Noteworthy Practices:

Addressing Safety on LocallyOwned and Maintained Roads

A Domestic Scan
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. 
1. Report No. 

 FHWA FHWA-SA-10-027 

2. Government 

Accession No. 

3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads 

 A Domestic Scan 

5. Report Date 

 August 2010 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Authors: Rosemarie Anderson, P.E.; Karen Yunk, P.E; Daniel Lovas, P.E.; and 

Michelle Scism 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 

 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) 

 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700 

 Vienna, VA 22182-2626 

10. Work Unit No. 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-05-D-00024 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: 

 Office of Safety Federal Highway Administration 

 U.S. Department of Transportation 

 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

 Washington, D.C. 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes: 

Technical editing was performed Jenny Goldschmidt of VHB. Graphical design and production were performed by Michelle Scism 

and Cynthia Chagnon, both from VHB. 

16. Abstract: 

Locally-owned road safety remains a challenge to many States. Several States have shown measured success in addressing local 

road safety. Seven States were identified to participate in the Local Road Safety Domestic Scan, allowing a team of transportation 

professionals from the Federal, State, and local levels to visit and document their practices. The Domestic Scan report identifies and 

documents practices in the planning, programming, and implementation of efforts to improve local road safety. Practices are 

presented in data collection and analysis; local project identification; local project administration; funding; training and technical 

assistance; outreach and partnerships between State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and local agencies. The report provides 

States with valuable information to launch a local road safety program or implement documented practices to improve an established 

program. 

17. Key Words: 

Highway safety, local government, study tours, strategic 

planning, safety management, State Departments of 

Transportation, Federal-aid, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 

local road safety, crash data, engineering, education, 

enforcement, systemic improvements, funding, training, outreach, 

domestic scan 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages: 

66

22. Price 

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan i

Table of Contents

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and 

Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 1: Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3

Background.................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Scan Goals Objectives................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Scan Scope................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Team Composition........................................................................................................................................................................5

Organization of Report................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................7

Data Collection............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Data Analysis Tools....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Technical Assistance...................................................................................................................................................................10

Summary................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 3: Local Project Identification.................................................................................15

Strategic Highway Safety Plans..................................................................................................................................................15

County Road Safety Plans...........................................................................................................................................................15

Corridor Safety Program.............................................................................................................................................................16

Regional Programs.....................................................................................................................................................................16

Visual Reference Tools................................................................................................................................................................ 17

Summary................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Chapter 4: Local Project Administration............................................................................. 21

Local-Aid Divisions.....................................................................................................................................................................21

Application Administration........................................................................................................................................................22

Streamlining the Federal-Aid Process.........................................................................................................................................25

Summary................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 5: Funding................................................................................................................ 29

Funding Distribution..................................................................................................................................................................29

Financial Incentives....................................................................................................................................................................31

Summary................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Chapter 6: Training and Technical Assistance......................................................................34

Training......................................................................................................................................................................................34

Technical Assistance...................................................................................................................................................................36

Summary................................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Chapter 7: Partnerships and Outreach.................................................................................39

Partnerships...............................................................................................................................................................................39

Outreach....................................................................................................................................................................................41

Summary................................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Table of Contents

ii

Chapter 8: Local Agency Success Stories..............................................................................45

Georgia Local Success Story: Douglas County Safety Action Plan................................................................................................46

Minnesota Local Success Story: Township Sign Inventory and Replacement Pilot...................................................................... 46

Washington Local Success Story: Pierce County Safety Program.................................................................................................48

New Jersey Local Success Story: NJTPA Regional Safety Priorities Program................................................................................49

Chapter 9: Observations and Conclusions...........................................................................50

Primary Observations from the Domestic Scan.......................................................................................................................... 50

Appendices.............................................................................................................................53

State Fact Sheets........................................................................................................................................................................53

Alabama.................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Georgia...................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Illinois........................................................................................................................................................................................56

Michigan....................................................................................................................................................................................57

Minnesota................................................................................................................................................................................. 58

New Jersey.................................................................................................................................................................................59

Washington............................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Key Contacts in Host States........................................................................................................................................................ 61

Scan Team Members.................................................................................................................................................................. 65

List of Figures

Figure 1: Example of Alabama Department of Transportation Crash Map...................................................................................12

Figure 2: Minnesota HSIP Impact Pyramid................................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 3: Minnesota Proactive Spectrum....................................................................................................................................19

Figure 4: Curve Ahead Pavement Markings and Signage............................................................................................................46
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Executive Summary

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 1

Executive Summary

Locally-owned roadways in the United States are operated by more than 30,000 local 

jurisdictions covering approximately three million miles of roadway. The Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) indicates that approximately 40 percent of all fatal crashes on the 

nation’s highways occur on local roads. The amount of local roadway mileage and diversity of 

authority over local roadways create challenges for Federal, State, and local safety stakeholders 

to effectively direct funding and resources to mitigate safety issues on these roadways. Safety 

improvements at the local road level must be addressed methodically along with those efforts 

at the State level in order to significantly reduce the number of roadway related crashes on the 

nation’s network. However, in many States local road safety still remains an afterthought due to 

lack of communication and/or resources. 

The Federal Highway Administration conducted a Local Road Safety Domestic Scan of seven 

States to identify and highlight some of the most noteworthy programs, practices and 

procedures used by State and local agencies to address local roadway safety. The Local Road 

Safety Domestic Scan identified practices in funding, coordination, and technical assistance 

between State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and local agencies with other States. 

States can use this information to launch a local road safety program; or identify practices that 

will improve an established program.

Six common themes emerged from the Local Road Safety Domestic Scan: data collection and 

analysis, local project identification, local project administration, funding, training and technical 

assistance, and outreach and partnerships.

Crash data remains the foundation of roadway safety management programs. Local road 

agencies need access to a comprehensive crash database to identify locations with safety issues 

to inform countermeasure selection. In an effort to build a comprehensive crash database 

that includes local road data, the Illinois DOT allocated Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) funds to county governments to collect and geo-code their roadway crash data. The 

development of data analysis software with tools providing local agency access and training 

have proven effective in encouraging local road practitioners to take an active role in identifying 

safety issues and seeking resources to address them.

The scan States allocated all of their High Risk Rural Road Program (HRRRP) funds to the local 

road network; however, they all varied in how other Federal and State safety funds were used 

for local road projects. Washington State DOT dedicated all their HSIP funds to the local road 

network in the State. Minnesota DOT distributes their HSIP funds based on the distribution of 

fatal and serious injury crashes regardless of road ownership. Scan States also provided some 

extra financial incentives to local agencies to solicit their participation in the safety programs. 

Several of the scan States have streamlined the process by which local agencies obtain safety 

funds. For example, Minnesota DOT requires only one application for all sources of safety funds. 
Executive Summary

2 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Additionally, Minnesota DOT uses visual reference tools to assist applicants in the selection of 

eligible projects for funding. Illinois DOT developed an online HSIP application tool to reduce 

preparation time and provide quick feedback to applicants regarding application status. 

Additionally, Illinois DOT provides workshops during their application process to train local 

agency personnel on safety priorities and techniques as well the application process. Many of 

the scan States have instituted other time-saving procedures including the use of force account, 

categorical exclusions and lump sum programming. 

The main driving force behind methodologies used in the scan States to target local road 

projects was to identify projects that will most effectively address the State’s safety goals. 

Often States require local road safety projects to address key area strategies or actions in the 

State DOTs Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) or County Road Plans. Washington DOT uses 

a corridor approach, where corridors are identified through their data-driven Corridor Safety 

Program. Both systemic and hot spot projects were encouraged by scan States.

Training, as well as partnership and outreach efforts targeted for the local practitioner are 

an integral part of the scan States’ safety programs. The Local Technical Assistance Programs 

in all the scan States played a major role in offering safety training to local practitioners. 

Alabama DOT requires all county engineers to participate in data analysis and low cost safety 

improvement training to be eligible for HRRRP funds. In addition, the Illinois DOT provides road 

safety audit training for law enforcement officers.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are intimately involved in the transportation safety 

programs in New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois. The MPOs foster partnerships and outreach with 

local agencies. This is accomplished by providing training and technical assistance programs to 

afford local agencies the knowledge and technical ability to develop successful local roadway 

safety programs. 

Many State DOTs have dedicated personnel that provide oversight and assistance to local 

agencies, particularly with administration of Federal-aid projects. Visible local-aid divisions 

within the State DOT ensure relatively consistent coordination and collaboration between DOT 

personnel and local practitioners. Washington State DOT, Minnesota DOT and Alabama DOT 

each have a safety engineer dedicated to local agency technical assistance. In the other scan 

States, the safety office works closely with the local-aid division to promote and encourage local 

agency safety activity. 

A local safety program can be used to advance State and regional priorities. A safety program 

that actively integrates local road safety improvement through funding of local safety projects, 

training for local practitioners, and outreach and coordination can assist States in achieving their 

safety goals.
Chapter 1: Introduction

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 3

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background 

While the State highway and interstate roadway networks have historically accommodated the 

greatest traffic volumes and highest posted speeds, a review of the Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) indicates that approximately 40 percent of all fatal crashes on the nation’s 

highways occur on local roads. Local roads, as referenced in this document, are those owned 

and maintained by local jurisdictions (e.g., city, town, borough, county) and can be rural or 

urban. Local road agencies own and maintain approximately 75 percent of the nation’s 8.4 

million miles of roadway.1 With continued urban sprawl and new mobility demands placed on 

many rural and suburban areas, safety challenges have grown on local roadways. 

States are challenged to integrate road safety measures at the local level. To significantly 

reduce the number of roadway related crashes on the nation’s network, safety improvements 

at the local road level have to be addressed methodically along with those efforts at the State 

level. However, in many States, local road safety still remains an afterthought due to lack of 

communication and/or resources. All levels of government are concerned that local road safety 

is not making the progress it should and Federal safety funds are not readily accessible to local 

agencies for safety improvements. 

A number of issues inhibit the effective implementation of comprehensive and meaningful 

local road safety practices. Challenges to effective local roadway safety practices, include the 

following:

• The extent of the local roadway network.

• The variety of agencies involved in local roadway safety throughout each State.

• The lack of complete, accurate crash data and analysis tools. 

• The diversity in organizational structure and capabilities of local jurisdictions.

• The limited training and expertise in roadway safety at the local level.

• The shortage of funding and sometimes relative low priority for a local safety program.

• Management structure that cannot adequately accommodate the delivery of a local 

road safety program. 

• Federal requirements that may increase the cost and time to implement effective safety 

improvements. 

States are required to address roadway safety on all public roads. In 2005, the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) 

1 FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl10023/fig1_6.cfm
Chapter 1: Introduction

4 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

legislation created the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a core Federal-aid 

highway program. As States have focused on implementing the HSIP and achieving the crash 

reduction goals outlined by the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), some States have 

developed new strategies for comprehensive and data-driven analysis; policies to facilitate 

local agency participation; procedures to allocate funding; and coordination efforts with local 

agencies to ensure effective implementation of local roadway safety programs. 

Scan Goals Objectives

Several States have shown success 

integrating safety at the local road level and 

streamlining local agencies’ safety efforts. 

Seven such States, representing diverse 

geographic locations, were identified to 

participate in the Local Road Safety Domestic 

Scan, allowing a team of transportation 

professionals to visit and document their 

practices. 

The goal of the domestic scan was to identify 

and document noteworthy practices in the 

planning, programming and implementation 

of efforts to improve local road safety. 

Noteworthy practices include coordination efforts between State and local agencies, such as 

technical assistance, and funding the implementation of safety projects and programs. 

The objective was to share identified noteworthy practices in funding, coordination, and 

technical assistance with States and local agencies. By sharing information, States will gain 

insights on how to launch a local road safety program; or identify practices that will improve an 

established program.

Scan Scope

The domestic scan involved a tour of seven States by a team of transportation professionals 

from the Federal, State, and local levels. The seven States visited were Alabama, Georgia, 

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington. Scan States were selected based on 

geographic diversity and innovative approaches to addressing local road safety. The following 

highlights some of the specific practices that led to the selection of each State for the scan: 

• Alabama requires counties to participate in roadway safety training to be eligible for 

Federal funds. 

• Georgia funds off-system (local) coordinator positions as well as funding for off-system 

projects.

• Illinois provides HSIP funds to local agencies to collect and geo-locate crash data and 

conducts safety workshops that highlight the application process for safety funds.

Michigan scan visit
Chapter 1: Introduction

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 5

• Michigan’s Local Safety Initiative provides technical assistance to local agencies.

• Minnesota develops county-level road safety plans to encourage low-cost 

countermeasures and creates funding targets for local agencies to use HSIP funding.

• New Jersey’s local safety program is administered through regional planning agencies.

• Washington dedicates nearly all of its HSIP funding to local roadway safety.

At each of the seven States, round-table interviews were conducted with representatives from 

Federal, State and local transportation safety stakeholders. State DOTs and counties were the 

main participants in the domestic scan interviews, with representatives from Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs), law enforcement, Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP), 

and Governor’s Highway Safety Offices 

participating in some States. Participants 

from each State represented diversity in 

agency size, character of localities, and 

experience.

As outlined by the scope, this scan focused 

only on a small sub-set of the States 

conducting Local-aid programs for roadway 

safety. This report does not suggest that 

the programs and approaches used in the 

scan States comprise all of the necessary 

strategies for reduction of fatal and severe 

injury crashes on local roadways.

Team Composition

The Scan Team was composed of representatives from the FHWA, American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials – Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety 

(AASHTO-SCOHTS), the American Public Works Association (APWA), National Association of 

County Engineers (NACE), and Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP). The breadth and 

diversity of experience of the Scan Team representatives ensured a broad range of topics were 

covered and thoughtful discussions of noteworthy practices were completed during interviews 

with each State. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) served as the Scan Team facilitator and 

logistics coordinator. The full list of the Scan Team members and participants is included in the 

Appendix. 

Organization of Report

Six common themes emerged during the discussions and review of the domestic scan 

information provided by each of the States. These themes encompass a variety of similar 

practices that are used successfully in most or all of the scan States to improve local road safety. 

This report is organized by these themes:

Washington scan visit
Chapter 1: Introduction

6 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

• Data Collection and Analysis

• Local Project Identification

• Local Project Administration

• Funding

• Training and Technical Assistance 

• Outreach and Partnerships 

The remaining chapters are dedicated to these common themes, citing noteworthy practices 

from the scan States and the benefits realized. The noteworthy practices are followed by 

notable local agency success stories, general observations and conclusions. 
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 7

Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis 

Access to crash data and data analysis tools are the basis for an effective local road safety 

program. Crash data are used to identify locations with safety issues and assist in the 

prioritization of safety projects or programs competing for limited resources. However, many 

local agencies do not have access to crash data collected and compiled by their State or the 

technical training to analyze crash data and trends. As a result, local agencies with little or no 

access to crash data and analysis tools struggle to identify and address locations with datadriven safety needs.

To address this challenge, scan States utilize database, analysis, and mapping tools that can 

be easily shared with local agencies. They also provide technical assistance to aid local road 

practitioners in their safety analyses and countermeasure development. State assistance for 

local agencies in data collection and analysis can improve the ability of local agencies to develop 

projects and apply for funding. 

Data Collection

Local agencies need access to crash data to address safety on the roads they own and operate. 

However, obtaining comprehensive local road crash data has presented a challenge to some 

States. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) recognized that limited access to crash 

data is a barrier to identifying safety concerns that contribute to fatal and serious injury crashes 

on local roads. In 2005, IDOT embarked on an innovative program to improve their local road 

crash database. 

 

Using HSIP funding, Illinois counties contracted for services to geo-locate five years worth of 

fatal and severe crash data on local roads in each county. Some counties pooled their funds 

and coordinated with a regional Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) to do the work. Other counties 

used temporary staff, part-time interns, or contractors 

to complete the work. Many local agencies recognized 

the significant benefits of the data and have chosen to 

continue collecting and geo-locating crash data using 

other funding sources. These crash databases have 

helped the counties meet the IDOT requirement for five years of data to apply for HSIP funds. 

Similarly, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) funds two co-op students to geolocate crash data in the State database. New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) also employs students to geolocate crash data. The use of students is a cost effective means to improve crash data collection 

efforts. 

The Illinois Department of Transportation 

allocated $1 million of HSIP funds for 

counties to collect and geo-locate fatal 

and serious injury crashes on local roads. 
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis

8 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Data Analysis Tools

Crash data analysis can be time consuming and tedious when conducted manually, requiring 

a large portion of limited resources. Additionally, specialized training may be required to 

conduct data analyses. The identification of safety issues 

and selection of potential projects relies on crash data 

analysis. Employing user-friendly crash data analysis 

software tools to enhance the process has resulted in 

greater participation of local agencies in safety programs. 

Without data analysis tools, local agencies are challenged 

to review historical crash trends; calculate crash rates and compare them to statewide rates; 

and determine benefits of strategies that address safety issues on the roadways they own and 

operate. 

All scan States have either developed State-specific software tools, or use ones available from 

other States. These analysis tools are designed to help local agencies address roadway safety 

challenges by providing detailed crash information and identifying high risk locations. Scan 

States that provide local agencies access to data analysis software tools have shown increased 

interest in safety programs by these agencies. Highlights of specific data analysis tools are 

presented below.

Alabama

• Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) utilizes the data analysis software 

package developed by the University of Alabama – Critical Analysis Reporting 

Environment (CARE).

• CARE is a free, user-friendly, statistical analysis software package designed for problem 

identification and countermeasure development.

• ALDOT analyzes crash data using CARE for the entire road network. A link-node internal 

system is utilized to review crash data to determine the average crash rates on roadways 

for fatalities and incapacitating injuries. 

• Local agencies can access CARE once a confidentiality agreement is signed. 

• CARE is web-enabled and is being integrated with GIS. 

• CARE has the ability to analyze data and generate reports as well as crash diagrams. 

Georgia

• Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) also uses the CARE statistical analysis 

software package to analyze crash data.

• Some of the features of the Georgia version of CARE include crash diagrams, data 

mining, and narrative data searching.

• GDOT manages the crash data input and the University of Alabama maintains the 

software. 

• Access to the CARE software is controlled by GDOT, but made available to local and 

regional agencies through the University of Alabama’s website.

All scan States either provide local 

agencies access to crash data analysis 

tools or analyze local roadway crash 

data for the local agencies. 
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 9

Michigan

• MDOT funds and administers RoadSoft, a roadway management system with a safety 

component for storing and analyzing crash data.

• RoadSoft was developed by Michigan’s Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) center. 

• This software tool is available free of charge to all local agencies and provides not only 

a traffic crash database, but also data support for network screening, diagnostic tools, 

intersection analysis tools, and trend analysis.

• The output capabilities include graphical schematics with summary data, spreadsheets 

and tables that are used by all agencies to conduct a safety analysis.

• MDOT provides support and maintenance of the software, continually refining the data

to ensure the most reliable and up-to-date information is available to agencies. MDOT 

has used safety funding to enhance the functionality of the safety module, including 

enhanced mapping, crash trend analysis, intersection collision diagrams, 

and new crash ranking options. 

Minnesota

• The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Office of State Aid maintains 

the Minnesota Crash Mapping Tool (MnCMAT) system. MnCMAT provides a traffic crash 

database and crash analysis tools. 

• All local agencies have access to MnCMAT. The output capabilities include graphical 

schematics with summary data, spreadsheets and tables that are used by all agencies to 

conduct safety analyses.

• The Minnesota Department of Public Safety provides data to Mn/DOT who maintains an 

internal system known as the Traffic Information System (TIS) with up-to-date crash data. 

The TIS data is used to populate the MnCMAT system.

New Jersey

• New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) has partnered with the 

Transportation Safety Resource Center (TSRC) housed at Rutgers University to develop 

Plan4Safety, a web-based software tool to analyze crash data in geospatial and tabular 

formats.

• All local agencies have access to Plan4Safety. The application allows users to quickly 

filter and analyze crash data and simultaneously merge specialized data sources (e.g., 

roadway data, EMS records) with those records for a more focused, in-depth analysis.

• Other Plan4Safety capabilities include identifying crash clusters, performing 

frequency analysis, generating road histograms of crash locations, calculating crash 

rates, diagnosing and providing national best practice countermeasures for low-cost 

improvements. 

• The tool integrates statewide crash data and roadway characteristic data, calculates 

statistical analyses, incorporates network screening layers and models, and includes a 

visual analytical tool with accurate GIS location data. 
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis

10 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

• The GIS feature provides an interactive, visual overview of how many and what types of 

crashes are occurring at a given location. Satellite map views clearly show geographic 

details of crash sites, such as neighborhood characteristics, buildings, and intersection 

configurations. 

• Query results are presented in automatically generated charts and tables on the output 

screen. 

• The software also includes a module that allows users to apply for safety grants through 

the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.

Technical Assistance

Limited resources may deter several local road agencies from collecting crash data and 

conducting crash data analysis. States have developed software analysis tools that have proven 

more efficient in analyzing crash data. For various reasons, not all States allow local agency 

access to their software tools. Those that have access to the tools may require training to realize 

the full benefits. Scan States provide local agencies with comprehensive data collection and 

analysis support in multiple forms, including but not limited to: in-depth data analysis, daily 

fatality reports, crash maps for law enforcement and training support. 

In-Depth Data Analysis

Many State DOTs have elected to conduct in-depth crash data analyses on all public roads and 

share these with local agencies in lieu of providing crash data analysis tools. 

The Illinois Department of Transportation expanded its 

crash database to include local crash data and analyzes 

crash trends on local roadways. IDOT uses an electronic 

database known as Safety Data Mart (SDM) to maintain 

traffic crash data within the agency. Generally, crash 

data reports are provided to the local agencies through a 

request to the IDOT District Office. The SDM also provides the data for the development and 

distribution of the five percent report location maps and the maps that show the location of 

fatal and serious injury crashes. These maps are distributed for use by the IDOT District Offices 

and local agencies. 

 

Legal barriers in the State of Washington prevent the Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) from making raw crash data available to local agencies. Because crash 

data is not directly shared with local agencies, WSDOT conducts comprehensive data analysis 

for local jurisdictions on a county-by-county basis to identify high crash locations and the 

most prevalent crash types. The results are shared with local agencies. These types of direct 

technical assistance identify locations with safety issues, provide safety data for review, and 

aid identification of potential safety projects with little or no resource expenditure by the local 

agencies. 

All scan States either provide local 

agencies access to crash data analysis 

tools or analyze local roadway crash 

data for the local agencies. 
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 11

The Michigan Traffic Crash Facts website provides a yearly compilation and analysis of Michigan 

crash data for government agencies, the media, and the public. The data is provided by the 

Michigan Department of State Police from the Michigan Traffic Crash Forms (UD-10). The 

Michigan Traffic Crash Facts website is created and maintained by the University of Michigan 

Transportation Institute (UMTRI) for the Michigan State Police Office of Highway Safety 

Planning.

Daily Fatality Reports 

Well-coordinated data analysis support between State DOTs, law enforcement and local road 

agencies provides a conduit for joint review and timely response to fatal crash causes. Both the 

Georgia DOT and Illinois DOT issue daily fatality reports to their district offices via email or webaccess. In Illinois, the District Office sends a “scrubbed” version of this report to the County 

Engineers in which the fatal crash occurred. The District Offices work with local agencies and 

local law enforcement to review the need for any remedial actions.

Crash Maps for Law Enforcement

ALDOT currently develops color coded crash maps, which can be broken out by jurisdiction. 

As shown in Figure 1, these maps provide a visual of high crash locations color coded by 

segments using a link-node system. Segments show high crash locations and specify areas of 

severe crashes. Currently only some local roads are included in the system. ALDOT is nearing 

completion of a project that will update their link-node system to have the capability to 

reference all county roads.

These crash maps are used by several safety stakeholders including law enforcement. The 

police use the crash maps to develop plans to allocate manpower for traffic enforcement 

activity. Through the data gleaned from the maps the police can determine types of crashes, 

time of day and other crash attributes for selective enforcement.
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis

12 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Regional Crash Profiles

Many State DOTs often work with regional agencies to address data analysis challenges for local 

practitioners. In Georgia and New Jersey, the regional MPOs play an important role in bridging 

the gap between the State DOT and local transportation 

agencies. For instance, the Atlanta Regional Commission 

(the MPO for the Atlanta Metropolitan Area), develops 

crash profiles for member counties every two years. These 

crash profiles identify locations with high crash severity 

by location or victim type, including corridor, intersection, 

pedestrian, and bicycle locations. 

In Georgia, the Atlanta Regional 

Commission develops crash profiles for 

member counties every two years. 

!!

87°30'W

87°30'W

35°N

34°30'N

34°N

Absolute Scale is 1:400,000

~~

5 2.5 0 5

Miles

1 inch 6.3 miles 

2008

2007

2006

(3)

(0)

(1)

(1)

(3)

(75) (15)

(71) (16)

(87) (14) (0)

##1 ##2 ##4

$1 $2 $9

%1 %2 %3 %4

##1 ##2 ##3

##3

$1 $2 $3

%1 %2 %3 %4

%4

##1 ##2

$1 $2

%1 %2 %3

$6 $10

##5 ##6 (0) (0) (0)

(0) (0)

(0) (0) (0)

2008

2007

2006

2008

2007

2006

##1

##1 ##4

##4

##3

##3

##2

##2

$4

$4

%1

%1 %2%2 %3%3

%6

%6 %5%5

(0)

(0) (0)

(1)

(23)

(2) (0) (0)

(6) (0) (0)

(25) (3)

(2)

(16) (0)

(6) (0)

Fatal Crash Locations*

Auto/Motorcycle

DUI Auto/Motorcycle

Truck

2008

2007

2006

2008

2007

2006

2008

2007

2006

(0)

(0)

(4) (0)

(1) (0)

(6) (0)

(3) (0)

(4) (0) (0)

(0) (2)

(0)

(0)

(3)

##1 ##2

$1 $2 $3

%1 %2

#*1

$+1

%1

##2

$5

%3 %1

%1 %2

$1

$1 $2

##1

##1

(S#)ta=teTo

Crash

Count

Type A Injury Crash Locations**

Auto/Motorcycle

DUI/Alcohol-related Auto/Motorcycle

Truck

Total Fatal & Type A Crash

Count per Route Segment Crash

Count

Range

(ALDOT

Segments

per Range)

9-11 (7)

30-32 (0)

1-2 (40)

20-22 (0)

3-5 (23)

23-24 (0)

6-8 (11)

25-29 (0)

12-13 (4)

33-40 (0)

14-15 (1)

41-49 (0)

16-19 (3)

3S94tateTo

Total

Crashes

Trooper Post/

Office Location

& Jurisdiction

M!(P M!(O

(0)

(1)

$3

# ##7 #6

%4

%4

#*7 (0)

Truck DUI

2007 $+1 (0)

##1

$2

%2

%7

%24 (0)

(0)

##4

##5

##8 (0)

(0)

(0)

$1

$1 $2$2 $3$3

$7

$7

$5

$5 (0) $11 (0)

ALDOT Division

ALDOT District

ALDOT

2nd Division

2006 - 2008 Run-off-the-Road

Fatal & Type A Inury Crashes

ALDOT Routes

September 2009

ALDOT

2nd Division

2006 - 2008 Run-off-the-Road

Fatal & Type A Inury Crashes

ALDOT Routes

September 2009

$1

%1

(1)

(0)

%2 (0)

2007

2006

Truck

Alcohol-related

Crash Location Data Source: 2006-08 Crash-Road Data CARE

Version 8.2.3090 and using ArcMap converting FARS latlon data to mileposts. *

** 79% (372 of 473) Run-off-the-Road Type A Injury Crashes had sufficient

Route ID and Milepost data to enable mapping and analysis.

N

%4 (0)

Figure 1: Example of Alabama Department of Transportation Crash Map

Source: Alabama Department of Transportation
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 13

In New Jersey, the North Jersey Transportation Authority (NJTPA) conducts data analyses that 

identify safety priorities for each county within its region. County transportation agencies 

review the maps to identify locations with safety issues that may be candidates for safety 

projects.

 

Training Support

In developing analytical software tools for local road agency personnel to utilize in their safety 

projects and programs, scan States have also recognized that training is a necessary component. 

To assist local agencies in understanding how RoadSoft can be used in their safety programs, 

MDOT sponsors multiple training sessions each year, geared toward basic, intermediate and 

advanced user levels. These training sessions are usually conducted by the Michigan LTAP 

center. The University of Alabama works with ALDOT and GDOT to provide training courses 

to local agencies for use of the CARE software. In New Jersey, the TSRC provides training to 

agencies on the use of the Plan4Safety software and its capabilities. These training courses help 

local agencies to fully utilize the software tools for data analysis independent of the State DOT. 

Summary

Crash data is the foundation for an effective transportation safety program. Crash data is used to 

identify locations with safety issues and assist in the prioritization of safety projects or programs 

competing for limited resources. Access to a comprehensive crash database and data analysis 

tools are major steps in advancing with a local roadway safety program. Many State DOTs 

have recognized the importance of placing crash data analysis and tools in the hands of local 

agencies. As a result: 

• IDOT uses HSIP funds to collect and geo-locate crash data on local roads. This helps local 

agencies support their application for safety funds.

• MDOT capitalizes on relationships with law enforcement for timely submission of crash 

data.

• ALDOT, GDOT, MDOT, Mn/DOT, and NJDOT utilize database, analysis, and mapping tools 

that are shared with local agencies. These tools are the primary means by which local 

agencies identify locations with critical safety issues. These State DOTs also provide local 

road agencies with training on the use of data analysis software tools. 

• IDOT and WSDOT provide in-depth data analyses for local jurisdictions. This assistance 

has led to the identification of safety issues, development of safety countermeasures, 

and applications for safety funding to complete improvements on local roadways in the 

States.

• IDOT, ALDOT and GDOT provide daily fatal crash reports to local stakeholders to enable 

quick response to safety issues.

• MPOs in Georgia and New Jersey develop regional crash data maps or profiles that local 

agencies use to assess locations with safety concerns. 
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis

14 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

State assistance for local agencies in data collection and analysis improves the ability of local 

agencies to develop projects and apply for funding in the scan States. When State DOTs provide 

the means to better collect, analyze, and understand crash data, they expand and improve 

the ability for local agencies to make valuable decisions regarding local roadway safety. These 

activities provide the foundation for local agencies to identify projects that will provide the 

greatest benefits to transportation safety in their region. 
Chapter 3: Local Project Identification

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 15

Chapter 3: Local Project Identification

A consistent, organized and well-communicated project identification process is needed for a 

successful local road safety program. The scan States have instituted policies and procedures 

to direct local agencies to identify projects that address their roadway safety needs and support 

statewide crash reduction goals. The local roadway safety projects may take many forms, range 

widely in cost, and include both hotspot improvements and broader systemic safety measures. 

This chapter describes some of the approaches to project identification used in the scan States.

Strategic Highway Safety Plans

State DOTs have developed Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP), which identify the State’s 

safety goals, priorities and strategies. Local agencies are often directed to identify projects 

based on the priorities established in the SHSP. Additionally, several scan States encourage 

low-cost treatments that can be applied systemically to address overrepresented crash types or 

patterns. 

MDOT’s HSIP process prioritizes broad systemic treatments that align with the priorities and 

recommendations included in the Michigan SHSP. MDOT compiles and distributes a resource 

list that indicates high-priority crash types, based on emphasis areas of the SHSP, and potential 

corridor-wide countermeasures, which are considered effective and likely to receive approval 

for safety funding. MDOT encourages local agencies to address locations in the State’s 

Transparency Report and maintain consistent countermeasures throughout the roadway 

system. The final decision on project identification is left to the local agencies. Safety initiatives 

have included guardrail upgrades, signal modernizations, and corridor signal timing upgrades, 

which all tie into the lane departure and intersection focus areas of the Michigan SHSP. 

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) reviews and updates their SHSP 

priorities every two years identifying priority crash types statewide. Priority crash types are 

identified based on fatal and serious injury crashes statewide. Roadway departure crashes have 

been elevated to the highest priority for remedial actions based on the most recent statewide 

crash data review. Once SHSP priorities are set, WSDOT conducts statewide analyses of local 

roadways on a county-by-county basis to identify the top fatal and severe injury crash locations. 

WSDOT determines the top 25 percent of counties (equivalent to 10 counties) that qualify as 

“above average” for a priority collision type. 

County Road Safety Plans

Many local agencies would benefit from their State’s assistance and guidance to assess local 

roadway safety and identify projects related to the SHSP goals. Minnesota developed a 

County Road Safety Plan (RSP) Program to help its counties identify potential safety projects. 

The program uses funding from traffic violations and takes a 4E (engineering, education, 

enforcement, emergency service) approach. 
Chapter 3: Local Project Identification

16 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

The RSP process enables State safety specialists to work alongside county staff and other 

safety stakeholders to identify a prioritized list of projects. Mn/DOT, via a consultant, provides 

technical assistance to counties to identify local safety emphasis areas, priority strategies, and a 

prioritized list of safety projects. The primary objective of 

the RSPs is to identify a specific set of low-cost, systemic 

safety projects that are linked directly to the causation 

factors associated with the most severe crashes on 

the county’s roadway system. Minnesota intends to 

implement RSPs in all counties within three years.

The RSP process increases safety awareness among local staff and stakeholders. Local agency 

personnel are more familiar with identifying safety issues on their roadways and suitable 

countermeasures to address them. 

Corridor Safety Program

Local agencies are often intimidated by the volumes of crash data that must be reviewed to 

properly identify safety issues on their roadways. Some local agencies are unsure what process 

to use to translate crash data for an entire jurisdiction into the development of individual safety 

projects. In a combined effort with the Washington 

Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC), WSDOT has developed 

a Corridor Safety Program that identifies high crash 

corridors on the local road network. This initiative relieves 

local agencies of the data analysis requirements and helps 

local agencies address safety issues on their roadways.

The high-incidence corridors are selected based on crash analyses showing a higher than 

average rate of crashes. The length of corridors for this program ranges significantly, from 3.5 

to 60 miles in length. A task force is formed and site visits are conducted to identify specific 

safety-related issues on selected corridors. Suitable low-cost safety countermeasures are 

identified and implemented to improve safety on the corridor. The typical duration of review 

and improvement implementation on a selected corridor ranges between 18 and 24 months. 

WSDOT has used marketing efforts, such as branding, billboards, and websites, to publicize 

the projects and their safety benefits to roadway users. The Corridor Safety Program has been 

successful at increasing road safety in addition to building community relationships and safety 

awareness.

Regional Programs

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) established the Local Safety Program to 

provide funding for local road safety projects. Technical assistance and outreach were needed to 

promote this new program and educate local agencies on 

safety management practices. However, NJDOT recognized 

that they did not have the resources to support the 

program in this manner. Therefore, NJDOT partnered with 

the MPOs to identify and select local safety projects. 

Examples of some results of Minnesota 

County RSP projects include edge-line 

rumble strips/stripes; enhanced curve 

delineation; intersection lighting; and 

dynamic warning devices.

WSDOT instituted a Corridor Safety 

Program that identifies and addresses 

high crash corridors on the local road 

network.

New Jersey’s Local Safety Program is 

administered via the regional MPOs. 
Chapter 3: Local Project Identification

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 17

NJDOT regularly conducts an analysis of the crash data using a web-based crash data 

application, Plan4Safety, to determine areas to concentrate resources. These locations are 

separated into lists according to roadway characteristics and shared with the respective 

MPO. Each MPO is allocated a portion of HSIP funds for local road safety projects. The three 

New Jersey MPOs then develop programs that best meet their region’s needs. North Jersey 

Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) periodically conducts a study to identify regional 

safety priorities, identifying potential locations for improvement based on criteria such as 

degree of crash exposure and geographic distribution of crashes, with a focus on county and 

local roads. The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO) sponsors road safety 

audits at locations identified through a data-driven process. The Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission (DVRPC) works with their counties to identify projects from various 

planning studies to advance to implementation through the Transportation Improvement 

Program. 

MPOs can provide valuable coordination and assistance to local agencies to address regional 

safety priorities. The New Jersey example capitalizes on existing relationships and organizational 

structure, while promoting transportation safety planning that develops programs and projects 

to meet the goals and objectives of the region. 

Visual Reference Tools

Rather than rely on local agencies to search through copious amounts of research and other 

sources of information on countermeasure effectiveness, Mn/DOT has developed an easilyaccessible summary of preferred roadway safety treatments. 

Mn/DOT created a visual reference tool, the HSIP Impact Pyramid, shown in Figure 2. The HSIP 

Impact Pyramid succinctly shows the relative benefits of various roadway safety measures by 

grouping individual countermeasures in a hierarchy of four “impact” tiers. The pyramid shows 

the most beneficial strategies on the largest tier (the pyramid base/foundation) and narrows to 

the least beneficial items on the smallest tier (the pinnacle). The HSIP Impact Pyramid reflects 

Mn/DOT’s preference for systemic HSIP improvements that will result in the greatest impacts 

to local roadway safety, while acknowledging that reactive site-specific measures must also be 

considered. This tool has helped local agencies understand which improvements are effective, 

select eligible projects, and reduce crash potential on local roadways. 
Chapter 3: Local Project Identification

18 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Figure 2: Minnesota HSIP Impact Pyramid

Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Division

In addition, Mn/DOT uses what they refer to as the Proactive Spectrum, shown in Figure 3, 

in the project selection process for HSIP funding. A minimum of 70 percent of the projects 

awarded to each Area Transportation Partnership (ATP) are proactive; while a maximum of 

30 percent of projects awarded to each ATP are reactive projects and must have a benefit/

cost (B/C) ratio greater than 1.0 to be considered for funding. The Proactive Spectrum is not 

inclusive of all potential safety strategies. Additional strategies may be appropriate for some 

roadways. Minnesota created the Proactive Spectrum to help decision-makers achieve the 

maximum safety benefit as intended by HSIP.
Chapter 3: Local Project Identification

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 19

Figure 3: Minnesota HSIP Impact Pyramid

Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Division

Wider Shoulders Full Shoulders Roadway Realignment Divided Roadway 

• Rumble Strips 

• Rumble Stripes 

• Sign Updates 

• Wider lines 

• Wet Reflective Lines 

• Safety Edge 

• Curve Appurtenances 

• Cable Barrier 

• Profile Stripes 

• Active Warning System 

• New Guardrail 

Examples of HSIP Lane Departure Proactive/Systematic Strategy Deployments 

NOTE: The Proactive Spectrum is not all inclusive of all safety strategies. Additional strategies may be appropriate for some roadways. 

GREATER MN PROACTIVE SPECTRUM

> 70% < 30%

• Pavement Markings (Stop Bars) 

• Lighting 

• Curb Extensions 

• Sign Enhancements 

• Active Warning Systems 

• Sight Distance Improvements 

(Sign relocations, etc.) 

Right Turn Lanes

• Left Turn Lanes 

• Acceleration/Deceleration 

Lanes 

• Access Management 

Traffic control 

(Signals, 

Roundabouts, etc.) 

Interchanges 

Examples of HSIP Intersection Proactive/Systematic Strategy Deployments 

Low Cost High Cost 

High HSIP Priority Low HSIP Priority 

Pure Proactive More Reactive 

Summary

Policies and procedures developed by the scan States have helped local transportation agencies 

identify systemic and site-specific improvements to improve transportation safety. Scan 

States have identified priorities and developed mechanisms to steer local road agency project 

selection processes.

In summary, practices for identifying projects on local roadways in the scan States include:

• MDOT and WSDOT focus on priorities established in the State SHSP. 

• Mn/DOT develops county road safety plans that identify low-cost, systemic safety 

projects that are linked directly to the causation factors associated with the most severe 

crashes on the county’s highways.

• In NJ, MPOs provide valuable coordination and assistance to local agencies in data 

analysis and project identification to address regional safety priorities.
Chapter 3: Local Project Identification

20 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

• The WSDOT Corridor Safety Program identifies low-cost countermeasures to address 

roadway segments with safety issues. Projects are locally managed with WSDOT and 

WTSC assistance.

• Mn/DOT uses visual reference tools to show the impact of countermeasures and give 

local practitioners guidance to select both proactive and reactive projects.

• States are looking beyond individual crash sites to implement systemic improvements on 

corridors and roadway networks that are susceptible to overrepresented crash types. 

The project identification practices discussed in this section provide resources for local 

transportation agencies to effectively pursue transportation safety funding and allow the State 

DOTs to remain involved in the review and analysis process. Productive collaboration between 

transportation agencies at all levels lays the groundwork for successful project identification. 

States must remain involved and guide local agencies through the project identification process 

to realize safety goals. 
Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 21

Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

Local roadway agencies across the nation have major personnel diversity in terms of number, 

expertise and duties. Large agencies have dedicated staff that serves as project administration 

liaisons with State DOT personnel. As a result, these individuals are well versed in the 

requirements for successfully implementing transportation projects utilizing State and Federal 

sources of funding. Dedicating administrative resources and committing technical staff to 

acquire funding and implement projects can be difficult for local agencies to manage. 

To assist local agencies in completing safety projects, many State DOTs have allocated staff 

resources to coordinate with local agency staff to administer local safety projects. States 

have created separate departments to administer funding and technical assistance to local 

agencies. The departments create guidelines and procedures to guide local safety programs 

and encourage participation in the process. Many agencies have also instituted time-saving 

procedures to streamline the project development process. This chapter describes some of the 

practices related to the administration of local safety programs in the scan States.

Local-Aid Divisions

Local transportation agencies vary widely in size, funding, technical capabilities, and 

administrative resources. Application for transportation funds in many States often involves 

significant effort, which can be a burden for many local agencies. As a result, local agencies 

may be reluctant to apply for available funds. State DOTs have created local roadway divisions 

to develop application guidelines, review project applications, provide technical assistance to 

applicants, and provide overall administration of local roadway improvement programs. 

The DOTs in all scan States have a Local-aid division. While the structure and operation of the 

Local-aid divisions vary among scan States, the Local-aid division typically consists of a central 

office with support from district or regional offices. The central office is generally responsible 

for developing program applications and guidelines, as well as project selection, whereas the 

regional or district offices are involved in the day-to-day coordination with local agencies. 

Specific safety-related technical assistance is provided by State liaisons or MPOs. The State 

liaisons can be either dedicated staff of the Local-aid 

division or representatives of the DOT’s safety office. The 

Local-aid division may also manage projects on behalf 

of local agencies. The greatest benefit of the Local-aid 

divisions is that they establish a formal mechanism for 

local agencies to obtain State and Federal funding. 

The strength of these divisions, the breadth and depth of technical assistance, and the resulting 

relationship-building between the State DOT and the local agencies are significant factors in the 

success of the local road safety programs in the scan States.

The DOTs in all scan States have 

separate divisions that support the 

advancement of local safety projects. 
Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

22 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Application Administration

States have developed application procedures that provide clear guidance to local agencies 

seeking funds for safety projects. The scan States have developed preferred procedures for 

soliciting and reviewing applications seeking HSIP, High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP), and 

State safety funding. State guidance includes project selection criteria practices and monitoring 

that encourage local agencies to complete the projects in a timely manner. The following 

describes practices in project application guidelines and program procedures that have assisted 

local agencies in obtaining and using funds for safety projects. 

Application Committees

ALDOT established a HRRRP Committee to seek local stakeholder involvement and input during 

the project selection and prioritization process for the High Risk Rural Road Program (HRRRP). 

This committee includes representatives from ALDOT, counties, and the FHWA Alabama 

Division. The primary purpose of the committee is to establish a competitive methodology for 

project eligibility and selection as well as guidelines and procedures to obtain HRRRP funds. 

Each year the eligibility requirements established by the committee are reevaluated to ensure 

that competitive funding supports projects designed to reduce crashes and maximize benefits 

on rural roadways. 

ALDOT dedicates 100 percent of its HRRRP funds to the local road system. County input in 

the application process and guidelines ensures county engineers buy-in. This has enhanced 

participation in the HRRRP.

Application Tools 

The Illinois Department of Transportation has developed 

an online HSIP application tool, including a built-in benefitto-cost (B/C) analysis function. The IDOT application 

requires a variety of information and data requirements 

for local agencies to complete, including photos, crash 

data analysis, and B/C analysis through an electronic 

online form. Once the application is completed, it is instantly available within the IDOT system 

for review. An IDOT review team initially reviews B/C analysis information for completeness 

and relevance before reviewing the entire application. Application issues can be identified and 

resolved quickly through the online process.

Staggered and Flexible Solicitation

Local agencies unfamiliar with the Federal-aid program requirements may not understand which 

funding mechanisms best fit their local roadway safety projects. In addition, where multiple 

sources of funding exist, submitting an application for each can be time consuming. The time 

consuming process can act as a deterrent to submitting an application, especially when local 

agencies are competing for small amounts of funding. 

MDOT’s standard call for HSIP projects is completed on an annual basis. The annual requests for 

HSIP and HRRRP projects are staggered by several months to allow local agencies to respond to 

Online application tools allow IDOT to 

identify mistakes or omissions for local 

agencies before significant time has 

elapsed.
Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 23

the more restrictive program (HRRRP) first. All local safety projects not receiving HRRRP funding 

are automatically rolled into the HSIP selection process, giving those projects a second chance 

at funding. This policy elevates the potential for each local project to receive funding.

Beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2010, MDOT now has the HSIP projects on a two year cycle 

(i.e., MDOT solicited FY 2011 projects in FY 2009) to give local agencies needed lead time to 

complete preliminary steps, such as topographical surveys, right-of-way (ROW) identification, 

conceptual design, and budgeting. The following summarizes the typical two-year program 

schedule:

• Application window: November 2008 – March 2009.

• Scoring: March 2009 – July 2009.

• Selection: July 2009 – August 2009.

• Authorization for Implementation: October 1, 2010.

The two-year cycle gives adequate time for local agencies to prepare their applications. The 

cycle also provides a consistent and reliable schedule for local agencies.

Universal Applications

Limited time and resources limit the number of applications local agencies submit for safety 

project funding. Mn/DOT permits local agencies to submit one application for consideration 

under all Federal and State safety funding sources. Mn/DOT annually distributes funding 

solicitation notices to local agencies for eligible local roadway safety projects. Once the final 

list of projects is approved, the projects are reviewed for eligibility with appropriate funding 

sources. The single application reduces complexity for local applicants and minimizes the need 

to expend additional resources on multiple applications. 

Joint Applications

Historically, low levels of cooperation between local agencies leads some safety projects to 

terminate at jurisdictional boundaries or go undeveloped altogether. Mn/DOT encourages 

local agencies to combine efforts and submit joint applications through the Mn/DOT districts 

when possible. The county engineers agree to manage different phases of the project delivery 

process for these joint applications. For example, one county engineer might lead early efforts 

on coordinating and submitting an application for funding, while another county engineer 

would handle the later tasks of construction inspection, documentation, and contractor 

payments after a project has been funded and let for construction. 

This process helps Mn/DOT allocate funding to multiple agencies and encourage partnership 

amongst neighboring communities. Mn/DOT’s joint applications encourage consistent 

and region-wide responses to common safety issues, particularly when systemic safety 

improvements are implemented across jurisdictional boundaries. 
Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

24 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Prioritization

States with clear guidelines to prioritize projects generally receive well-prepared and targeted 

project applications. MDOT specifies the following elements will be used to evaluate and 

prioritize local safety projects:

• Scope of work.

• Time of Return (TOR).2 

• Ratio of estimated cost-per-annual benefit.

• Ties to the SHSP initiatives.

These criteria ensure that local roadway projects with the greatest crash-reduction benefits 

receive the highest priority. Local agencies that consider these criteria in their applications 

stand the greatest chance for selection. 

Projects that address locations in Michigan’s five percent report are also evaluated using the 

criteria. MDOT finds that the the Time of Return analysis results are very good for safety project 

applications related to locations in the five percent report, which generally allows these projects 

to rise to the top in the overall scoring. 

Project Award Requirements

While improved application procedures can increase local agency participation, States should 

ensure safety funds are spent efficiently. Workable safety programs require States to develop 

requirements that achieve the highest possible rate of project completion.

The IDOT process takes approximately two years from the solicitation to complete design and 

construction of individual safety projects. IDOT generally attempts to select HSIP and HRRRP 

projects by the beginning of the State fiscal year and strives to complete local roadway safety 

projects in the same fiscal year that the project funding is awarded. This requirement keeps the 

local agencies focused on applying for construction-ready projects and other projects that have 

received public support from local officials or stakeholders. 

Like IDOT’s policy, all MDOT local roadway projects must 

be completed in the same fiscal year that the project 

funding is awarded. MDOT gives agencies a notice to 

prepare for the funding in advance of the award. This 

allows ample time to prepare for the project so that the 

funding can be obligated as soon as possible after the award. MDOT also establishes a cap for 

2 MDOT’s Time of Return (TOR) analysis measures the anticipated cost effectiveness of a project by using historic 

crash data to calculate the amount of money saved each year from crashes mitigated by the proposed project. 

Dividing the total project cost by the money saved each year in crash mitigation yields the number of years it will 

take to cover the costs of a project. The less time needed to recoup the investment, the more cost effective the project 

is considered. Projects that are cost effective will have a TOR that is less than 10 years long. (Genesee County 2035 

LRTP, Safety Technical Report, http://www.co.genesee.mi.us/gcmpc-plan/LRTPWeb/TechReports/Safety.pdf)

Michigan currently caps its Federal 

funding allocation for local projects at 

$400,000 per project.
Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 25

Federal funding allocated to each project, which ensures funding can be awarded to a large and 

diverse pool of local recipients and limits the potential for any one recipient to receive, but fail 

to use, a significant portion of the funding.

Streamlining the Federal-Aid Process

States are adopting processes and procedures to streamline their safety programs and expedite 

the process to encourage local road agencies to prepare and submit applications for safety 

funds. The following describes practices used by the scan States to streamline the safety 

program process. 

Force Accounts 

The Federally required competitive bid process for construction projects is often burdensome 

and time consuming for local agencies, requiring up to two years before some projects are 

constructed. This represents a challenge, particularly for the small amounts of funding often 

associated with low-cost safety improvements. 

The Alabama Department of Transportation permits local agencies to use force account3 to 

enable delivery of small projects in order to save time on the overall process. MDOT also 

permits local projects to be constructed using force accounts. Federal agencies must document 

a finding of cost effectiveness and receive FHWA Division Office approval to use force account 

procedures. States have found that force account enables expedited delivery of small projects, 

such as pavement markings, at considerably lower cost than if implemented via the competitive 

bid process. 

Abbreviated Plan Review Process

The number of steps, level of information, and review time required to complete the Federalaid application process can be discouraging. Local agencies would prefer to complete the 

process as quickly as possible to implement much needed improvements, particularly low-cost 

measures that can reduce crashes immediately. 

The process for handling Hazard Elimination Safety Type 

(HES-TYPE) projects within the ALDOT Central Office has 

been streamlined. First, HES-TYPE projects must meet 

minimum eligibility requirements. Then, only project work directly related to the safety problem 

can be included in the application. Proposed projects normally should not require any right-ofway acquisition or major utility relocations. The intent of the streamlined review process is to 

produce fast track projects that will take the least number of steps in the plan preparation stage. 

HES-TYPE projects are developed using a minimum number of plan sheets. The plan assembly 

for HES-TYPE projects should be held to a minimum, typically with 10 sheets or less consisting 

3As defined by Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, “force account [is] the direct performance of highway 

construction work by a State transportation department, county...by use of labor, equipment, materials and supplies 

furnished by the agency and used under their direct control” [23 CFR 635 Subpart B, U.S. DOT FHWA. http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/cfr23toc.htm] 

Each Alabama county or municipality 

submits a prioritized list of up to three 

locations for HES-TYPE consideration. 
Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

26 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

of a Title Sheet, Typical Section Sheet, Project Note Sheet, Summary of Quantities, Plan-Profile 

Sheet, Traffic Control Plan (TCP), and Cross Sections. The designer can utilize special and 

standard drawings to complete the design and plan preparation effort. This reduces the plan 

review process by allowing for minimal reviews and early authorization. 

Project Programming

In order to receive HSIP funding for local roadway safety projects, the projects and their funding 

sources must be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The 

STIP includes all capital and non-capital projects funded under Title 23, United States Code - 

Highways, covers a period of not less than four years, and is updated at least every four years. 

Highway safety improvement programs are often developed on an annual basis; therefore, it is 

sometimes difficult to know which projects will be advancing in four years. Fortunately, States 

can group projects by function, work type and/or geographic area in one line item if a project 

is not of regional significance, or of appropriate scale to warrant individual identification. For 

example, several low-cost safety enhancements could be grouped together and listed as various 

safety improvements for one county.

In order to provide sufficient flexibility with programming safety projects on an annual basis, 

Illinois uses a combination of line-item and project-by-project listing in the STIP. For State and 

local safety projects not within the borders of an MPO, IDOT uses a STIP line item and amends 

the list of projects based on their annual status. For safety projects within an MPO, the MPO 

is responsible for listing each project in their respective TIP. Use of STIP line items (i.e., lump 

sum programming) allows for greater flexibility in programming projects on an annual basis and 

addressing data-driven needs to move projects forward.

Categorical Exclusions

Highway safety projects receiving Federal funding are required to complete environmental 

impact reviews. Local agencies planning to construct low-cost or systemic improvements, 

with little or no potential for environmental impacts, frequently cite these requirements as a 

deterrent to applying for funding. 

Federal legislation for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines a 

number of Categorical Exclusions (CE) exempting certain types of safety projects from extensive 

Federal environmental impact review (i.e., preparation of Environmental Impact Statements). 

Projects qualify as CEs if they meet various requirements demonstrating a likelihood of minimal 

infrastructure, environmental, or historical resources impacts. For instance, the legislation 

exempts the construction of pedestrian/bicycle facilities, as well as the installation of signs, 

pavement markings and traffic signals (where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption 

will occur) , among others,4 from further NEPA review. 

New Jersey’s Local Safety Program identifies several project selection criteria. One of these 

criteria is the requirement that minimal or no environmental issues exist, which allows the 

4 U.S. DOT FHWA Legislation & Regulations, 23 CFR 771; 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/23cfr771.htm#sec.771.117
Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 27

project to obtain a CE classification. A CE classification requires significantly less time and 

resources than environmental impact statements or environmental assessments, thereby 

resulting in expedited project delivery. 

Strategies designed to simplify or shorten the Federal-aid process have allowed local agencies to 

increase participation and complete more local safety projects. 

Summary

Many State DOTs have dedicated personnel that provide oversight and assistance to local 

agencies in their respective States particularly with administration of Federal-aid Projects. 

Visible Local-aid divisions within the State DOT ensure relatively consistent coordination and 

collaboration between DOT personnel and local practitioners. The primary role of the Localaid divisions is to provide guidance to local agencies to navigate the application process and 

implement projects. Specific technical assistance is often provided by subject matter experts. 

For example, WSDOT, Mn/DOT and ALDOT each have a Safety Engineer dedicated to local 

agency technical assistance. In the other scan States, the Safety office works closely with the 

Local-aid division on local agency safety activities. 

While the structure of the Local-aid divisions varies across the States, the benefits to local 

agencies are mirrored in all the scan States, as follows:

• Guidance (often hands-on) to navigate the State’s application process and implement 

projects. 

• Technical assistance to local agencies in identifying and prioritizing projects with the 

greatest safety benefits.

• Strong partnerships between agencies are established, which enhance their ability to 

achieve statewide crash reduction goals. 

• MDOT and ALDOT use force account procedures that allow local agencies to use internal 

resources to construct projects, which saves time and resources on the completion 

schedule.

• IDOT programs safety projects by consolidated line items in the STIP to allow flexibility in 

moving projects forward. 

• Categorical exclusions may be used to exempt local safety projects with minimal 

environmental impacts from Federal environmental review, which speeds the approval 

and completion schedule. 

Many of the scan States have instituted innovative practices to administer local safety programs 

and streamline the Federal-aid process to encourage greater local participation. Some examples 

include: 

• ALDOT formed a committee with local agency representatives to develop methodology, 

and application guidelines for safety programs. 
Chapter 4: Local Project Administration

28 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

• IDOT developed an online HSIP application tool to reduce production times and provide 

quick feedback to applicants if their application is incomplete. 

• MDOT instituted a two year cycle for application to ensure completion of projects in the 

same year funds are awarded. 

• Mn/DOT requires one application for all safety funding sources. 

The scan States’ Local-aid administration structures and practices may serve as models for other 

States to develop effective management of local safety programs. Dedicated State DOT localaid divisions and application guidelines facilitate greater local agency participation and more 

effective projects. These divisions understand the various funding mechanisms for local safety 

projects and provide instrumental support for local agencies to acquire and obligate funding. 
Chapter 5: Funding

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 29

Chapter 5: Funding 

Most local jurisdictions do not have dedicated transportation safety funds. As a result, 

safety projects have to compete with other local transportation needs for funds. Often the 

competition for funds is not limited to transportation needs but other local requirements like 

schools and utilities. Without safety funding from outside sources, local agencies may be unable 

to complete essential safety projects. In some cases, Federal and State programs set aside 

money to distribute to local roads. 

SAFETEA-LU established the HSIP, which provided over $1 billion annually through FY 2009 to 

fund highway safety projects on all public roads. The HRRRP, which is a set aside component of 

the HSIP funds, supports safety projects on lower functional-class rural roads. The scan States 

have developed HSIP funding mechanisms to increase local agency participation in the Federalaid process and to distribute funding to eligible safety projects. The following describes some of 

the funding practices used by scan States to encourage local agency participation in their safety 

programs. 

Funding Distribution

The approach to funds distribution to local agencies varies amongst the scan States. Some 

States have chosen to allocate a significant portion of HSIP and HRRRP to local agencies. In 

most instances, this funding is distributed through State DOT districts or regional MPOs.

 

Federal Safety Funding

Local agencies require Federal or State funding support to implement local roadway safety 

projects. State DOTs have to balance the safety needs of the State-owned and operated system 

with that of the locally-owned and operated network within available funds. Often States use 

the allocation of HSIP funds as leverage to influence local agencies’ participation in State safety 

programs that will address statewide safety goals. 

ALDOT dedicates 100 percent of its HRRRP funds to county and municipal rural road safety 

projects. ALDOT also flexes approximately 10 percent of their HSIP funds to law enforcement 

for statewide traffic safety enforcement. Through crash data analysis, ALDOT advises the law 

enforcement agencies on safety areas of emphasis, and locations for targeted enforcement. 

ALDOT’s distribution policy supports a balanced multi-disciplinary approach to reducing 

roadway crashes.

In New Jersey, the Local Federal Safety Program provides a minimum of $1 million to each 

of the three MPOs, dedicated to local road safety projects. These funds are earmarked 

for construction only. This funding for local agencies is managed by the MPOs through the 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process. 
Chapter 5: Funding

30 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

The IDOT Office of Programming controls the distribution of HSIP funds for local agencies and 

then informs the Local Roads and Streets Division of the amounts to distribute to each agency. 

The Local Roads and Streets Division is allocated 100 percent of the State’s HRRRP funds and 20 

percent of the State’s overall HSIP funding to distribute to local roadway safety projects. MDOT 

allocates all HRRRP funds and 30 percent of the HSIP funds to local roadway safety projects. 

These funding levels represent a strong commitment from IDOT and MDOT to assist local 

agencies in addressing safety issues on local roadways. 

WSDOT channels nearly 100 percent of its HSIP funds to local transportation safety projects 

through the WSDOT Highways & Local Programs Division. 

Data-Driven Allocation Policies

Not all States devote a percentage or all of their HSIP 

funds to local safety projects. Mn/DOT uses a data-driven 

methodology to allocate funding statewide based on crash 

rates. Mn/DOT distributes their HSIP funds to the districts 

based on the percentage of statewide fatal and serious 

injury crashes occurring in each district. Further allocation of HSIP funds at the district level for 

State and local roadways is based on the percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring 

on each system. This policy provides the advantage that the distribution of HSIP funds is directly 

related to the distribution of crashes on the State and local roadway system. 

Other Funding Sources

HSIP funds are limited in scope and availability. States can use other sources of funding to 

supplement local needs not covered by HSIP funding.

The New Jersey MPOs allocate some Federal-aid planning funds each year to develop and 

prioritize safety projects. These projects include conducting Road Safety Audits (RSA), safety 

planning studies and coordinating Regional Safety Task Force activities. HSIP and other local 

safety projects are developed directly from RSAs conducted with this funding.

Mn/DOT has developed separate State funding mechanisms to support local roadway safety. 

The Rural Road Safety Account uses general State funds to fund projects. In 2008-2009, 

approximately $10 million was allocated to local agencies for rural highway safety projects that 

focused on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. These Rural Road Safety Account funds 

may only be used for construction; the counties must fund the design services, right-of-way 

acquisition, and may contribute to construction costs as well. This account is considered an 

essential supplemental source of funding to local agencies.

Minnesota has also created a Central Safety Fund, comprised of Federal Section 164 repeat 

traffic offender sanction monies. In 2006, DUI and seatbelt violation monies were also added to 

the Central Safety Fund. These funds are typically directed towards additional law enforcement 

on local roads. Historically, a substantial proportion of the Central Safety Fund has been used to 

support local roadway safety projects throughout the State.

Minnesota HSIP funding for local 

roadways is approximately 65 percent 

based on the distribution of fatal and 

serious injury crashes. 
Chapter 5: Funding

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 31

Financial Incentives

The Federal requirement for matching funds for some types of safety improvements can directly 

impact the types of projects selected for implementation. Local agencies without the available 

matching funds are limited to those safety countermeasures that are 100 percent eligible for 

Federal funds. This can reduce local agency participation in the State’s safety programs. To 

counteract this deterrent, States have developed financial incentives to encourage local agency 

participation in highway safety programs.

State Match Contribution

Federal-aid funding programs typically cover 80 to 90 percent of project costs, with the 

remaining 10 to 20 percent to be provided by another source of funds. However, for safety 

projects that are not 100 percent eligible for Federal-aid, States and local agencies are required 

to provide 10 percent of the project cost. 

The Georgia Department of Transportation learned from previous experience with their OffSystem Safety Program, that many local agencies were unable to provide matching funds for 

safety projects. Local communities could not obtain sufficient project funding to make potential 

safety projects viable. For the HRRRP, GDOT supplements the Federal funds with State funds 

to provide local agencies with 100 percent of required cost for eligible safety projects. This 

incentive has increased local agency participation in the program and helps to ensure that safety 

projects are initiated and completed.

The Washington Department of Transportation has also implemented a similar monetary 

incentive to encourage participation from local agencies to identify and implement safety 

projects. WSDOT has increased local agency participation in the project application process by 

providing the 10 percent matching funds for HSIP-eligible local roadway safety projects.

 

Preliminary Engineering 

Limiting Federal HSIP funding to construction costs for 

safety projects leaves the responsibility for both the 

application and design costs to the local agencies. Some 

State DOTs and regional planning agencies support nonconstruction costs to reduce the financial burden on local 

agencies and meet agency goals. 

Projects eligible for NJDOT’s Local Safety Program can be awarded funding for construction 

only. Many local agencies need assistance for project design and/or application preparation. 

The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO) has developed a process to 

encourage local agencies to implement road safety audit (RSA) findings. The MPO funds 

contractor support to assist local agencies with project development efforts, including 

preliminary engineering (PE) and preparing the Federal-aid application package. This practice 

has advanced SJTPO’s RSA program and encouraged local agency participation in the State’s 

Local Safety Program.

The South Jersey Transportation Planning 

Organization supports preliminary 

engineering and application preparation 

for RSA projects.
Chapter 5: Funding

32 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Similarly, WSDOT provides 100 percent of the funding required for the PE and final design 

of local roadway safety projects. WSDOT contributes the costs to acquire right-of-way and 

provides the construction funding match on eligible safety projects. This determination is based 

on the locality’s constraints and the potential benefits identified in the project’s application. 

State and Regional Priorities

State and regional safety priorities are articulated in the State SHSP. To engage local agencies in 

addressing these priorities, MDOT has created special incentives, which ties funding to projects 

that directly impact their goals.

MDOT has instituted an incentive program to encourage local agencies to address locations in 

the HSIP five percent report or other projects in line with the Michigan SHSP priority strategies. 

The following is a summary of the various funding practices MDOT uses to increase local 

participation in the State’s safety program: 

• Funding to local agencies for PE on safety projects at locations included in the 

HSIP transparency (5 percent) report, up to 10 percent of the project’s design and 

construction costs.

• PE costs eligible for Federal funding participation for Local Safety Initiative (LSI) projects, 

up to a maximum of 10 percent of the project construction costs, at a rate of 50 percent 

Federal / 50 percent Local cost share.

• Costs associated with RSAs on Federal-participation projects are eligible for an 80 

percent Federal / 20 percent Local cost share rate, as long as the local agency conducts 

the RSA no later than the design plans being 50 percent complete.

• PE costs associated with the optimization of traffic signal timings, eligible for Federal 

participation, at a rate of 80 percent Federal / 20 percent Local, with a cost cap of $5,000 

per signal location.

The financial incentives developed by various scan States encourage greater participation from 

local roadway agencies in local safety programs. 

Summary

Funding, funding levels, and required match all play a role in local agency participation in a 

State’s safety program. Federal and State safety funding availability encourages local agencies 

to advance more safety projects. However, local agencies often do not pursue these funding 

opportunities. Therefore, State DOTs seek to increase local agency participation in local safety 

programs through financial incentives and funding distribution policies. 

• All scan States allocated all their HRRRP funds to local rural road safety projects

• WSDOT, IDOT, MDOT, Mn/DOT, and NJDOT all allocated varying percentages of their 

overall HSIP funds directly to local road safety projects.
Chapter 5: Funding

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 33

• Mn/DOT use a data driven process based on crash rate proportional allocation to 

distribute their HSIP funds regardless of road ownership.

• In New Jersey, the MPOs use planning funds to assist local agencies in safety project 

identification and development.

• GDOT contributes required HRRRP matching funds for local agency safety projects.

• WSDOT, as well as SJTPO, fund PE for eligible local road safety projects.

• MDOT funds PE and road safety audits at pre-determined levels for safety projects tied 

directly to State and regional priorities, locations in the HSIP five percent report and 

countermeasures from the Local Safety Initiative program. 

Most scan States credited financial incentive strategies with increasing local agency participation 

in the Federal-aid safety program. The funding distribution policies balance the needs and 

priorities of various stakeholders and help local agencies substantially with projects that address 

the highest priority issues. 
Chapter 6: Training and Technical Assistance

34 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Chapter 6: Training and Technical Assistance

Local roadway safety practices vary widely from one State to another. Many local agencies are 

not familiar with procedures that have become standard for addressing common roadway safety 

issues and have received only minimal exposure to new concepts in roadway safety. Even States 

with successful programs require comprehensive training programs to help local practitioners 

develop safety solutions that move beyond basic improvements.

State DOTs have developed training and technical assistance programs to teach local 

practitioners and stakeholders about effective techniques for data analysis, project 

identification, and low-cost safety improvements. All of the scan States offer training courses 

through the State Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), Local-aid division, or affiliated 

university programs. The courses address best safety practices and provide the latest guidance 

to local agencies. States also provide varying levels of technical assistance to aid local safety 

practitioners with analyses and countermeasure development. This chapter describes some 

safety training and technical assistance programs offered by scan State DOTs to local agencies.

Training 

There are many local agencies within each State and many more miles of local roadways than 

State roadways in most States. DOTs rely on local agencies to address safety issues on non-State 

owned roadways. However, the average local agency engineer or planner performs multiple 

professional duties and may not focus significant time and attention to roadway safety. As a 

result, States often provide training and technical assistance to help local agencies assess critical 

safety issues and to develop effective projects to reduce crash incidence and severity on local 

roads.

Local Technical Assistance Programs

Local Technical Assistance Programs were recognized as major hubs for outreach and training 

in all scan States. LTAPs are typically housed within State universities or a State DOT office 

and offer training and assistance programs to local agencies in the entire State. LTAP training 

courses are often available at little or no cost to participants. NJLTAP training includes courses 

on new guidelines, RSAs, and the use of data analysis 

software. The Georgia LTAP center is housed within 

the GDOT and offers many training programs including 

Road Safety 101, Road Safety Audit, Intersection Safety, 

Pedestrian Safety (through FHWA Resource Center) and 

Work Zone Safety.

The training opportunities offered by LTAPs are instrumental in providing the types of 

educational resources to local practitioners that they would otherwise be unlikely to receive. 

LTAPs teach local practitioners to follow State-supported procedures, use data to support 

decisions, and follow proven techniques to address local roadway safety issues.

All scan States use LTAPs to provide 

training and outreach to local agencies.
Chapter 6: Training and Technical Assistance

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 35

Road Safety Audits/Assessments (RSAs)

Local agencies need to identify safety issues and respective countermeasures to improve local 

road safety. RSAs are a highly useful tool for assessing roadway safety issues and developing 

potential hotspot and systemic countermeasures. Several scan States conduct RSAs on State 

and local roadways, dedicate resources to maintain RSA programs, and offer training on the RSA 

process. 

The Illinois and New Jersey Departments of Transportation make extensive and flexible use 

of RSAs, coordinating with local agencies to identify 

safety issues and address them through effective 

countermeasures suggested during the RSA process. RSA 

programs are established and systematic safety reviews 

are done on local roadways often as part of the process to 

identify safety projects. In Minnesota, the counties work 

with individual municipalities to conduct reviews of hotspot locations or corridors. The Illinois 

LTAP has also created an RSA package, which includes a van, computer and materials for use 

when conducting an RSA. The RSA package is loaned to local agencies to support RSAs. 

RSAs are an opportunity to combine multiple safety disciplines in a common purpose and 

ensure diverse perspectives are applied to local roadway safety. MPOs in New Jersey are 

actively involved in leading or participating in RSAs, which facilitates expanded involvement of 

participants with diverse local planning experience. 

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement agencies are viewed by the public as highly credible in matters of roadway 

safety. Law enforcement agencies can be a particularly strong partner for local transportation 

agencies when mutual understanding of both agencies’ priorities and limitations is achieved. 

However, law enforcement officers may be unfamiliar with the best practices and most effective 

approaches to address infrastructure safety issues on local roadways. 

IDOT has found that a key factor in successful HSIP and HRRRP projects is the engagement of 

law enforcement with State and local transportation engineers to identify safety issues and 

countermeasures. It is recommended that all RSA teams in Illinois include a law enforcement 

member. IDOT and the Illinois State Police now coordinate to provide RSA training for law 

enforcement officers. This training ensures that officers are exposed to RSA principles before 

participation on the RSA team. Law enforcement officers in Champaign-Urbana also requested 

and received training in the FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The 

MUTCD training improved the officers’ ability to communicate with local and State engineers 

about roadway designs and improvements. 

The sense of shared responsibility for local roadway safety has helped to facilitate a strong 

partnership between IDOT and law enforcement. This initiative has resulted in greater 

appreciation by IDOT of enforcement capabilities and has developed more effective and 

targeted strategies to address local roadway safety issues in Illinois. 

New Jersey’s advanced RSA program is 

compiling a network of transportation 

professionals to serve as peers in RSAs 

and provide free expert support. 
Chapter 6: Training and Technical Assistance

36 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Local Public Officials

Local agency officials have many competing demands for their limited resources. Providing 

them with road safety resources and training provides tools necessary to make roads safer for 

their citizens. 

Michigan’s LTAP offers a safety training program for local public officials to address 

misconceptions about safety programs and improve cooperation. The program features two 

separate courses: Common Sense Solutions for Intersections (a one day course) and What 

Elected Officials Need to Know about Traffic Safety (a 3.5 hour course). The program has 

resulted in increased support for transportation safety projects from elected officials.

Training Prerequisite

Transportation safety is an evolving field. To ensure 

competence throughout the State, ALDOT requires all 

county engineers to participate in data analysis and low 

cost safety improvement training in order to be eligible for HRRRP funds. This requirement 

teaches the county engineers about approaches to identifying sites with safety issues, low-cost 

safety countermeasures to address them, and the eligibility and benefits associated with HRRRP 

projects.

Technical Assistance 

The Michigan Department of Transportation’s Local Safety Initiative (LSI) supports local road 

authorities to reduce the number of fatal crashes and serious injuries on local roadways. 

Approximately 60 percent of the fatal crashes in Michigan occur on locally-owned roadways. 

The LSI addresses safety on the locally-owned roadway system by providing traffic engineering 

expertise and services directly from MDOT to local agencies. Typically, LSI staff will analyze 

crash data, identify candidate locations for study, and 

assist local practitioners in reviewing and evaluating safety 

improvements, consistent with the SHSP, on individual 

corridors. Local agencies are also trained on basic safety 

analysis procedures and provide recommendations for 

enhancements to the RoadSoft safety module. The LSI 

program also provides local agencies with a resource 

packet and support in using the RoadSoft safety module in their data analysis software. 

In addition to the initial contact, the LSI establishes a “lifeline” for local agencies through their 

relationship with the DOT. Communication and collaboration is fostered for future safety 

projects. MDOT endeavors to be responsive and accessible to the agencies, while avoiding an 

overbearing “big brother” approach. MDOT has explicitly strived to implement an outreach 

program that fosters partnerships. 

Michigan’s Local Safety Initiative 

provides traffic engineering services, 

enhancements to the RoadSoft safety 

module and training in safety analysis 

techniques. 

Alabama DOT requires all county 

engineers to participate in safety-related 

training to be eligible for HRRRP funding.
Chapter 6: Training and Technical Assistance

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 37

Annual Safety Summit

Conferences and summits provide a forum for safety 

practitioners throughout the State to share knowledge 

and experience with peers and potential partners. 

Collaboration and information sharing is a critical component to advance local roadway safety 

initiatives across the State. 

All scan States hold a transportation conference or summit at least once a year. In addition, 

several States have a transportation safety-specific conference. These gatherings often include 

classes, forums, and open discussion about funding, low-cost treatments, crash statistics, 

and other relevant topics. Participants use the summits as networking opportunities to build 

partnerships and encourage collaboration. Most importantly, the annual safety summits are a 

forum to share information with local practitioners and 

recognize important achievements in local transportation 

safety. 

Participation

These broad-based safety meetings are generally 

conducted annually as a forum for local agencies to 

meet with State DOT representatives. The State DOTs use this annual opportunity to answer 

questions about the application process, respond to technical inquiries, and discuss effective 

countermeasures. Annual safety meetings may be co-sponsored by other State agencies, such 

as planning offices or other safety offices. The summits typically include a broad spectrum of 

transportation safety organizations, such as the American Automobile Association (AAA) and 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Given the unique opportunities afforded by a large 

gathering of safety practitioners at all levels of the industry, MDOT encourages county and city 

officials to attend by offering scholarships. The scholarships cover the full cost of registration, 

lodging, meals and mileage for one person from each local 

agency with a location on the HSIP 5 Percent High Crash 

Report. 

Recognition

NJDOT uses their transportation safety conference 

as an opportunity to formally recognize agencies and 

organizations that have shown safety initiative or achieved crash abatement on local roadways. 

Each discipline of the transportation safety realm (engineering, enforcement, emergency 

response and education) are recognized for their accomplishments. Awards may also be given 

to safety champions. Local media are sometimes invited to attend and press releases are 

used to inform news outlets about the awards. This allows local agencies to receive public 

recognition for successful programs, and gives the State the opportunity to promote community 

awareness of transportation safety.

Michigan provides scholarships for one 

person from each local agency with a 

location included in the 5% High Crash 

Report to attend their Annual Safety 

Summit. 

The New Jersey DOT presents annual 

awards related to each of the four “E’s” 

(engineering, education, enforcement, 

and emergency services) and for 

individual safety champions. 

All scan States engage local agencies 

during annual meetings.
Chapter 6: Training and Technical Assistance

38 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Summary

Training programs and technical assistance are critical to developing competent local road 

safety practitioners and maintaining sustainable safety programs in local agencies. State DOTs 

along with State LTAPs have created mechanisms for training local road personnel and providing 

technical assistance programs.

• RSAs are a major component of several scan States’ safety programs. RSAs provide a tool 

to identify locations with safety issues and countermeasures, but it also promotes safety 

awareness through the multi-disciplinary teams.

• New Jersey has a well developed RSA program that includes RSA Peer-to-Peer assistance.

• IDOT conducts RSA training for law enforcement personnel.

• To improve competence at the local level, ALDOT requires local engineers to take 

training courses in data analysis and low cost safety improvements in order to receive 

Federal funding. 

• The LTAPs are the primary source for statewide roadway safety training. LTAPs train local 

practitioners in State-supported procedures, the use of data to support safety decisions, 

and to identify proven techniques to address local roadway safety issues. 

• MDOT has developed courses through the LTAPs for elected officials. 

• Several scan States hold annual safety summits where practitioners and stakeholders 

from Federal, State, and local levels to share their knowledge of effective safety 

programs and strategies. 

The training and assistance programs discussed in this section provide States with potential 

avenues to improve transportation safety proficiency at the local level. Local practitioners are 

more likely to develop projects that reduce crashes and minimize injuries with appropriate 

training and technical assistance. 
Chapter 7: Partnerships and Outreach

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 39

Chapter 7: Partnerships and Outreach

Roadway safety is the responsibility of numerous agencies within each State. Collaboration 

between agencies is critical to achieve the SHSP goals to reduce crashes on all public roads. 

Active communication is required between Federal, State, regional and local government to 

improve safety. In many States, the DOT is usually charged with the coordination between 

these agencies. 

State DOTs must also find ways to reach out to potential partners to encourage communication 

and enable all stakeholders to most effectively contribute to the State’s ultimate safety 

goals. Working as a team, through carefully cultivated partnerships, can eliminate redundant 

efforts, increase program efficiency, and effectively use limited financial and personnel 

resources. Coordination and cooperation can be beneficial at any stage of project or program 

development. 

 

Partnerships

Many of the successes described by the scan States has been through the multi-agency 

collaboration and organizations which aligned priorities around the goals of the SHSP. 

Collaboration between different organizations, including engineers, planners, educators, 

community leaders, activists, law enforcement, and emergency medical services can bring 

diverse safety expertise to existing programs and produce ideas for innovative approaches. 

These partnerships are opportunities to share available resources, provide training, and develop 

innovative perspectives on solutions and countermeasures. 

Local Coalitions and Committees

When local agencies and organizations are able to collaborate, they can develop a collective 

understanding of the major safety issues and develop the best approaches to prevent or 

address safety issues.

In Minnesota, local agencies have formed multi-disciplinary Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) 

coalitions to address traffic safety issues in their communities. These coalitions address both 

infrastructure and behavioral safety issues in their communities. The TZD program has resulted 

in statewide safety laws and outreach programs to address some of the root causes of crashes 

or injury (e.g., drunk-driving, seat-belt usage, texting, and teen driver inexperience). The TZD 

program also contributed to the creation of additional hospital trauma centers to treat crash 

victims and reduce fatal crashes.

Minnesota has also encouraged and fostered partnerships and collaboration at the county 

level through the formation of the County Highway Safety Committee. The Minnesota County 

Highway Safety Committee meets regularly and has actively lobbied for key safety laws and 

funding. The Committee facilitated multi-agency projects that produced better unit costs and 

an increased scope of improvements on more local roadways than standalone projects. 
Chapter 7: Partnerships and Outreach

40 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Effective responses to common safety issues require strong and collaborative relationships 

between State, regional, and local transportation 

agencies. Leadership from MPOs can encourage 

better data analysis, identify projects that reflect 

regional priorities, and enhance collaboration between 

stakeholders on local roadway safety programs. 

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), the MPO for counties in the Detroit 

metropolitan area, has taken a very active role in the region’s highway safety efforts. SEMCOG 

has adopted comprehensive approaches to safety planning by utilizing transportation data 

to forecast and mitigate potential hazards. They have integrated transportation safety into a 

larger planning context to address shifting traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation 

needs in their communities. SEMCOG maintains and analyzes regional crash data using GIS 

technology and provides the results to the local member agencies and the public via webbased applications. The web-based crash analysis tool allows local agencies to create a list of 

the intersections with the highest number of crashes (within 150 feet). SEMCOG organizes and 

conducts RSAs on local roadways and pursues other local transportation safety efforts such as 

deer crash abatement and elderly mobility safety improvements. SEMCOG’s programs fulfill 

a need for its communities by consistently addressing shared issues and developing systemic 

solutions to minimize crashes.

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), a bi-State MPO for the 

Philadelphia/Trenton metropolitan area, established a multidisciplinary Regional Safety Task 

Force. The task force is comprised of safety professionals from engineering, education, law 

enforcement, emergency services, and legislators in two States. The task force meets quarterly 

to exchange information on safety strategies and resources that can reduce crashes and injuries 

in the region. With guidance from the task force, DVRPC developed a Regional Safety Action 

Plan to reduce crashes by focusing support on the following efforts: 

• Curb aggressive driving.

• Reduce impaired driving. 

• Keep vehicles on the roadway.

• Sustain safe senior mobility.

• Increase seat belt usage.

• Improve the design and operation of intersections.

• Ensure pedestrian safety.

Through the Regional Safety Action Plan, DVRPC works to educate local engineers to identify 

potential safety issues, select effective countermeasures, and develop methods to evaluate 

the cost-effectiveness of countermeasures. One of the task force’s principal goals is to foster 

partnerships between safety stakeholders to improve safety in the bi-State region. DVRPC also 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations can 

be strong safety partners and advocates 

for local road safety.
Chapter 7: Partnerships and Outreach

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 41

offers training resources, such as free workshops, for local stakeholders on safety topics. 

The Illinois Champaign-Urbana MPO identified a need for a safety specialist within their 

organization. They partnered with another strong safety advocate, State Farm Insurance, 

to fund the position as a pilot program. Through this position, the MPO expanded its ability 

to conduct RSAs and to promote safety concepts within the region. This special partnership 

helped to develop new local roadway safety projects.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement is an active safety partner in a number of the scan States. This partnership 

lends additional credibility to local roadway safety projects. The relationship between 

law enforcement and local transportation agencies is very important in Illinois, where law 

enforcement partners are able to elevate safety awareness at a local level with an authority 

that may not be possible for the State DOT. IDOT and the State Police have organized quarterly 

meetings to discuss goals, areas of concern, and current actions. 

In New Jersey, relationships between NJDOT and law enforcement has been fostered through 

the common goal of reducing fatalities on the State’s roadways. Typically, the partnership 

is focused around the enforcement and educational aspects of transportation safety for 

local agencies and communities. New Jersey also reported that the collaboration has come 

to include active engagement of law enforcement in road safety audits. This collaboration 

develops more effective countermeasures to address local roadway safety issues because often 

times the officers bring information to the table that is not evident in the crash reports.

All of the partnerships discussed in this section are cultivated by active communication and 

investment of time by the State DOTs and other safety stakeholders. 

Outreach

To successfully address local roadway safety, State DOTs need to find cohesive and unobtrusive 

ways to build relationships and trust with local transportation agencies. The scan States are 

building relationships through outreach activities such as conferences, individual interaction 

with local engineers, and regional education efforts. 

Conference Presentations

State DOTs need to communicate with county and municipal engineers to increase local 

participation in and understanding of local safety programs. Heavy workloads and busy 

schedules force State DOTs to concentrate on forums that can maximize the delivery of 

information. Local engineering conferences offer an opportunity to present safety program 

information to local road practitioners. 

Alabama has a very active County Engineers Association. ALDOT uses the Association’s annual 

meetings to conduct training and information-sharing sessions. ALDOT presents critical 

information, which may include changes to application procedures, new statewide priorities, 

or the types of safety projects most likely to receive approval, at these meetings. The county 
Chapter 7: Partnerships and Outreach

42 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

engineers have cited the meetings and the overall collaboration between ALDOT, the FHWA 

Division Office, and local agencies as key to developing successful projects.

The County Road Association of Michigan (CRAM) holds an annual County Engineers’ Workshop. 

MDOT representatives typically participate in this workshop, as part of an outreach effort to 

discuss safety issues related to new and upcoming projects, effective countermeasures, local 

agency program applications, and other related topics. The workshop is not solely focused on 

safety, but transportation safety is one of the primary areas of discussion. This workshop fosters 

continued collaboration between the State and county officials and results in improved Federal 

safety project applications from county engineers.

State-Local Liaisons

It can be difficult for State DOTs to find effective ways 

to provide continuous and direct assistance to local 

engineers given the myriad of local transportation 

agencies spread throughout a State. Many States are unsure how to engage local agencies in 

the overall safety program process. 

GDOT created Off-System Safety Coordinator positions within each of the seven field districts 

to manage their local road safety program. The program, referred to as Off-System Safety 

Program, works with local governments to provide safety improvements on local roadways. 

Off-System Safety Coordinators are consultant positions, primarily comprised of retired staff 

members from GDOT, with extensive experience in working with the local agencies. Individuals 

chosen to fill these positions often have previously established long-standing working 

relationships with county and municipal engineers. This improves their ability to respond to 

inquiries and work effectively with policymakers. 

The established relationships between the Off-System Coordinators and the local agencies are 

a valuable tool to engage local agency participation in the HRRRP application process. GDOT 

solicits interest from the local agencies, which then request assistance from the Off-System 

Coordinators and GDOT District Engineers to address safety concerns. Coordinators and GDOT 

engineers then meet with the local agencies and conduct field assessments to identify safety 

needs and countermeasures. The Off-System Coordinators assist the local agencies by providing 

technical knowledge and traffic engineering expertise to identify safety problems, develop 

countermeasures, and prepare cost estimates. 

The coordinators in this program provide local agencies with oversight and assistance with 

Federal-aid requirements. For the local agencies that do not have engineering staff, the 

assistance from the State representatives is critical to implement safety countermeasures. The 

mentoring provided by the liaisons has developed champions for safety in the participating local 

agencies. 

MPO Committees

Local agencies may have difficulty coordinating across jurisdictional boundaries. Regional 

planning agencies can serve as a bridge to work with a broad array of safety stakeholders in a 

Georgia DOT’s off-system safety 

coordinators serve as a liaison between 

State and local agencies.
Chapter 7: Partnerships and Outreach

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 43

region and coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries. MPOs can also effectively educate the 

public about safety issues in the region.

The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO) created a Community Traffic 

Safety Program (CTSP) – the South Jersey Traffic Safety Alliance (SJTSA) – to address safety 

needs in their four-county region. The Alliance brings together traffic safety professionals from 

the fields of law enforcement, education, fire, rescue, engineering and planning to develop 

region-wide traffic safety programs, share successful practices, exchange information, and 

support capital projects. SJTPO staffs the SJTSA with one full-time program manager and three 

part-time transportation safety specialists using metropolitan planning (PL) funds. 

The Alliance conducts outreach efforts to improve citizen awareness of transportation safety 

issues and steps they can take to improve safety in the region. Some of these programs include 

the following:

• Buckle Up Stencil, Saved By The Seat Belt Club, and Seat Belt Surveys – outreach 

programs to educate drivers about the benefits of seat belt use and encourage greater 

seat belt use by drivers and passengers in motor vehicles.

• Bounty Program – outreach education program to educate the public about the proper 

disposal for old and used car seats as well as the danger of reusing these seats. 

• Defensive Driving – outreach program to improve driver skills and driving techniques to 

prevent crashes and violations.

• Awards Program – outreach program to publicize the achievement of transportation 

safety champions, chosen from nominations from their peers, in the fields of education, 

engineering, planning, enforcement, and community awareness.

These programs focus on preventative measures that reduce both crashes and crash severity 

on local roadways. The MPO brings together local transportation agencies to coordinate and 

conduct educational programs across the SJTPO region. 

Summary

Partnerships and outreach efforts practiced by the scan States usually involve collaboration 

between multi-disciplinary groups, including engineering, planning, education, law 

enforcement, emergency services, and political representatives.

• Metropolitan Planning Organizations are safety champions who provide coordination 

and public outreach to local agencies in New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois. 

• The Minnesota County Engineer Safety Association is uniquely positioned in the State 

to impact local road safety policies and funding. As a collective group they are able to 

lobby for policies and programs that address their roadway safety and share information 

among local agencies. 

• State DOTs use County Engineer Safety Association meetings and workshops to present 

information about the Federal-aid process. The meetings or workshops clarify statewide 

priorities, expose a large group of local engineers to the Federal-aid process, and 
Chapter 7: Partnerships and Outreach

44 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

improve the quality of project developed by county engineers. 

• Minnesota’s Toward Zero Deaths community coalitions develop safety awareness at the 

local level through collaboration of multi-discipline stakeholders addressing safety in 

their communities. 

• IDOT and NJDOT nurture relationships with law enforcement through the common goal 

of both groups to save lives on the roadway network.

• GDOT leverages the relationships of retired employees with local agencies by bringing 

them back as consultants to work closely with local agencies on safety issues.

 
Chapter 8: Local Agency Success Stories

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 45

Chapter 8: Local Agency Success Stories

At each scan visit the team was presented with local agency safety initiatives that demonstrated 

a level of success from their local safety programs/projects. The success stories provided 

by each of the local agencies offer examples of interesting and noteworthy approaches or 

programs that some of the scan States have used to improve safety on local roadways. Many 

of the States’ stories highlighted programs that achieved significant improvements in analyzing, 

identifying, and addressing crash issues on local roadways. 

This chapter presents only some of these initiatives that advance local agencies’ safety 

awareness and commitment.
Chapter 8: Local Agency Success Stories

46 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Georgia Local Success Story: Douglas County Safety Action Plan

Douglas County, Georgia created a County Curve 

Action Plan as part of the Georgia Department of 

Transportation’s Safety Action Plan Program. This plan has 

been particularly helpful to the county as it supported 

funding opportunities through the Georgia Off-System 

Safety Program. 

One of the principal components of their safety action 

plan, which aligns with the Georgia SHSP, is a focus on 

roadway departure crashes along curves. Horizontal 

curves on local and rural roadways represent a major 

concern in Douglas County, because many of their roads 

are former wagon trails that were paved over time without addressing the roadway alignment, 

shoulders, clear zones, and lighting to meet current standards. Consequently, the County 

experiences a significant number of run-off-road (ROR) crashes associated with these curves. 

With a lack of comprehensive data, the County depended on their County Road Department 

staff, historic knowledge from the sheriff department, and residents to supplement the available 

data to develop the Curve Action Plan. High-risk locations were identified. A consultant 

was hired to conduct a qualitative analysis of critical locations and identify countermeasure 

strategies where appropriate. Improvement strategies included signing and striping 

modifications, as shown in Figure 4, as well as centerline and edgeline raised pavement markers. 

There has been a significant reduction 

in ROR crashes since the county began 

implementing low cost strategies such as 

warning signs, chevron signs and raised 

pavement markers along the curves as part 

of their “Curve Safety Plan”. After installing 

the double advance warning signs, chevrons, 

and raised pavement markers, a number 

of crashes continued to occur along some 

curves. The County took another step by 

adding the Pennsylvania DOT “curve ahead” 

markings on the pavement, including 

arrows. The pavement markings have made 

a tremendous difference as there have been 

no crashes in the treated locations since the 

installation. 

Key Accomplishments

Focused on SHSP emphasis area: 

roadway departure crashes.

Developed coordination efforts to 

identify crash hotspots.

Identified and implemented low-cost 

countermeasures.

Resulted in the reduction of run-off-road 

crashes. 

Figure 4: Curve Ahead 

Pavement Markings and Signage

Photograph: Douglas County Road Department
Chapter 8: Local Agency Success Stories

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 47

Minnesota Local Success Story: Township Sign Inventory and Replacement Pilot

The Township Sign Inventory and Replacement pilot 

program was developed by the Minnesota Association of 

Townships (MAT). This program was funded by HSIP and 

State funds and administered by the State Aid for Local 

Transportation (SALT) division of Mn/DOT in coordination 

with MAT. This pilot program began with the townships 

located within six counties and was broken into two 

phases, Engineering and Construction. 

The goal is to develop and refine the requirements for 

sign reduction and removal to assist agencies in complying 

with new retroreflectivity standards. MAT has set a 10 

to 15 percent reduction goal in total sign count. The 

first phase was an engineering assessment focused on 

the evaluation of existing signs to develop a sign inventory, a set of sign plans, and provisions 

for each county broken out by township. Mn/DOT used a consultant to collect data, including 

an inventory and assessment of sign posts. The second phase involved the construction or 

installation of signage improvements, based on the results of the engineering assessment. 

Based on the experience of this pilot, Mn/DOT is developing a Sign Reduction Manual to 

help local agencies comply with MUTCD guidelines. The manual will also address when it is 

permissible and appropriate to remove a sign that is no longer of value. 

Funding for the program was acquired when the Township Association of MN formed a 

partnership with State, county and local industry and consultants interested in transportation 

safety. These transportation partners traveled to Washington, D.C. to solicit congressional 

support for Federal funding for the sign replacement plan and proposed safety-related benefits. 

Two years after the Minnesota Association of Townships received a $3 million Federal earmark 

under SAFETEA LU, the townships were granted an additional $2.5 million in State contributions 

to match the Federal funds and continue the sign replacement program. The State match was 

seen as a critical step to completing the pilot program given limited local funding. The program 

started with six pilot counties and a limit of two years has been established to spend the Federal 

funds. 

This program is helping townships to establish consistent signage on all corridors. In some 

cases, individual townships overcame coordination difficulties by taking the initiative and 

sharing responsibilities with other local agencies based on areas of expertise. No formal 

evaluation of the project has been completed yet, but there is potential to conduct research on 

driver behavior impacts in the future. MAT has selected townships in two counties for the next 

round of this project. SALT has begun the initial inventory and plan development phase. 

Key Accomplishments

Obtained Federal and State funding for 

pilot program between MAT and Mn/

DOT. 

Upgraded old signage and reduced 

signage clutter on local roadways.

Led to Mn/DOT writing a Sign Reduction 

Manual.

Intended to improve signage 

retroreflectivity standards and reduce 

township signage by 10-15 percent.
Chapter 8: Local Agency Success Stories

48 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Washington Local Success Story: Pierce County Safety Program

With guidance from the Washington DOT, Pierce 

County has adopted a systematic approach for the local 

safety improvement program. The program includes a 

prioritization process that is data-driven and focuses on 

the most severe crash types and hotspot locations, as 

sanctioned both by WSDOT and other local agencies. 

Pierce County has found that systematic field inventories 

and assessments of existing infrastructure have improved 

opportunities to identify safety issues on county 

roadways. The county conducts the following efforts to 

proactively identify potential projects:

• Inventories for all pavement markings and scattered inventories of traffic signal 

equipment and operational attributes. 

• Dedication to preventative maintenance, including frequent sign inspections and traffic 

signal maintenance (e.g., checking traffic signals every other month). 

• An aggressive daytime traffic sign inspection program has been augmented with a new 

nighttime program. 

Pierce County standardized its evaluation procedures and emphasizes documentation to 

support the HSIP applications, improve the potential for Federal funding, and guide eventual 

project implementation. To maintain consistency, the County developed a standard format 

for traffic studies and based their traffic safety device policies on MUTCD guidance, which has 

reduced potential political conflicts. Pierce County requires road crews to thoroughly document 

field assessments, maintenance projects, and roadway modifications. 

Through the recently adopted approach, Pierce County developed county safety projects for 

roadside tree removal and installing the roadway safety edge. The systematic approach used to 

obtain funding for their current HSIP projects has resulted in funding to remove approximately 

300 roadside trees, which were selected during the project development based on existing or 

potential safety concerns. Prior to this project, Pierce County completed other systemic safety 

upgrades on county roadways including guardrail upgrades and flashing beacon warnings at 

intersections. All of these projects address high-priority SHSP emphasis areas.

Key Accomplishments

Instituted a systematic and data-driven 

county safety program conforming to 

WSDOT guidelines.

Emphasized internal standards and 

documentation to support HSIP 

applications.

Acquired HSIP funds for 

countermeasures to address roadside 

and intersection crashes on county 

roadways, which aligns with the SHSP. 
Chapter 8: Local Agency Success Stories

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 49

New Jersey Local Success Story: NJTPA Regional Safety Priorities Program

The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 

(NJTPA) has implemented a Regional Safety Priorities 

Program that takes a data-driven systematic approach 

to identifying projects. Their success can be seen in the 

number of projects that they have successfully initiated 

and completed and the total amount of funding they have 

received and utilized.

NJTPA is committed to incorporating safety conscious 

planning principles in their planning processes. In 2005, 

the NJTPA undertook a collaborative effort with local 

agencies in the region to develop safety priorities for their 

Regional Transportation Plan. A consultant was employed 

to help identify the most pressing safety needs in the region. The multi-modal Regional 

Safety Priorities study developed a comprehensive set of new safety initiatives which included 

engineering, enforcement, and educational countermeasures. The Regional Safety Priorities 

Update, completed in 2008, built upon the results of this study. Both studies were forwardlooking, multi-modal efforts to integrate safety considerations into all phases of transportation 

improvement planning and development, and to elevate safety to a high priority at all levels of 

decision-making. 

In addition to the safety initiatives, the studies identified about 25 priority locations in the 

region with a history of crashes or safety issues related to vehicles, pedestrians, transit, bicycles, 

trucks, and elderly users. In order to maximize the potential benefits, NJTPA used regional 

crash data to identify critical locations, such as those demonstrating left-turn, pedestrian, 

and cross-over crashes. Crash data was geo-coded and high-crash locations were identified. 

NJTPA conducted RSAs, bringing together engineers, law enforcement personnel, planners, 

elected officials and stakeholders at each location to identify critical safety issues and suggest 

improvements. 

NJTPA concentrated on short-term and relatively low-cost improvements such as signing, 

improvements to existing signals, and pavement markings for pedestrians, that could be 

implemented by local agencies and funded through the NJTPA Local Safety Program, and to the 

extent possible, the HRRRP. Over 75 percent of locations and needs identified in the first study 

have been addressed through engineering, enforcement and educational strategies, and many 

through the Local Safety Program. 

Key Accomplishments

Addressed regional and local safety 

issues through Safety Priority Program.

Identified regional safety needs and 

developed initiatives to address issues. 

Used crash data to identify hotspot 

issues, conduct RSAs, and develop 

countermeasures at 25 critical locations.

Relied on recommendations to apply for 

safety funding through the NJTPA Local 

Safety Program.
Chapter 9: Observations and Conclusions

50 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Chapter 9: Observations and Conclusions

The diversity among local jurisdictions and governments in each State can make the 

development and implementation of a standardized local road safety program difficult. 

Some States have worked through the challenges of integrating local roadways in their safety 

programs and adopted practices to assist them. The Local Road Safety Domestic Scan identified 

several of these practices that if adopted can help State and local agencies develop programs to 

meet their specific needs. Some practices identified on the domestic scan and documented in 

this report may not be easily adopted by other States because they may be based on particular 

State legislative policies. However, most of the practices are readily adoptable or adaptable to 

many States, with some coordination and collaboration with safety stakeholders. 

States demonstrating reductions in local roadway crashes have depended on the integration 

of a variety of safety programs and funding mechanisms at the local level. Success relies 

first on a comprehensive, coordinated and well-planned approach that is data-driven and 

results oriented. States and local agencies must also identify procedures to improve local 

participation and target resources and actions where they will do the most good. Many of 

the most productive local road safety programs depend on leadership from the State DOT and 

partnerships between many safety stakeholders.

Primary Observations from the Domestic Scan

Data Collection and Analysis 

Access to crash data to support a data-driven decision making process is an integral part of 

getting local roadway involvement in safety improvement programs. The HSIP and other safety 

programs depend on the results of reliable crash data and analyses to direct funding to the most 

effective safety projects. In an effort to build a comprehensive crash data system that includes 

local road data, IDOT allocated $1 million of HSIP funds to county governments to collect and 

geo-code their roadway crash data. All scan States have data analysis software tools. NJDOT, 

ALDOT, Mn/DOT, MDOT and GDOT make these tools and respective user training accessible to 

local agencies. IDOT and WSDOT conduct comprehensive data analysis and share the results 

with local agencies. This has proven effective in encouraging local road practitioners to take an 

active role in identifying safety issues and seeking resources to address them. 

In Georgia and Illinois, regional planning agencies provide technical assistance for member 

agencies and align project identification with regional safety priorities. Direct technical 

assistance helps local agencies identify specific safety issues, develop safety countermeasures, 

and apply for HSIP or other safety funding. 

Local Project Selection 

In many cases, local safety programs are structured to guide local agencies to identify safety 

projects that directly address contributing infrastructure factors associated with the most severe 

crashes. For example, planning tools, such as the SHSP and local roadway safety plans, guide 
Chapter 9: Observations and Conclusions

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 51

local agencies in their project selection. Mn/DOT utilizes visual reference tools to guide local 

agencies in their project selection process. Local agencies typically identify priority locations for 

funding and implementation; however, priority is usually given to those projects that address 

the State’s safety goals. MDOT gives priority to locations listed in their HSIP five percent report 

for funding. For MDOT and Mn/DOT system-wide strategies are favored for safety funding. The 

project identification practices used in the scan States provide resources for local transportation 

agencies to effectively pursue State and Federal transportation funding. 

Local Project Administration 

State DOTs with Local-aid divisions within their organizational structure have dedicated 

personnel to concentrate their efforts on local road issues. Local-aid divisions are instrumental 

in helping local agencies navigate the State and Federal-aid processes and provide technical 

assistance. Dedicated State DOT Local-aid divisions enhance local agency participation in safety 

programs. These divisions understand the various funding mechanisms for local safety projects 

and provide essential support for local agencies to acquire and obligate funding. All scan States 

boast Local-aid divisions. The Local-aid divisions also offer safety-related technical assistance 

either through dedicated local safety staff or the Safety Office within the DOT. 

Including local agencies in the development of methodology and guidelines for State and 

Federal-aid funding fosters a local agency buy-in for safety programs in Alabama. Scan States 

have employed a variety of time saving procedures to expedite safety project implementation 

at the local level. MDOT and ALDOT use force accounts where the local agencies provide labor 

for safety projects. NJDOT requires projects meet categorical exclusion criteria to be eligible for 

safety funding. The scan State Local-aid divisions are representative of effective administration 

structures and practices that may serve as models for other States. 

Funding 

Availability and access to Federal and State safety funding is instrumental to the integration 

of local agencies in the States’ safety programs. States distribute funds to local projects via 

State DOT districts or regional MPOs. States must balance the safety needs and priorities of 

various stakeholders. All scan States distribute 100 percent of HRRRP funds to local roads. 

Additionally, varying percentage of their overall HSIP funds are dedicated to improving safety 

on local roadways. In addition, some States offer financial incentives to encourage local agency 

participation in safety programs. These financial incentives include funding local road safety 

projects 100 percent and often providing PE costs. 

Training and Technical Assistance 

Providing roadway safety-related training and technical assistance to local practitioners 

promotes safety awareness and builds a safety culture at the local roadway level. Safety training 

and technical assistance provides practitioners with the knowledge and technical capabilities 

to succeed in local roadway safety programs. In the scan States, LTAP Centers provided free 

or low-cost roadway safety training to support States’ safety programs. Transportation safety 

training and assistance programs improve proficiency among local practitioners involved in 

project development. Highly competent local practitioners are more likely to develop projects 

that reduce crashes and minimize severity. ALDOT requires county engineers the complete 
Chapter 9: Observations and Conclusions

52 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

data analysis and low cost safety improvement training to be eligible for safety funds. MDOT’s 

Local Safety Initiative provides hands-on technical assistance to local practitioners. Training 

for elected officials and law enforcement personnel encourages participation from these 

stakeholders in safety projects and improves efficiency and collaboration.

Outreach and Partnership 

Strong partnerships between the State, regional, and local agencies enable peers to share 

critical safety information. Many of the scan States have strengthened transportation safety 

collaboration between the 4Es. These partnerships include local agency coalitions, such 

as Minnesota’s Towards Zero Death coalition, which have helped pass safety legislation 

related to reducing drunk driving, seat belt violations, teen driver crashes and fatal crashes. 

Partnerships between local agencies can lead to multi-agency projects with broad scopes 

in multiple jurisdictions at reduced construction costs. As shown in Illinois, partnerships 

between engineers and law enforcement have been useful in identifying safety issues and 

countermeasures to address them. 

MPOs are uniquely positioned to address regionally significant safety issues and provide support 

to member agencies. In New Jersey, MPOs administer the local road safety funding through the 

regional TIP. MPOs provide significant technical assistance to local agencies, such as identifying 

projects through data analysis or leading RSA programs to develop safety treatments. MPOs 

are also well positioned to develop educational outreach programs that promote preventative 

measures to reduce both total crashes and severity on local roadways. 

To elevate local roadway safety programs and increase public awareness, States must find ways 

to effectively communicate and reach out to local agencies and other organizations. New Jersey 

and Michigan hold annual safety summits to exchange safety information and publicly recognize 

specific accomplishments in roadway safety. Several States have promoted safety and built 

partnerships through their technical assistance programs. 

Conclusions

Understanding the successful practices experienced in the scan States will provide other 

States with the impetus to try new or modify existing strategies that best fit their own local 

roadway safety programs. States and local agencies can use these documented practices 

as a model to improve data collection and analysis procedures; initiate new application or 

funding mechanisms; streamline existing safety programs; institute strong technical assistance 

programs; or develop valuable partnerships with other stakeholders. The means exist to 

significantly improve local roadway safety in nearly every State. The results of the Local Road 

Safety Domestic Scan provide a resource for all transportation safety practitioners to use in 

developing or improving local roadway safety programs.
Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 53

Appendices

State Fact Sheets

The following pages contain State briefing sheets that contain information gathered prior to the 

scan. The information was generally used to provide basic context, regarding the State structure 

and safety programs, for the Scan Team members visiting each State. 
Appendices

54 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Alabama

State Overview: 

Alabama covers an area of 54,419 square miles in the Southeastern region of the 

United States. According to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was 

estimated at 4,708,708. The State has approximately 96,045 miles of public roads; close to 87 

percent are locally owned and maintained. 

Government Structure Related to Transportation

The State of Alabama is comprised of the following government offices:

• 13 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• 9 Divisions

• 67 Counties

According to the State website, the Department of Transportation (ALDOT) is organized into 

nine geographic regions called Divisions, with a Central Office located in Montgomery. The 

Central Office is organized into the Office of the Transportation Director and the Office of the 

Chief Engineer with Bureaus and Divisions reporting to the Chief Engineer. Additionally, the 

Department has several other boards and committees that operate either within a bureau or as 

a cooperative effort among several bureaus and/or divisions.

The ALDOT County Transportation Bureau (CTB) has dedicated personnel for local roads and 

serves as the liaison between the Alabama Department of Transportation and the 67 counties 

in Alabama. The CTB has about 15 engineers in the Central Office, one engineer in each District, 

and about three support staff members.

Federal Safety Funding

Alabama received approximately $30.9 million in Federal safety funding in 2009. Funding is 

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The division office of the bureau prescreens local 

safety projects, provides construction engineering services to the local agencies, and oversees 

Federal-aid projects.

Safety Data

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 522 fatal 

crashes on State roads and 427 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown 

in the following table, approximately 45 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained 

roads. Route signing was used to determine roadway classification. 

Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 54

Alabama 

State Overview: 

Alabama covers an area of 54,419 square miles in the Southeastern region of the United States.

According to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was estimated at

4,708,708. The State has approximately 96,045 miles of public roads; close to 87 percent are

locally owned and maintained.  

Government Structure Related to Transportation 

The State of Alabama is comprised of the following government offices:

 13 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

 9 Divisions

 67 Counties

According to the State website, the Department of Transportation (ALDOT) is organized into

nine geographic regions called Divisions, with a Central Office located in Montgomery. The

Central Office is organized into the Office of the Transportation Director and the Office of the

Chief Engineer with Bureaus and Divisions reporting to the Chief Engineer. Additionally, the

Department has several other boards and committees that operate either within a bureau or as

a cooperative effort among several bureaus and/or divisions.

The ALDOT County Transportation Bureau (CTB) has dedicated personnel for local roads and

serves as the liaison between the Alabama Department of Transportation and the 67 counties

in Alabama. The CTB has about 15 engineers in the Central Office, one engineer in each District,

and about three support staff members.

Federal Safety Funding 

Alabama received approximately $30.9 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The division office of the bureau prescreens

local safety projects, provides construction engineering services to the local agencies, and

oversees Federal‐aid projects.

HSIP HRRRP

$28,816,982 $2,062,489

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 522 fatal

crashes on State roads and 427 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 45 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.    

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

55% 45%

Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 54

Alabama 

State Overview: 

Alabama covers an area of 54,419 square miles in the Southeastern region of the United States.

According to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was estimated at

4,708,708. The State has approximately 96,045 miles of public roads; close to 87 percent are

locally owned and maintained.  

Government Structure Related to Transportation 

The State of Alabama is comprised of the following government offices:

 13 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

 9 Divisions

 67 Counties

According to the State website, the Department of Transportation (ALDOT) is organized into

nine geographic regions called Divisions, with a Central Office located in Montgomery. The

Central Office is organized into the Office of the Transportation Director and the Office of the

Chief Engineer with Bureaus and Divisions reporting to the Chief Engineer. Additionally, the

Department has several other boards and committees that operate either within a bureau or as

a cooperative effort among several bureaus and/or divisions.

The ALDOT County Transportation Bureau (CTB) has dedicated personnel for local roads and

serves as the liaison between the Alabama Department of Transportation and the 67 counties

in Alabama. The CTB has about 15 engineers in the Central Office, one engineer in each District,

and about three support staff members.

Federal Safety Funding 

Alabama received approximately $30.9 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The division office of the bureau prescreens

local safety projects, provides construction engineering services to the local agencies, and

oversees Federal‐aid projects.

HSIP HRRRP

$28,816,982 $2,062,489

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 522 fatal

crashes on State roads and 427 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 45 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.    

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

55% 45%
Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 55

Georgia

State Overview: 

Georgia covers 59,425 square miles in the Southeastern region of the United 

States. According to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was estimated 

at 9,829,211. The State has approximately 117,645 miles of public roads. Approximately 84 

percent of the State’s roadways are locally owned and maintained. 

Government Structure Related to Transportation

The State of Georgia is comprised of the following government offices:

• 15 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• 6 Districts

• 159 Counties

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Off-System Safety Program was established 

as part of the GDOT Safety Action Plan to take assertive action in reducing the number of fatal 

crashes on off-system or local roadways. 

The ALDOT County Transportation Bureau (CTB) has dedicated personnel for local roads and 

serves as the liaison between the Alabama Department of Transportation and the 67 counties 

in Alabama. The CTB has about 15 engineers in the Central Office, one engineer in each District, 

and about three support staff members.

Federal Safety Funding

Georgia received approximately $55 million in Federal safety funding in 2009. Funding 

is divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural 

Roads Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The Federal funding from the HRRRP 

is administered through the Off-System Program efforts for distribution to counties and 

municipalities.

Safety Data

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 850 fatal 

crashes on State roads and 581 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown 

in the following table, approximately 41 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained 

roads. Route signing was used to determine roadway classification. 

Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 55

Georgia 

State Overview: 

Georgia covers 59,425 square miles in the Southeastern region of the United States. According

to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was estimated at 9,829,211.  The

State has approximately 117,645 miles of public roads.  Approximately 84 percent of the State’s

roadways are locally owned and maintained.

Government Structure Related to Transportation 

The State of Georgia is comprised of the following government offices:

 15 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

 6 Districts

 159 Counties

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Off‐System Safety Program was established

as part of the GDOT Safety Action Plan to take assertive action in reducing the number of fatal

crashes on off‐system or local roadways.

Federal Safety Funding 

Georgia received approximately $55 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.   Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The Federal funding from the HRRRP is

administered through the Off‐System Program efforts for distribution to counties and

municipalities.   

HSIP HRRRP

$52,015,784 $3,149,726

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 850 fatal

crashes on State roads and 581 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 41 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.    

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

59% 41%

Appendices

NtthPtiAddiSftLllOd d Mitid RdA DtiS55

Georgia 

State Overview: 

Georgia covers 59,425 square miles in the Southeastern region of the United States. According

to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was estimated at 9,829,211.  The

State has approximately 117,645 miles of public roads.  Approximately 84 percent of the State’s

roadways are locally owned and maintained.

Government Structure Related to Transportation 

The State of Georgia is comprised of the following government offices:

 15 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

 6 Districts

 159 Counties

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Off‐System Safety Program was established

as part of the GDOT Safety Action Plan to take assertive action in reducing the number of fatal

crashes on off‐system or local roadways.

Federal Safety Funding 

Georgia received approximately $55 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.   Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The Federal funding from the HRRRP is

administered through the Off‐System Program efforts for distribution to counties and

municipalities.   

HSIP HRRRP

$52,015,784 $3,149,726

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 850 fatal

crashes on State roads and 581 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 41 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.    

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

59% 41%
Appendices

56 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Illinois

State Overview: 

Illinois covers an area of 57,918 square miles in the Midwest region of the United 

States. The United States Census Bureau estimated the State’s population was 12,910,409 in 

2009. The State has approximately 138,833 miles of public roads. Approximately 88 percent of 

the State’s roadways are locally owned and maintained.

Government Structure Related to Transportation

The Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IDOT) Bureau of Local Roads and Streets has about 

25 full-time employees in its central office. Approximately 100 IDOT staff members work on 

local roadway programs. This includes IDOT District Local Roads and Streets personnel. 

The State of Illinois is comprised of the following government offices:

• 13 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• 9 Districts

• 102 Counties

• 2,000 Municipalities/Townships

Federal Safety Funding

Illinois received approximately $45.5 million in Federal safety funding in 2009. Funding is 

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The Federal funding is administered through the 

IDOT’s Bureau of Local Roads and Streets.

Safety Data

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 614 fatal 

crashes on State roads and 425 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown 

in the following table, approximately 41 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained 

roads. Route signing was used to determine roadway classification. 

Federal Safety Funding 

Illinois received approximately $45.5 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  The Federal funding is administered through

the IDOT’s Bureau of Local Roads and Streets.

HSIP HRRRP

$42,434,685 $3,024,273

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 614 fatal

crashes on State roads and 425 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 41 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.   

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

9% 41%

Federal Safety Funding 

Illinois received approximately $45.5 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  The Federal funding is administered through

the IDOT’s Bureau of Local Roads and Streets.

HSIP HRRRP

$42,434,685 $3,024,273

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 614 fatal

crashes on State roads and 425 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 41 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.   

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

9% 41%
Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 57

Michigan

State Overview: 

Michigan covers 97,990 square miles and is located in the Great Lakes region of 

the United States. According to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was 

estimated at 9,969,727. Michigan is the largest State east of the Mississippi River by total area. 

The State has approximately 121,456 miles of public roads. Approximately 90 percent of the 

State’s roadways are locally owned and maintained.

Government Structure Related to Transportation

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has two full time employees dedicated to 

safety. One of the keys to success of the local safety program is MDOT’s Local Safety Initiative. 

The State of Michigan is comprised of the following government offices:

• 12 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• 83 Counties

• 400+ Cities/Villages

• 520 Local Agencies

• 13 Rural Task Forces

Federal Safety Funding

Michigan received approximately $42 million in Federal safety funding in 2009. Funding is 

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. Michigan Department of Transportation’s Local 

Safety Initiative program administers HSIP and Local Rural Road funds to local agencies using an 

“Annual Call” for projects.

Safety Data

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 385 fatal 

crashes on State roads and 568 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown 

in the following table, approximately 60 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained 

roads. Route signing was used to determine roadway classification. 

In order to remain a recognized leader in improving safety on roadways, the State of Michigan 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) has set two ambitious safety goals: 

• Reduce fatal crashes to fewer than 850 by 2012.

• Reduce serious crash injuries from 7,485 in 2007 to fewer than 5,900 by 2012.

Federal Safety Funding 

Michigan received approximately $42 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  Michigan Department of Transportation’s Local

Safety Initiative program administers HSIP and Local Rural Road funds to local agencies using an

“Annual Call” for projects.

HSIP HRRRP

$39,131,608 $2,926,006

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 385 fatal

crashes on State roads and 568 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 60 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.    

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

40% 60%

Federal Safety Funding 

Michigan received approximately $42 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  Michigan Department of Transportation’s Local

Safety Initiative program administers HSIP and Local Rural Road funds to local agencies using an

“Annual Call” for projects.

HSIP HRRRP

$39,131,608 $2,926,006

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 385 fatal

crashes on State roads and 568 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 60 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.    

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

40% 60%
Appendices

58 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Minnesota

State Overview: 

Minnesota covers 86,943 square miles in the Midwest region of the United States. 

According to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was estimated at 

5,266,214 and 60% of the population resides in the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan area. 

The State has approximately 132,048 miles of public roads. Approximately 89 percent of the 

State’s roadways are locally owned and maintained.

Government Structure Related to Transportation

The State of Minnesota has the following jurisdictions/agencies at the local level:

• 8 Districts

• 8 Area Transportation Partnerships (ATPs)

• 87 Counties

• 854 Cities

• 1,786 Organized Townships

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is headquartered in St. Paul, MN.

Federal Safety Funding

Minnesota received approximately $26.8 million in Federal safety funding in 2009. Funding is 

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The Mn/DOT State Aid for Local Transportation 

(SALT) administers funding allocations to local agencies.

Safety Data

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 224 fatal 

crashes on State roads and 219 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown 

in the following table, approximately 49 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained 

roads. Route signing was used to determine roadway classification. 

Federal Safety Funding 

Minnesota received approximately $26.8 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  The Mn/DOT State Aid for Local Transportation

(SALT) administers funding allocations to local agencies.

HSIP HRRRP

$24,940,307 $1,810,055

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 224 fatal

crashes on State roads and 219 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 49 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.       

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

51% 49%

Federal Safety Funding 

Minnesota received approximately $26.8 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  The Mn/DOT State Aid for Local Transportation

(SALT) administers funding allocations to local agencies.

HSIP HRRRP

$24,940,307 $1,810,055

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 224 fatal

crashes on State roads and 219 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 49 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.       

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

51% 49%
Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 59

New Jersey

State Overview: 

New Jersey is located in the Northeast region of the United States and covers 

8,729 square miles. According to the United States Census Bureau their population in 2009 was 

estimated at 8,707,739 and is the highest population density of any of the United States. The 

State has approximately 38,552 miles of public roads. Approximately 93 percent of the State’s 

roadways are locally owned and maintained.

Government Structure Related to Transportation

The State of New Jersey is comprised of the following government offices:

• 3 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• 4 District Offices

• 21 Counties

• 566 Municipalities

One of the keys to success of the local safety program is the integrated relationship between 

the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and the regional Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs). NJDOT has a separate division, the Division of Local Aid and Economic 

Development, which works with county and municipal government officials to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of the State’s transportation system. 

Federal Safety Funding

New Jersey received approximately $25 million in Federal safety funding in 2009. Funding 

is divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural 

Roads Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The Division of Local Aid and Economic 

Development administers HSIP and Local Rural Road funds to local agencies primarily through 

MPOs.

Safety Data

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 270 fatal 

crashes on State roads and 344 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown 

in the following table, approximately 56 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained 

roads. Route signing was used to determine roadway classification. 

Federal Safety Funding 

New Jersey received approximately $25 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  The Division of Local Aid and Economic

Development administers HSIP and Local Rural Road funds to local agencies primarily through

MPOs.

HSIP HRRRP

$23,356,592 $1,666,605

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 270 fatal

crashes on State roads and 344 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 56 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.     

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

44% 56%

Federal Safety Funding 

New Jersey received approximately $25 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  The Division of Local Aid and Economic

Development administers HSIP and Local Rural Road funds to local agencies primarily through

MPOs.

HSIP HRRRP

$23,356,592 $1,666,605

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 270 fatal

crashes on State roads and 344 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 56 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.     

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

44% 56%
Appendices

60 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Washington

State Overview: 

Washington State covers an area of 71,342 square miles in the upper northwest 

corner of the United States. According to the United States Census Bureau their population in 

2009 was estimated at 6,664,195. Sixty percent of the State’s population resides in the Seattle 

metropolitan area. The State has approximately 83,381 miles of public roads. Approximately 81 

percent of the State’s roadways are locally owned and maintained. 

Government Structure Related to Transportation

The State of Washington is comprised of the following government offices:

• 10 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• 14 Regional Transportation Planning Organizations

• 39 Counties

• 200+ Cities/Villages

WSDOT has approximately 7,200 full-time employees, including engineers, vessel captains, 

maintenance technicians, environmental specialists, planners, and many others. WSDOT has 

a well-defined local roads program. The WSDOT local roads program employs 30 full-time 

employees in the headquarters office and 30 in the field distributed among 6 regional offices. 

Local roads staff includes bicycle/pedestrian specialists, safe routes to school specialists, and 

bridge specialists among others. 

Federal Safety Funding

Washington received approximately $19.6 million in Federal safety funding in 2009. Funding is 

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below. The Federal funding is administered through 

Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for distribution to all public road agencies. 

Safety Data

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 230 fatal 

crashes on State roads and 276 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown 

in the following table, approximately 54 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained 

roads. Route signing was used to determine roadway classification. 

Federal Safety Funding 

Washington received approximately $19.6 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  The Federal funding is administered through

Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for distribution to all public road agencies.   

HSIP HRRRP

$18,071,911 $1,572,286

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 230 fatal

crashes on State roads and 276 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 54 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.    

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

46% 54%

Federal Safety Funding 

Washington received approximately $19.6 million in Federal safety funding in 2009.  Funding is

divided between the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP) as shown in the table below.  The Federal funding is administered through

Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for distribution to all public road agencies.   

HSIP HRRRP

$18,071,911 $1,572,286

Safety Data 

The State’s two year average of fatal crashes, using FARS data for 2007 and 2008, was 230 fatal

crashes on State roads and 276 fatal crashes on locally owned and maintained roads. As shown

in the following table, approximately 54 percent of fatal crashes occurred on locally maintained

roads.  Route signing was used to determine roadway classification.    

Federal/State Roadways Local Roadways

46% 54%
Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 61

Key Contacts in Host States

This report would not be possible without support from our 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. 

Alabama

The Scan Team met with or talked to several representatives from the Alabama Department of 

Transportation (ALDOT) including:

• Waymon Benifield, Safety Management Section Administrator

• Tim Barnett, Safety Operations Engineer

• Eric Marable, Safety Support Staff

• Wes Elrod, Assistant Chief, Multimodal Bureau

• Sonya Baker, Safety Support Staff

• Sam Poole, Safety Support Staff

• Ed Phillips, Chief, County Transportation Bureau

• Brad Lindsey, P.S. & E. Engineer, County Transportation Bureau

• Walter (Richie) Beyer, IV, Elmore County Engineer

• William L. Wallace, Safety Operations Manager

• Dr. Dan Turner, Professor, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa 

Additionally, the Scan Team met with Linda Guin, FHWA Safety & Technology Engineer, Alabama 

Division.

Georgia

The Scan Team met with several representatives from the Georgia Department of 

Transportation (GDOT) including:

• Norm Cressman, Safety Program Manager

• Steve Sanders, District Traffic Operations Manager

• Charity Belford, Traffic Operations

• Beverly Fontenot, Staff Development/Training Coordinator

• Kathy Zahul, Assistant State Traffic Engineer

• Derrick Cameron, Traffic Design Manager

• Phil Fergerson, Off-System Coordinator, District 6

Additionally, the Scan Team met with the following individuals:
Appendices

62 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

• Lokesh Hebbani, FHWA Georgia Division

• Brandi Peck, Douglas County DOT

• Chris Pruitt, Cobb County DOT

• Talya Trudell, Atlanta Regional Commission

• Randy Clayton, Georgia Office of Highway Safety

Illinois

The Scan Team met with several representatives from the Illinois Department of Transportation 

(IDOT) including:

• Priscilla Tobias, State Safety Engineer

• Darrel Lewis, Bureau Chief, Local Roads and Streets

• Rob Robinson, Data Management Unit Chief

• Kim Cummins, Local Roads Engineer

• Terry Fountain, Local Roads Engineer

• Traci Sisk, Special Programs Manager

• David Piper, Safety Design Engineer

Additionally, the Scan Team met with the following individuals:

• Jay Keeven, Commander, Statewide Patrol Support Command, Illinois State Police

• Rita Morocoima-Black, CUUATS Manger, Transportation Engineer, Champaign County 

Regional Planning Commission

• Alan Ho, Mobility & Safety Engineer Team Leader, FHWA Illinois Division

• Greg Piland, Safety Program Specialist, FHWA Illinois Division

• Meesa Otani, Transportation Engineer, FHWA Illinois Division

• Mike Staggs, Engineering Team Leader, FHWA Illinois Division

• Bob McCurdy, Lieutenant, Williamson County Sheriff’s Office

• Brian Davis, Planning Engineer, Sangamon County Highway Department

• Tim Zahrn, County Engineer, Sangamon County Highway Department

• Jim Webb, County Engineer, Williamson County Highway Department

Michigan

The Scan Team met with several representatives from the Michigan Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) including:

• Dale Lighthizer, Safety Programs Section Manager, Michigan DOT

• Tracie Leix, Safety Programs Unit Supervisor, Michigan DOT
Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 63

• Dalrois McBurrows, Supervisor, Statewide Planning Section, Michigan DOT

• Jim D’Lamater, Local Agency Programs Safety Engineer, Michigan DOT

Additionally, the Scan Team met with the following individuals:

• Tom Bruff, Manager, Transportation Programs, South Eastern Michigan Council of 

Governments

• Wayne Schoonover, Ionia County Highway Engineer, Road Commission for Ionia County

• David Morena, FHWA Michigan Division

• Tim Colling, Assistant Director, Michigan Tech Transportation Institute, LTAP

Minnesota

The Scan Team met with several representatives from the Minnesota Department of 

Transportation (Mn/DOT) including:

• Dave Engstrom, State Traffic Safety Engineer

• Julie Whitcher, Assistant Traffic Safety Engineer

• Mark Vizecky, Program Support Engineer

• Patti Loken, State Aid Programs Engineer

• Ken Schroepfer, Traffic Standards Specialist

• Kelvin Howieson, District 3 State-Aid Engineer

• Sue Groth, State Traffic Engineer

Additionally, the Scan Team met with Rick West, the County Engineer in Ottertail County, 

Minnesota. 

New Jersey

The Scan Team met with several representatives from the New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT) including:

• Patricia Ott, Director, Traffic Engineering and Safety

• William Beans, Section Chief, Bureau of Safety Programs

• Deven Patel, Principal Engineer, Division of Local Aid and Economic Development

• Debbie Kingsland, Project Engineer, Division of Planning and Project Development

Additionally, the Scan Team met with the following individuals:

• Pam Fischer, Director, New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety

• Lois Goldman, Director, Regional Planning, New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
Appendices

64 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

• Jeff Vernick, Manager, Corridor Studies and Project Planning, North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority 

• Tim Chelius, Executive Director, South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization

• Mark Jehnke, Principal Engineer, Ocean County Engineering Department

• John Ward, Associate Director, Planning Division, Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission

• Janet Leli, Program Director, Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation

• Sarah Weissman, Program Manager, Center for Advanced Infrastructure and 

Transportation and Transportation Safety Resource Center 

• Caroline Trueman, Safety Engineer, FHWA New Jersey Division

Washington

The Scan Team met with several representatives from the Washington Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) including:

• Kathleen Davis, Director, WSDOT Highways & Local Programs (H&LP)

• Matthew Enders, Technical Services Manager, WSDOT H&LP

• Aaron Butters, Engineering Services Manager, WSDOT H&LP

Additionally, the Scan Team met with the following individuals:

• Dan Davis, Collision Data & Analysis Branch Manager, WSDOT Transportation Data Office

• Don Peterson, Safety/Design Engineer, FHWA Washington Division

• Megan Hall, Local Programs/Research & T2 Engineer, FHWA Washington Division

• Jim Ellison, County Traffic Engineer, Pierce County Public Works

• Scott Davis, Traffic Engineer, Thurston County Public Works

• Angie Ward, Program Manager, Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Appendices

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan 65

Scan Team Members

Federal Highway Administration Representatives

Rosemarie Anderson, Transportation Specialist, Local and Rural Roads Program, FHWA Office of 

Safety Programs, Task Order Manager

Jeffrey Shaw, FHWA Safety Engineer, FHWA Resource Center

Peter Hartman, Idaho Division Administrator, FHWA

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Representative

Tracie Leix, Safety Programs Unit Supervisor, Michigan DOT 

Representative of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety (AASHTO-SCOHTS)

American Public Works Association (APWA) Representative 

John Davies, Chief Engineer, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, Florida 

National Association of County Engineers (NACE) Representatives

Albert Letzkus, Chief Traffic Engineer, Pima County DOT, Tucson, Arizona

Jon Oshel, Director of Public Works, Tillamook County, Oregon

National Local Technical Assistance Program Representatives

Cliff Reuer, Technical Assistance Provider, South Dakota LTAP Center, South Dakota State 

University

John Habermann, Program Manager, Indiana LTAP, Purdue University School of Civil Engineering
Appendices

66 Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (contractor to FHWA)

Teresa Gardner, Project Manager

Manager, Consultant Services on the project. 

Michelle Scism, Project Coordinator

Additional Scan Contributors

Karen Yunk, HSIP Program Manager, FHWA Office of Safety Programs

John Dewar, State and Local Programs Team Leader, FHWA Office of Safety Programs

Robert Hollis, Arizona Division Administrator, FHWA

Larry Dwyer, Vermont Division Assistant Administrator, FHWA 
Publication No. FHWA-SA-10-027

US Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov