds.

 The involvement of these Central Office technical staff, in cooperation with the local 

agencies throughout the selection process, was a major contributor to local 

understanding of how projects were prioritized and what factors contributed to a 

project not being selected, with local agencies viewing the Central Office involvement as 

highly objective.

 ODOT’s use of consultants in screening and project development efforts results in a 

greater degree of acceptance because the consultants serve as an independent third 

party following the process.

 Outreach efforts involve coordination between the GHSO TSD Region Safety 

Coordinator and ARTS staff in each Region. The Oregon Traffic Control Devices 

Committee (OTCDC) can bring needs to the TSD and they typically allocate 402 funds 

to address those needs.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

 ODOT worked with the Governor’s Highway Safety Office to integrate engineering and 

safety work into a mature behavioral Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP), the 

precursor to the SHSP and today is the ODOT name for the SHSP.

 The systemic component of the ARTS Program is divided into three emphasis areas: 

roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. The 2011 Edition of the TSAP
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

110

identified these three emphasis areas as high priority areas for improving safety. In order 

to address this, ODOT developed Safety Implementation Plans for these areas. In last 

few years, ODOT has delivered many projects in these areas. 

 Part of the relationship between the TSAP and HSIP is the Data-Driven process for the 

Safety Management System (Action 24 in the TSAP). The HSIP uses the Safety 

Management System, data derived from the system, and processes to select HSIP 

projects. The Safety Management System was used during HSIP screening, selection, and 

development of the Hot Spot projects.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

 Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.

o Crash data is GIS-based and robust, but is missing a linear referencing system. 

Every crash is coded so that the latitude/longitude location can be analyzed 

through GIS.

 System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.

o Program is data-driven and based on b/c analysis, focusing on projects that will 

deliver the highest reduction in serious injuries and fatalities in comparison to 

the project cost. 

o Funding is divided to each region based on the number of fatalities and serious 

injury crashes. Potential projects within each region are prioritized by their 

benefit cost. The available money is separated evenly into two categories — hot 

spots and systemic. 

o ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hot spot projects 

(prioritized based on b/c ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations 

and the appropriate countermeasures. Spot project selection is based on Fatal 

and Injury A crashes only.

o The process for systemic projects is an application-based process. Projects are 

selected triennially. Two ODOT Regions hired consultants to help local agencies 

fill the applications. Local Agencies and ODOT Regions submit applications for 

systemic projects in three focus areas — roadway departure, intersections, and 

pedestrian/bicycle. Projects are prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for 

roadway departure and intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness index 

(pedestrian/bicycle projects). ODOT does not require systemic project locations 

to demonstrate a history of Fatal and Injury-A crashes, recognizing that systemic 

project implementations are often undertaken in locations that are 

characteristically similar to locations with demonstrated crash histories.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

111

o As part of the ARTS Program, ODOT developed a list of countermeasures, 

known as the ODOT CRF List, which will be revised as new countermeasures 

become available. The treatments to be used on priority corridors are identified 

in ODOT’s Systemic Plans document. ODOT has 120 countermeasures 

available.

o ODOT uses the CEI for bicycle/pedestrian projects. The CEI is the quotient of 

the number of correctable bicycle/pedestrian crashes and the cost of the 

bicycle/pedestrian project. ODOT considers the CEI to be a tool for data-driven 

evaluation of bicycle- and pedestrian-focused HSIP projects.

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools

 Oregon identified that current network screening methods may not be sufficient to 

select and/or prioritize intersections with very high traffic volumes. Development of a 

new advanced technique using the Empirical-Bayes method may be necessary to 

properly identify the best potential intersection projects when signalized intersections 

are operating in excess of design capacity.

Addressing Local Road Needs

 ODOT worked with the AOC and the LOC to create a jurisdictionally-blind process 

for project nomination and selection.

 The local agencies have generally been very receptive to the ARTS program and 

appreciate ODOT’s desire to provide assistance in screening and project development. 

Many local agencies identified the ODOT-managed screening process as an asset, given 

local agency staff limitations.

Local agencies find the application process to be straightforward and they appreciate the 

ability to participate in the selection of countermeasures. The applications are available 

directly from the ARTS web site and Region ARTS staff have been extremely 

approachable and helpful as agencies looked to apply with projects to be included in the 

selection process. Some regions hold workshops with stakeholders to identify locations 

that are candidates for applications. 

 The knowledge transfer associated with local access to ARTS personnel has been 

extremely helpful.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

112

 Considering All “4E’s”

 Public Outreach.

o All projects have a community outreach component, typically managed by 

ODOT staff.

o ODOT coordinates with the GHSO Region Safety Coordinator and ARTS staff 

in each Region to deliver community outreach behavioral programs.

 Use of RSAs.

o Although use of RSA’s are not requirement of Oregon’s HSIP process, the 

information from completed RSAs is often used in the scoping process.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

 Coordination of Project Delivery.

o The ARTS staff in the regions select the projects and supervise the design of 

selected projects, delivering them through the conventional capital construction 

program using HSIP funds.

 Use of Contractors/Consultants.

o Oregon hired a consultant to draft a list of potential hot spot locations when 

implementing the ARTS program. During the initiation of ARTS, two ODOT 

Regions hired consultants to help local agencies fill the applications for systemic 

projects. In addition, ODOT uses consultants for screening and project 

development.

 HSIP in the STIP.

o Under the ARTS Program, most selected projects are programmed into the STIP 

on an individual basis. ODOT anticipates that all projects under the ARTS 

Program will be stand-alone safety projects. However, Regions might decide to 

bundle similar safety projects into larger projects for efficient project 

development and delivery.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

 ODOT is evaluating cost/benefit and implementations of systemic measures for some 

crash types. The HSIP report is the primary means of obtaining this information, a naïve 

aggregate-of-projects comparison at this standpoint, including 3-year before/after 

studies. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

113

 ARTS has a 90 percent approval rating for project success, from a subjective survey of 

stakeholders.

 ODOT will do before-and-after evaluations for system changes, such as the speed limit 

increase on US 95 and I-84 in Eastern Oregon.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: UTAH

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The Utah Department of Transportation provides their HSIP Manual at 

http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:2933. The Manual includes information on 

program oversight and funding, special rules, reporting information, and flowcharts depicting 

the processes for both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

 The Utah safety culture is an internal, behavior-based program for employees that 

influences every aspect of the UDOT program delivery, from inception and planning to 

construction and operations. This culture change is seen not as a program or a training 

event, but rather as an investment by employees who are empowered by managers to 

respond to and address all safety concerns at every level.

 The Traffic and Safety Division undertakes the process of planning HSIP projects using a 

screening process, which includes the analysis and prioritization. Once a prioritized list 

is developed, from the annual screening, projects are programmed from a pool of 

eligible HSIP projects, by the State Traffic Safety Engineer. The implementation of the 

projects is carried out using the typical delivery channels for transportation 

infrastructure projects within UDOT.

 The Region Traffic Engineers have safety engineering functions and direct involvement in 

HSIP deployment.

 The Traffic Safety Engineer programs all HSIP projects, working closely with the 

Department’s project development staff. In general, the HSIP is programmed in excess 

of annual apportionment, with the expectation of returned funds from closed projects 

and constructed projects with less-than-expected bids. Additionally, programming in 

excess of apportionment also accommodates delayed projects.

 UDOT’s Safety Leadership Executive Committee includes executive-level 

representatives from the Department of Public Services, Department of Health, UDOT, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

114

 UDOT works closely with the FHWA Utah Division Office to ensure HSIP program 

objectives align with FHWA strategic and tactical initiatives.

 UDOT’s partnerships with the University of Utah and Brigham Young University have 

led to substantial advancements in the understanding of crash prediction modeling and 

the success of safety countermeasures.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

 UDOT considers the emphasis areas of the SHSP when screening and selecting projects 

for advancement into the HSIP; this accomplishes both strategic and operational goals.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

 Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.

o In Utah the Department of Public Safety developed the statewide crash database, 

which receives electronic input from all of Utah’s police agencies.

o UDOT contracted with Numetric to provide a crash query and safety data 

investigation system that analyzes crashes and suggests countermeasures.

 System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.

o Projects are selected based on the b/c ratio and the highest ability to reduce 

crashes, in addition to the likelihood of coordination with other projects in an 

effort to optimize investments.

o UDOT’s flexibility permits HSIP funds as a supplement to project funds for 

follow-on safety improvements not otherwise incorporated into a project. The 

programming process works within a three year timeframe and the Regions 

deliver the projects using Region construction administration staff.

o UDOT differentiates between spot improvements (reactive projects) and 

systemic improvements (proactive projects).

o The UDOT HSIP screening process studies roadways with similar characteristics, 

with analysis of crash data, in an effort to determine systemic improvements 

implemented system-wide. Some system-wide projects use a prioritization 

system, which uses crash performance to allocate projects among multiple levels 

of priority, including use of a weighted average for Fatal and Injury-A crashes.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

115

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools

 UDOT delivers their HSIP using several analysis tools: Numetric, FHWA Systemic 

Safety Tool, usRAP, and the Utah Crash Prediction Model.

Addressing Local Road Needs

 The State Highway Safety Office and UDOT assist the local agencies by providing 

network screening and data analysis.

 Local agency staff can use a toolbox of proven countermeasures developed by UDOT 

to address safety problems, particularly in the preparation of HSIP project applications. 

The toolbox is available online.

Considering All “4E’s”

 Public Outreach.

o UDOT’s recognition that 93 percent of crashes have a correctable behavioral 

component has led to the development of a strong behavioral education 

program.

o UDOT has a coordinated effort to send consistent messages related to Zero 

Fatalities. All public information campaigns are branded as a joint effort, showing 

the cooperative atmosphere, and developed to address some behavioral issues 

identified in the SHSP. Funding is appropriated for paid media and public 

outreach activities. Outreach efforts include more than 50 events every year and 

additional events at high schools that target typical risky behaviors associated 

with younger drivers. The biennial Zero Fatalities conference is another way in 

which UDOT brings partners together to advance the traffic safety culture 

within Utah.

o Utah’s approach to safety outreach has been to create positive messages, 

particularly related to restraint use and driving habits. As UDOT and DPS have 

worked together to achieve saturation in their public relations efforts, the 

agencies have made use of many available outlets, including variable message 

signs. In the case of the message signs, “Monday Safety Messages” set a safety 

theme for a given week. Utah’s Zero Fatalities staff manage an active social media 

presence, using social media and video sharing platforms with a single, cohesive 

marketing strategy to disseminate the message using conventional and social 

media outlets and in cooperation with UDOT traffic operations.

o The Department of Public Safety uses HSIP funds. HSIP funds are transferred for 

a specific project or enforcement activity area and UDOT is billed by DPS for 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

116

reimbursement by means of the memorandum of understanding between the 

agencies. At this time, DPS receives reimbursement only for enforcement 

programs related to seat belt use, exceeding the posted speed limit, and 

aggressive driving.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

 Coordination of Project Delivery.

o The implementation of the projects is carried out using the typical delivery 

channels for transportation infrastructure projects within UDOT.

 Coordination with 3R Projects.

o Where possible, UDOT works within the project delivery calendar to 

coordinate the delivery of HSIP projects with 3R projects to reduce contract 

costs.

 Use of Contractors/Consultants.

o Consultants have developed some of the safety analysis and project tracking 

tools, including consultants retained to assist UDOT in managing the HSIP.

 Program and Project Management Tools.

o UDOT developed the WorkFlow Manager (WFMan) tool, with support from a 

consultant, to enter, view, evaluate, rank, program, and track all UDOT HSIP 

applications and projects. Access is provided via a web interface and allows for 

unlimited users, including UDOT staff, consultants, and local government 

partners. 

o WFMan provides HSIP funding applicants the ability to submit applications, 

perform real-time edits and revisions, receive summary notifications, and track 

the status of each application as it progresses through the evaluation, ranking, 

and programming process. 

o UDOT HSIP program managers use WFMan to review and qualify applications 

based on standardized ranking and eligibility criteria. 

o As projects are initiated, WFMan tracks key project information to provide 

program managers the ability to monitor schedules, track project and program 

cash flow, document project-related decisions, and inform leadership.

 HSIP in the STIP and Establish a Multi-Year Plan and Budget.

o The programming of projects in the STIP by including HSIP as a program over a 

three-year time span in the STIP provides UDOT with the flexibility necessary to 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

117

move projects between fiscal years to accommodate project delays. It also 

provides opportunities to advance projects for construction and ensures 

flexibility for the addition of new projects to address emerging issues.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

 UDOT uses three-year before/after comparisons of completed projects to analyze the 

performance of every HSIP project and develops State-specific CMFs. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

118

APPENDIX D: HSIP RESOURCES

OFFICE OF SAFETY HSIP RESOURCES

 HSIP Web Site - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/.

 HSIP Reports - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/.

HOST STATE HSIP WEB SITES

 Alaska - http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/hsip.shtml.

 Illinois - http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/local-transportationpartners/county-engineers-and-local-public-agencies/funding-opportunities/highwaysafety-improvement-program.

 Massachusetts -

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/TrafficandSafetyEngineering/High

waySafety/HighwaySafetyImprovementProgram.aspx.

 North Carolina - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NC-Highway-SafetyProgram-and-Projects.aspx.

 NCDOT Safety Evaluations - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/SafetyEvaluation.aspx.

 Oregon - http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFICROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx.

 Utah - http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:2933.

NEW HAMPSHIRE HSIP FORMS

The New Hampshire DOT does not maintain a public facing web site with HSIP information. 

Samples of the RSA Application and HSIP Project Application are included on the following 

pages. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

119

Figure 20. RSA application. 
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

120

Figure 21. HSIP project application spreadsheet (page 1).
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

121

REFERENCES

1. FHWA. Top Ten Characteristics of a Successful State Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

Available online at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/characteristics10.cfm. 

Accessed February 24, 2016.

2. Alaska DOT&PF. Statewide Design and Engineering Services. Available online at 

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/dcstraffic/hsip.shtml. Accessed February 24, 2016.

3. Illinois DOT. Safety Engineering Policy Memorandum. Available online at 

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides-

&-Handbooks/Safety/SAFETY%201.06%20-

%20Safety%20Engineering%20Policy%20Memorandum.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2016.

4. Utah DOT. Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual. Available online at 

https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=3562132679126905. Accessed

February 24, 2016.

5. Oregon DOT. ODOT Highway Safety Program Guide. Available online at 

http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/trafficroadway/docs/pdf/odot_safety_program_guide.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2016.

6. North Carolina DOT. Highway Safety Improvement Program: Safety Warrants. Available 

online at 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/HSIP%20Library/2013%20HSIP%20Warrants.

pdf. Accessed February 24, 2016.

7. North Carolina DOT. North Carolina Project Development Crash Reduction Factor 

Information. Available online at 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/TrafficSafetyResources/NCDOT%20CRF%20

Update%20with%20References.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2016.

8. North Carolina DOT. Highway Safety Programs and Projects. Available online at 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NC-Highway-Safety-Program-andProjects.aspx. Accessed February 24, 2016.

9. Oregon DOT. Traffic-Roadway Section (TRS) – All Roads Transportation Safety. Available 

online at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx. 

Accessed February 24, 2016.
HSIP SCAN TOUR FINAL REPORT

122

10. MassDOT. Highway Safety Improvement Program. Available online at 

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/TrafficandSafetyEngineering/High

waySafety/HighwaySafetyImprovementProgram.aspx. Accessed February 24, 2016.

11. IDOT. Safety Portal Crash Manager Guide. Available online at 

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides-

%26-Handbooks/Safety/IDOT_Safety_Portal_Data_Crash_Manager_Guide.pdf. 

Accessed February 24, 2016.

12. massDOT. Crash Records Web Reporting. Available online at 

http://services.massdot.state.ma.us/crashportal/. Accessed February 24, 2016.

13. Illinois DOT. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Available online at 

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/local-transportation-partners/countyengineers-and-local-public-agencies/funding-opportunities/highway-safety-improvementprogram. Accessed February 24, 2016.

14. Illinois DOT. Highway Safety Improvement Program Policy. Available online at 

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides-

&-Handbooks/Safety/SAFETY%201.06%20-

%20Safety%20Engineering%20Policy%20Memorandum.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2016. 

15. Alaska DOT&PF. Alaska HSIP Handbook. Available online at 

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/dcstraffic/assets/pdf/hsip/hsip_hdbk_010116.pdf. Accessed 

March 14, 2016. 

16. MassBike. MassBike Releases Bike Safety Training Video for Police Departments. Available 

online at http://massbike.org/blog/2014/05/07/massbike-releases-bike-safety-trainingvideo-for-police-departments/. Accessed February 24, 2016.

17. massDOT. massDot Highway Division – Road Safety Audits. Available online at 

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/TrafficandSafetyEngineering/High

waySafety/RoadSafetyAudits.aspx. Accessed February 24, 2016.

18. Alaska DOT&PF. Report Every Dangerous Driver Immediately. Available online at 

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/highwaysafety/REDDI.shtml. Accessed February 24, 2016.

19. Alaska DOT&PF. Highway Safety Publications. Available online at 

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/highwaysafety/pubs.shtml. Accessed February 24, 2016.

20. North Carolina DOT. Safety Evaluation Group – Safety Evaluation Completed Projects. 

Available online at https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/SafetyEvaluation.aspx. Accessed February 24, 2016.
For More Information:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA, Office of Safety

Karen Scurry

Karen.Scurry@dot.gov

609-637-4207

FHWA-SA-16-024