NOTICE:

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of inform

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.

The contents of this report refl ect the views of the contractor who is responsible for the accuracy of the data prese

herein. The contents do not necessarily refl ect the offi cial policy of the Department of Transportation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear h

only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document.
Susan Herbel (Principal Investigator), Michael D. Meyer, Bernardo 

Kleiner, Danena Gaines

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No.

 

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-05-D-00026-T-08-00

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Offi ce of Safety E71-115

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

May 2009-September 2009

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA: Tamiko Brim-Burnell, Offi ce of Safety and Susan Grosser, Offi ce of Planning

16. Abstract

This Primer is a tool to help State and local practitioners, transportation planners, and decision-makers identify, sel

and use safety performance measures as a part of the transportation planning process. The Primer draws from curr

literature, professional experience, and State DOT and MPO practice. Key elements of the Primer include: a defi nition 

performance measures; a step-by-step description and fl owchart showing how safety performance measures can be identi

and integrated into the transportation planning process; characteristics of effective performance measures; a checklis

assess an organization’s current status with respect to the use of safety performance measures in the transportation plann

and decision-making process; a list of references; and case studies of noteworthy practice.

17. Key Words

Transportation safety, transportation planning, 

performance measures, case studies

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfi eld, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No of Pages

35

22. Price

 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
approach for developing safety performance measures. 

To give the reader a better understanding of what is discussed in this primer, seven case studies hav

included in the document. The case studies highlight the experience and application of the States an

ropolitan planning organizations that have developed and used safety performance measures.

This primer will be of interest to transportation planning and safety practitioners, in particular th

State departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and other organizations in

in transportation decision-making. It provides information to assist planners with incorporating 

performance measures into the transportation planning process in an effort to improve safety 

transportation system.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph S. Toole Gloria M. Shepherd

Associate Administrator for Safety Associate Administrator for

Federal Highway Administration Planning, Realty, and Environment

 Federal Highway Administration
i

Incorporate Safety Performance Measures into Transportation Planning Process ..................................

Assessing Your Organization’s Use of Safety Performance Measures ...............................................................

Sources Cited ...............................................................................................................................................................

Additional References ................................................................................................................................................

CASE STUDIES 

Performance-Based Planning and Investment Management ...............................................................................

Asset Management Plan for Safety ..........................................................................................................................

Project Prioritization Project .....................................................................................................................................

Developing Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures ................................................................................

Identifying Regional Traffi c Safety Needs ..............................................................................................................

1

with safety projects and strategies have shown that benefi ts associated with efforts to improve transp

safety far outweigh the resources consumed. 

The most critical safety benefi t is a decrease in the number of fatal and injury crashes that occur each 

streets and highways across the Nation. Motor vehicle crashes are the sixth leading cause of death 

leading cause of injuries in the United States. Beyond the pain and suffering of victims and their frien

relatives, these crashes are a signifi cant economic burden to the Nation. In 2004, the American Asso

of State Highway Offi cials (AASHTO) estimated traffi c crashes in the United States accounted for ov

billion in economic losses every year (Source 2). Improving safety not only saves lives, but also produce

societal, environmental, and monetary benefi ts, such as greater mobility, increased economic developme

improved quality of life. 

Transportation system improvements are initiated in th

portation planning process. Every urbanized area in the 

uses a planning process to identify those transportation 

improvements that most effectively address the needs 

community. Consideration of safety issues during the tr

tation planning process is important to improving transpo

safety, as it enables the funding of safety related projects. 

safety performance measures are key to ensuring tha

issues are considered and addressed throughout the tr

tation planning process. 

One particularly important benefi t of performance measures is the information generated through th

over time. Consistent analysis of data refl ecting safety performance of the transportation system is par

important for identifying goals to guide transportation planning efforts and focusing attention and resou

safety-related challenges, as well as monitoring progress toward their achievement. Over the past 15 ye

transportation profession has increasingly used performance measures as the primary mechanism for pr

this information. Information collected through the use of safety performance measures are used to p

investments, demonstrate progress toward goals in statewide and metropolitan long-range transportatio

implement statewide and metropolitan transportation improvement programs (S/TIP), and monitor ove

tem performance. The S/TIP is a resource-constrained program that identifi es the projects to be implem

This Primer is a tool to help State and local practitioners, transportation planners, and decision-makers 

select, and use safety performance measures as a part of the transportation planning process. The Prime

from current literature, professional experience, and State DOT and MPO practice. Key elements of the 

include the following:

A study of the societal costs of congestion compared to the cost of crashes conducted by AAA 

in 2008 showed in the top 85 metropolitan 

areas in the United States crash per capita 

costs ranged from 1.3 to 4 times greater than 

congestion costs. 

(Source 3)
2

• Case studies of noteworthy practice.

WHAT ARE SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES?

Performance measures are indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor 

system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. Typical safety p

measures relate to the number and rate of fatalities and/or crashes and incidents, emergency response 

lic perceptions of safety, etc., for the relevant transportation modes.1 

Safety performance measures provide the following benefi ts to the planning and decision-making process (S

• Greater accountability to policy-makers, customers, and other stakeholders;

• Greater linkage between the safety goals/objectives identifi ed through long-range planning 

formulation;

• A better understanding of the impacts of alternative courses of action aimed at improving tra

system safety;

• Improved communication about transportation safety to customers, political leaders, the public

stakeholders;

• Increased organizational focus on safety priorities; and

• Information feedback to promote ongoing improvement of business processes as they relate to 

safety strategies.

Safety performance measures should be relevant to the safety issues and policy/strategy initiatives in 

tion. The number and rate of fatalities, injuries, and/or crashes are commonly used safety performanc

However, given that safety issues vary across the country, no single set of safety performance measu

cable to every State and region. 

The National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Governors Highway Safety A

(GHSA) have developed a set of safety performance measures that each State will be required to trac

in Federal fi scal year 2010 (see Table 1). Some of the performance measures listed in the table below 

and rates of fatalities, number of serious injuries, number of speeding-related fatalities, and numbe

trian fatalities) are common to both the infrastructure and behavioral transportation safety area. As S

1

 Performance measures are different from evaluation criteria, which relate to assessing the relative safety ben

of specifi c projects or for prioritizing alternative safety strategies. The level of detail associated with evalu

is greater than that associated with performance measures.
3

C-3 Fatalities/VMT (including rural, urban, and total fatalities) FARS, FHWA

C-4 Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant, all seat positions FARS

C-5 Number of fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator with 

a blood alcohol concentration of .08 g/dL or higher

FARS

C-6 Number of speeding-related fatalities FARS

C-7 Number of motorcyclist fatalities FARS

C-8 Number of unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities FARS

C-9 Number of drivers 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes FARS

C-10 Number of pedestrian fatalities FARS

B-1 Observed seat belt use for passenger vehicles, front seat outboard occupants Survey

A-1 Number of seat belt citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities Grant activity rep

A-2 Number of impaired-driving arrests made during grant-funded enforcement 

activities

Grant activity rep

A-3 Number of speed citations issued during grant-funded activities Grant activity rep

C= Core measure; B = Behavioral measure; A = Activity measure

The safety performance measures in Table 1 are organized in three categories representing the types of m

sures often found in practice:

• Core measures (also known as outcome measures) relate to the safety goals and objectives esta

as part of policy or as part of a planning process. These measures allocate resources and measure 

progress. They may include crashes, injuries, and fatalities and can be presented as numbers, rates, p

ages, or ratios.

• Behavioral measures provide a link between specifi c safety activities and outcomes by assessing w

the activities infl uenced behavior. These may include direct observations of safety belt use and 

speed or self-reported behavior pertaining to program awareness and attitude obtained through su

• Activity measures document safety program implementation and track actions taken by law enfor

courts, media, education, and others to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities.

In addition to the safety performance measures developed by NHTSA and GHSA, some examples o

structure-related safety performance measures that can be considered for inclusion in the transportatio

ning process may include:

• Number of run-off-the-road crashes (core measure);

• Number of fi xed object crashes (core measure);

• Number of intersection crashes (core measure);
4

PROCESS FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

A high-level process illustrating the three major steps to incorporating safety performance measures int

tation planning is shown in Figure 1 below. For States and metropolitan areas already using safety p

measures, these steps can help identify new measures and/or enhance existing ones. If performanc

are not currently used, these steps can help identify, select, and incorporate them into the transport

ning process.

IDENTIFY CANDIDATE SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Safety performance measures originate from many sources, including current goals and objectives, 

analysis, legislative and program requirements, decision-makers, stakeholders, and other constitu

Figure 2). 

Incorporate into Transportation Planning

Feedback

Identify Candidate Performance Measures

Select Performance Measures

Figure 1. Transportation Safety Planning Performance Measures
5

Current Goals and Objectives

A typical transportation planning process includes a set of goals and objectives that refl ect the values and 

of the community. These goals and objectives provide guidance to transportation offi cials and analy

highlight the types of information required to measure progress toward achieving them. Most State and 

planning processes have goals related to system preservation, mobility and congestion, economic develo

safety, environmental quality, and fi nancial responsibility. Developing safety performance measures and 

them with the planning goals and objectives help decision-makers design and implement strategies and 

that support the community’s values.

Safety-related goals can originate from within the transp

planning process or be brought into the process from oth

or regional safety planning efforts. Strategic Highway 

Plans (SHSP) include many safety-related goals that lead 

formance measures such as those listed in the Figure 

SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive, multidisciplinary 

gic plan developed in collaboration with Federal, Stat

and private sector safety stakeholders. It identifi es p

and drives investment decisions by establishing statewid

goals, objectives, and emphasis areas. As a part of th

process some States have developed performance mea

Identify Candidate 

Performance Measures

Select Performance Measures

Transportation Planning

Legislative/Progr

Requirements

Decision-Makers

• Number of run-off-road fatalities

• Number of intersection-related fatalities 

• Number of speeding-related fatalities

• Number of fatalities involving distracted drivers

• Number of fatalities in unlicensed-driver crashes

• Number of fatalities involving 16-19 year-old drivers

• Number of motorcyclist fatalities

• Number of fatalities involving heavy trucks

Figure 3. Sample SHSP Performance Measures
6

tion safety within the corridor is almost always a major goal of such studies. Data analyses focus on 

intersections and other high-crash locations in the corridor, followed by more detailed investigation o

of strategies that can be used to reduce crashes

studies suggest strategies and recommend proje

long-range transportation plan and for the S/TI

Monitoring of transportation safety problems (e

the-road crashes, alcohol-related crashes, pedestr

crashes, and transit incidents, etc.) results in col

analysis of data useful for developing performa

tors such as those in Figure 4. The SHSP develo

associated update activities also provide potentia

data about the safety challenges facing a state. Fo

SHSP contain emphasis areas (e.g., lane depart

sections, occupant protection, etc.) identifi ed t

data analysis. The emphasis areas, and the analy

ated with them, provide a rich data source for 

opment of safety performance measures. Simi

from other safety programs and plans, such as t

safety improvement program, can serve the sam

Stakeholders/Constituencies

Transportation planning stakeholders often identify safety issues critical to their interests. For examp

Against Drunk Driving, AAA, pedestrian and bicycling advocacy groups, the trucking industry, and 

health/medical establishment are interested in transportation safety issues specifi c to their missions. T

tion offi cials might consider developing safety performance measures that align with major public s

and with the concerns of important interest groups. For example, performance measures could be us

tor the proportion of all fatalities involving lane departures, impaired drivers, or commercial motor ve

Legislative/Program Requirements

Sometimes transportation offi cials develop safety performance measures in response to legislative

or other higher authority requirements, such as the NHTSA/GHSA requirements referenced in Tab

requirements will likely increase as government programs become more performance-oriented with a g

cern for transparency to the public. 

S k h ld /Ci i

• Reduce traffi c crashes, particularly between modes 

– Percent of total Regional Transportation Plan investment 

spent on safety 

– Frequency and rate of traffi c/injury/fatal crashes 

– Frequency and rate of traffi c crashes between modes: 

autos, trucks, rail, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists 

• Increase transit safety and security for riders and employees 

• Number of transit crashes 

• Number of transit incidents 

• Percent accessible bus stops 

 (Source 6)

Figure 4. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

Safety Performance Indicators 
7

constituencies (e.g., fatalities and injuries to young drivers or pedestrians). Decisionmakers also focus on 

measures such as the number of citations issued, number of road miles with guardrails, or the number o

crash sites that received treatment. These types of performance measure-based information are the fou

of a transparent and accountable policy-making process. 

SELECT SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

A process for selecting candidate safety performance measures is shown in Figure 5 below. It recogni

the most important issue transportation agencies face when considering candidate performance measure

availability. 

Figure 5. Selecting Safety Performance Measures for the Transportation Planning Process

Identify Candidate 

Performance Measures

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Do Data Currently 

Exist for First/Next 

Performance Measures?

Develop Systematic Strategy for Data Collection QA/QC

(Quality Assurance/Quality Control)

Do We Proceed

with the Performance

Measure?

Is an Additional

Performance Measure

Desired?

Is an Additional

Performance Measure

Desired?

Incorporate Performance

Measures into 

Transportation Planning
8

While the selection of safety performance measures is described as a sequential process, in reality all p

measures will likely be reviewed at the same time. After the candidate safety performance measures 

considered, those that are selected need to be incorporated into the transportation planning process.

Determine if Data Exist to Support the Candidate Performance Measure 

The question should always be asked, “Are suffi cient data available to support a candidate safety p

measure?” Experience has shown that performance measures are often selected based on their appe

information to have,” only to discover that the necessary data do not exist and/or that data collec

hibitively expensive. This initial step simply determines if data resources are currently available to 

performance measure. Such a determination relies on interaction with the data collection and proc

within the responsible agencies.

Often, the required data are collected by various agencies for a variety of purposes. Transportatio

should build the necessary relationships to enable them to access and use the data sources to measure 

tion safety performance.

The NHTSA has identifi ed six core data systems for use in a highway safety performance measurem

(Source 8):

• Crash – available police offi cer crash reports;

• Vehicle – information on licensed vehicles (also known as the vehicle registration system);

• Driver – information on licensed drivers and driver histories – also known as the driver license 

history system; 

• Roadway – information about all publicly owned roadways, including roadway centerline and 

data, location reference data, geographical information system data, travel and exposure data, e

• Citation and adjudication – information on traffi c citations from the time they are assigned to 

through the court adjudication system and ultimately into the driver history fi le data system; an

• Injury surveillance – information on motor vehicle injuries and deaths. 

Some of these systems are more obviously related to the transportation planning process, such a

roadway data systems, than others are. While the level of relevance varies depending on the prioritie

agency, each of these systems generates useful data for highway safety performance measurement.

For transit, the most frequently-used types of data include ridership (broken down by demographics), 

passenger miles traveled, and number of trips. To estimate crash risk for example, one might use me

as 0.24 injuries per 100 million passenger miles traveled or 0.15 injuries per 100,000 riders.
9

such as fatalities, injuries, property damage, and 

violations are also available through the crash da

agement system. 

Crash data can be used for analysis of a single c

aggregated for statewide, regional, or corridor p

A State crash data system should accommodate in

tion on all reportable motor vehicle crashes on an

roadway. In most States, a Traffi c Records Coord

Committee (TRCC) or Traffi c Records Committ

vides oversight and guidance for developing co

traffi c safety records. The TRCC is helpful for 

nating the many different safety-related data co

and data management activities in a State. If not 

involved, transportation planners are encouraged 

with their State TRCC.

The results of a recent survey of State DOTs and 

on the types of safety data used in transportatio

ning are shown in Table 2. Not surprisingly, vehicle crashes, vehicle miles traveled, and roadway charac

are in the top fi ve for both State DOTs and MPOs. Pedestrian crashes also are highly ranked. Rail cra

in the top fi ve for State DOTs because of their special responsibility for highway/railroad grade crossin

programs, particularly in rural areas.

Ensure a Strategic Data Collection Plan is in Place with Appropriate Quality Assurance/Quality Control Proce

If data to support a safety performance measure are available, a strategy for systematic data collection ov

must exist. Such strategies require that data collection schedules, organizational roles and responsibilities, 

resource allocations, and data collection methodologies are incorporated into the standard procedures 

implementing agencies. Importantly, a careful examination of the collection strategy should be made to as

data meet the quality standards and schedule needs to support the safety performance measures. The fo

characteristics, identifi ed by NHTSA (Source 8), are critical data collection factors for consideration as pa

overall data management strategy: 

• Timeliness – the data system custodian should produce crash reports and crash data in a timely 

to inform the performance measurement process;

• Accuracy – the data need to be accurate, whether as originally collected or in their fi nal electronic fo

• Completeness – data records should include all crash characteristics so the analyses incorporate all 

and improve understanding of the behavioral and/or physical contributing crash and injury factor

Pedestrian crashes/injuries 5 6

Bicycle crashes/injuries 6 7

Property damage 7 8

Air quality/emissions 8 9

Air transport crashes 9 10 (tie)

Transit/paratransit incidents 10 (tie) 10 (tie)

Water navigation crashes 10 (tie) 15

Safety belt/restraint use data 12 14

Emergency medical response 13 16

DUIs 14 12

Rail crashes 15 5

Accident investigation 16 12

(Source 7)
10

• Multimodality – does this measure or set of measures encompass all relevant modes, and t

data from a variety of sources?

• Geographic Scale – is the measure applicable to all areas of the State, region, or locality and do

data at different levels of aggregation? Can it discriminate between freeways and other facilitie

ful at a regional, subarea, or corridor level?

• Forecastability – will the measure compare future alternative projects or strategies? Is it diffi 

dict future conditions using the measure given existing forecasting tools?

INCORPORATE SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCE

Although transportation planning is performed in numerous jurisdictions for a variety of reasons, sever

of the planning process are common among them. Figure 6 below outlines the general transportatio

process from developing vision and goals to monitoring system performance (Source 9). The fi gure 

linkages between safety performance measures and the transportation planning process exist for each 

Element 1 – Regional Vision and Goals

Incorporating safety performance measures into a transportation plan’s vision, goals, and objectives 

implementation of more projects with safety components and benefi ts. This is primarily because inte

formance measures in this initial step results in subsequent planning steps also doing so (e.g., use of sa

in project evaluation). A community’s transportation vision and corresponding goals and objectives sh

strong, two-way linkage to safety through the establishment of performance measures. Safety perform

sures that support the plan’s goals and objectives are then aligned with what decision-makers, stakeh

others in the community value. Another benefi t of incorporating safety into the visioning process i

involved become aware of safety’s importance, which is instrumental in building constituencies to sup

projects through the remaining planning steps.

Element 2 – Alternate Improvement Strategies

Linking safety performance measures to the identifi cation of improvement strategies can lead to the im

tion of projects and strategies that save lives and reduce safety-related economic costs to society. F

performance measures that focus on reducing pedestrian-vehicle crashes could encourage the devel

programs to identify and improve locations where such crashes are likely to occur. Likewise, performanc

that focus on lane departure crashes can lead to programs to reduce their occurrence and limit their seve

gies developed in response to robust safety-related performance measures can be either operations-or

improving incident management programs or using intelligent transportation systems to monitor crash oc

infrastructure-oriented (e.g., implementing a “hot-spot” program to improve geometric designs at high 

tions or improving transit station confi gurations to reduce vehicle-pedestrian confl icts), or both.
11

Regional Vision and Goals

Alternate Improvement Strategies

Operations Capital

Evaluation and Prioritization of Strategies

Development of Transportation Plan (LRP)

Development of Transportation 

Improvement Programs

Project Development

Systems Operation (Implementation)

Monitor System Performance (Data)

Feedback

Strong Linkage between Performance Measures and Planning Step

Linkage between Performance Measures and Planning Step
12

the evaluation and prioritization step is that more safetyrelated projects will emerge from the planni

This will ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of crashes and fatalities. 

Element 4 – Development of Transportation Plan (Long-Range Plan)

The use of safety performance measures throughout the planning process will lead to the selection of 

ects and strategies with safety benefi ts. Given that the Long-Range Plan (LRP) represents a strategic 

on the future of the State or regional transportation system, incorporating safety into the LRP, through 

safety performance measures, ultimately leads to reductions in crashes and fatalities.

Element 5 – Development of Transportation Improvement Programs

The linkage between performance measures and S/TIP 

adoption is one of the most crucial in the transportation 

planning process. Having strong safety performance measures leads to the development of prioritization criteria 

that include safety and result in more safety-related projects being selected for the S/TIP. For example, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) applies 

more weight, or safety points, to roadway improvements 

that have higher crash reduction potential (see Figure 7). 

This results in a capital program for a State or region that 

includes projects that reduce the number and severity 

of crashes. If decision-makers want a greater emphasis 

on one type of project over another (e.g., those having a 

greater impact on system safety), assigning greater weight 

to the related prioritization criteria is one way to do so. 

Element 6 – Project Development

To the extent that it is identifi ed as a planning concern and incorporated into the planning process, safe

a role in detailed project analysis. The project development step examines specifi c engineering and env

details in designing and preparing a project for construction. Depending on the size and expected sign

environmental impacts, the project development process may also entail substantial environmental anal

performance measures provide additional guidance on the types of designs and operational strategies 

be considered as part of the project design (e.g., median barriers to reduce cross lane crashes, refl ect

sidewalks and bike paths, or construction work zone safety initiatives).

Estimated Crash Reduction Pot

(crashes over 3 years per mi

Crash Range

Low

0-9 Fewer

Medium

10-19

High

20-29

Safety Points to Be Awarded

< State Average

1-2 x State Average

2-3 x State Average

> 3 x State Average

01 3

12 4

24 5

35 6

Figure 7. Safety Points for Roadway Reconst

or Operational Improvements − D

(Source 10)
13

issues are identifi ed earlier and addressed as part of the planning process, leading to the adoption of strat

the implementation of projects that will improve the safety performance of the transportation system. Th

identifi cation of safety challenges and eventual solutions can result in implementation savings in that inve

can be made before the safety challenge reaches a point where higher levels of resources would be necess

Ongoing monitoring of system performance provides data and information that should be fed back i

goals and performance measures. A well designed monitoring process can indicate where and when 

corrections are needed to improve safety performance. System monitoring consists of the traffi c surv

traffi c counting, transit ridership, review of traffi c records databases (including crash data), and other m

determining the performance of the transportation system. Monitoring is done by a variety of agencies 

results are incorporated back into the planning process.

Feedback on Program Effectiveness

Accurately measuring the impact of implemented actions benefi ts the planning process and decision m

that both become aware of what types of safety projects, strategies, and countermeasures are most cost e

This permits decision-makers to target their limited resources on those projects and strategies that are l

result in the greatest reduction in crashes and fatalities. The post-implementation evaluation or assessme

cess helps determine the effectiveness of such countermeasures. Without it, no information is available t

the actual benefi t of the countermeasure and justify its future use. Funds should be set aside to allow a 

scientifi c evaluation of the countermeasures whenever possible. A proper evaluation considers other v

that could have an effect on the number and/or severity of crashes, such as changes in the number of 

using the corridor (e.g., exposure), changes in demographics (proportion of older or younger drivers in th

etc. While transportation planners do not perform the evaluations themselves, they should be kept infor

the results.
14

safety performance measures in planning and programming.

1. Is safety included in your agency’s vision?

2. What safety challenges are facing your transportation system?

3. Is safety included in your planning vision, goals, and objectives?

4. Are safety performance measures currently used as part of the planning and decision-making 

5. Are the safety performance measures related to the safety challenges? 

6. Are (additional) safety performance measures needed or desired? 

7. Who will be responsible for data collection and interpretation?

8. Has the proposed set of performance measures been discussed with those in the agency resp

collecting data to ensure feasibility and accuracy of data collection? 

9. Has a data collection strategy been formulated and implemented for the safety performance m

10. Do the evaluation criteria used in the planning process include criteria relating to safety p

measures?

11. Will the safety performance of the transportation system (as defi ned in the performance mea

respond to the types of strategies and projects that result from the planning process? If n

such strategies or projects furthered as part of the planning process?

12. Does the project prioritization or ranking scheme include criteria or indices related to the sa

mance measures? 

13. Are safety performance measures included in the system monitoring process? 

Once these questions have been answered and an overall assessment of the current use of safety p

measures has been conducted, the process described in this document should be used to identify addit

performance measures. In addition, the existing safety performance measures can be modifi ed to in

effectiveness.
15

D.C.: AAA Foundation.

4. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., PB Consult, Inc., and Texas Transportation Institute. 2006. Per

Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset Management, NCHRP Report 551, Washington D.C.: N

Academy Press.

5. National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2007. Performance Measures Dis

408 Team Document #005, October 29, 2007. National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration, 

document, accessible at: http://www.nhtsa-tsis.net/TRIPRS/Resources/Resources.htm.

6. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), Detroit, Michigan.

7. Washington, Simon, Michael Meyer, Ida Vah Schalkwyk, Eric Dumbaugh, Sudeshna Mitra, and M

Zoll. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning, NCHRP Report 546, Washingto

National Academy Press.

8. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2000. A Guidebook for Performance-Based Transportation Planning, N

Report 446, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

9. Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration (FHWA/FTA). 2007. “The Tran

tion Planning Process: Key Issues, A Briefi ng Book for Transportation Decision-makers, Offi ci

Staff,” Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-07-039, U.S. Department of Transportation, on-line do

accessible at: http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/Briefi ngBook/BBook.htm

10. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), Denver, Colorado.
16

New Zealand. http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/performance/04transperfmeasure.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Performance Measure Exchange Website. http://knowledg

gov/cops/p.m..nsf/home. Last accessed: July 30, 2009.

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2008. U.S. and International Approaches to Performance Measurement f

tation Systems: Summary of a Conference. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/CP44.pdf.
17

policies and meet performance goals as outlined in the St

Transportation Plan.

Minnesota’s Statewide Transportation Plan (2009 to 2028) 

on 10 policies, one of which is Traveler Safety. The num

fatalities and serious injuries for all travel modes are iden

the highest level safety performance measures. Addition

measures related to specifi c modes include, among others, motorcycle, pedestrian, and commercial-relate

ties. MnDOT also tracks the share of fatal and severe or incapacitating injuries on urban and rural roads a

lars spent on Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Stand Alone Safety Projects to understand h

traveler safety is being addressed. MnDOT developed system performance targets using historical data, cu

research, engineering analysis, economic analysis, fi scal trends, and institutional values. 

As a part of the statewide transportation plan update, MnDOT districts updated their long-range Highway 

ment Plans. These 20-year investment plans provide the link between the policies and strategies establishe

Statewide Plan and capital improvements on the State highway system. 

MnDOT established a process and guidelines to ensure District Investment Plans were developed in a co

manner and planned improvements address statewide goals and investment priorities. The development 

began with the identifi cation of highway system needs and revenue projections for each of the three p

periods. Investment goals were then used to develop the State Highway Safety Investment Plan. Unfunde

also are prioritized. A working group of MnDOT and FHWA safety and traffi c engineers established trea

application criteria, and cost estimates for roadway enhancements. Application criteria are used to assess 

highways and identify when and where improvements are needed. 

Investments can be broadly characterized as roadway enhancements or capacity improvements. Roadway e

ments emphasize systemwide, cost-effective strategies that target the types of crashes occurring most fre

on rural highways in the State. The most frequent crash types account for nearly 70 percent of the State’s f

Typical enhancements may include, but are not limited to, edge treatments, centerline rumble strips, rural i

tion enhancements, turn lanes, passing lanes, full shoulders, and cable median barriers. In most cases r

enhancement improvements are constructed as part of other, larger highway projects. Capacity improv

are intended to reduce or eliminate vehicle confl icts at locations meeting specifi c traffi c volume thresholds

projects are generally higher-cost strategies and are initiated as stand-alone projects.

Results

MnDOT’s performance-based investment plan enables the State to estimate the investments needed 

established performance measure targets for traveler safety. MnDOT has created a vertically integrate

ture ensuring policies made at headquarters are implemented in the districts. A consistent level of inve

effort across districts toward achieving statewide system performance targets was accomplished by estab

a consistent process and guidelines for district-level investment plans. 

• Provides uniform, performance-based process to 

identify safety investments.

• Identifi es specifi c countermeasures needed to 

target most frequent crash types.
18

agencies. The SCIS develops scenarios to estimate resu

performance given different levels of funding, while sta

the fi scal constraints of available State transportation 

Safety management is one of nine categories of investm

the SCIS. 

A separate “Asset Management Plan for Safety” was d

support the SCIS decision-making process to “make the right choices in investments in those safety pr

will provide for the greatest continual reduction in crashes, injuries, and deaths.” This Plan is consiste

overall goal of the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to “continually reduce the frequency 

of crashes statewide.” Underlying the Asset Management Plan is a Safety Management System (SM

used in project selection and prioritization. The SMS provides a basis for “data-driven decision-makin

ances funding among the State’s various safety programs.

Using these tools, New Jersey has established target service levels. Although a range of service levels 

mance measures were established through the State’s SHSP, the Long-Range Transportation Plan, and 

all have the common goal of continually reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths on the State’s roadways. 

Management Plan presents specifi c service levels for the DOT’s safety programs based on a numbe

fi ed locations per year along with an associated dollar value. For FY 2009, the annual targets for thes

included the following:

• Intersection Improvement Program – Improvements at 20 intersection locations;

• Median Crossover Crash Prevention – Construct 20 miles of median barrier treatments;

• Accident Reduction Program – Construct 10 skid-resistant sites;

• Accident Reduction Program – Implement improvements at 14 roadway departure location

• Pedestrian Program – Build 160,000 square yards of sidewalk along the state highway syst

schools and transit stations; and

• Safe Corridor Program – Review, recommend, and implement safety improvements a

Safe Corridors.

A

ment decisions.

• Provides a basis for budgeting within the 

context of the State’s overall ten year Capital 

Investment Strategy.
19

pg

– 25 percent increase in funding

• Outcome-Based Scenarios

– Maintain condition level;

– 50 percent backlog reduction; and

– 100 percent backlog reduction (total need)

Based on scenario analysis, the State determined a 25 percent increase in funding would be necessary to m

current conditions given no major unexpected safety needs. Any substantial reduction in the backlog o

projects would require much higher investments in safety projects than currently were programmed.

Results

New Jersey conducted a strategic resource allocation process that applies performance measures to gu

determination of program investment targets to achieve agency goals and objectives over a 10-year 

Based on alternative funding scenarios, the Asset Management Plan for Safety identifi es specifi c funding allo

for the State’s individual safety programs. The Plan defi nes desired investment targets along with recom

constrained investment targets based on reasonable revenue expectations incorporated into the 10-year St

Capital Investment Strategy (SCIS), providing a basis for long-range capital planning for safety. 
20

development of the Project Development Work Program, projects are evaluated and scored based on technical measures of how well they fulfi ll the goals of the 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Scores are based on Project Prioritization Criteria (see 

all eligible projects are ranked according to their scores.

2. Application of Additional Priority Factors – Factors such as the feasibility of proje

funding availability, and project timing also are taken into account. This evaluation inv

sultation and negotiation among MPO staff, municipal staff and elected officials,, the S

and local transit agencies.

NJTPA’s current Regional Transportation Plan is guided by six policy goals, one of which is to “Mai

and reliable transportation system in a state of good repair.”2 It is the stated intent of the RTP to tra

goals into specifi c actions, programs, and projects. The Project Prioritization Criteria enable NJTP

projects based on a system that awards points according to how well the project satisfi es RTP goals. 

grouped in accordance with the six goals of the RTP. The maximum number of points a highway and 

project can receive based on all selection criteria is 1,000. The maximum number of points that can 

within the criterion of Repair/Maintenance/Safety/Security is 286. Within this category, the criterio

the project improve a safety problem?” is worth up to 110 points, which are awarded as follows:

• High – Safety improvements to roadways or intersections designated by the MPO or state DO

priority locations or included in “Safe Corridor” programs. (110 points)

• Medium/High – Safety improvements to roadway segments where the severity-weighted ac

exceeds that of the regionwide average for the same facility type. (83 points)

• Medium – Improvements to local roadways or pedestrian areas to address safety issues of loc

e.g., traffi c calming projects. (55 points)

• Low – Drainage, rockfall, and pavement rehabilitation/resurfacing projects. (28 points)

NJTPA staff administers the project prioritization process with participation by implementing ag

Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, and the Project Prioritization Committee of NJTPA

Trustees. Project scores resulting from the process are considered during the development of the C

struction Program, which is the basis for development of the TIP.

Results

NJTPA applies a project prioritization process to rank projects according to their ability to satisfy t

NJTPA’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). With improved transportation safety as one of the six g

RTP, the process enables NJTPA to consider safety in the evaluation of projects for inclusion in the T

2

 Note that the RTP is currently going through an update.

Transportation Plan.
21

process followed four basic steps: conduct background research, 

develop new goals and objectives, develop new performance measures, and apply new performance measures to plan analysis. 

The Michigan Transportation Plan Team established a Performance Measure Subteam to work through the fi rst three steps of 

the process. The team researched the goals, objectives, and performance measures in the current long-range plan and identifi ed their 

pros and cons. Through a peer state review the team identifi ed 

additional goals, objectives, and performance measure approaches 

for consideration. Public involvement activities with the Economic Advisory Group, stakeholders, and 

helped the team gain insight into how stakeholders and citizens view system performance. The team de

seven performance measurement selection criteria, including the following:

1. Is the measure currently used by MDOT?

2. Is the measure in the current state long-range plan?

3. Does the measure indicate the level of achievement toward Michigan Transportation Plan goals?

4. Does the measure focus on one or more of the plan’s emphasis areas – integration, economic 

and quality of life?

5. Do the measures adequately address a cross section of modes?

6. Is high-quality data readily available to support the measure?

7. Is the measure easily understood?

Following six performance workshops that identifi ed the goals, objectives, and a short list of measures, cha

the goals and objectives were developed to refl ect the current long-range plan goals, current and emerging 

priorities, the department mission, Federal planning factors, and the preferred public vision. To keep the s

framework for the MI Transportation Plan simple and to establish a strong linkage between goals and ob

the team identifi ed four theme-based goal areas refl ecting the Department’s highest priorities: Stewardship

and Security, System Improvement, and Effi cient and Effective Operations. Objectives under each goal ar

organized into three categories: 1) Integration; 2) Economic Benefi t; and 3) Quality of Life. The team 

the list of recommended performance measures to 19 core measures and seven subordinate measures b

the selection criteria. The performance measures were presented and applied in a way that both refl ects th

focus on integration and aligns with MDOT’s program structure. Fatality rates and crash rates are two o

• Develops performance measurement selec

criteria to keep performance measures co

and meaningful.

• Incorporates expectations related to safet

formance measures into department, wor

and individual level performance evaluati
22

implement a specifi c process or plan at the department-level. Work area objectives are identifi ed and 

cated through action plans that fulfi ll the Strategic Plan. Individual Employee Performance Plans se

goals and competencies for employees based on the Strategic Plan’s seven goals. 

One goal of the MDOT Strategic Plan is to enhance and continue to improve safety within the transpo

tems and workplace. Employee Performance Plans include expectations related to safety such as ensu

crash reports, complying with and enforcing personal protection equipment policy, keeping work zon

ant, and setting priorities based on safety risks to public, direct force, and contract agency crews.

Results

Performance measures established by MDOT provide a means for tracking performance with respe

goals and objectives, and support the development of investment scenarios and future decision-m

measures also establish a basis for MDOT to measure progress in its long-range transportation p

mentation. Integrating safety-related performance objectives into department, work area, and indi

performance plans provides specifi c actions for MDOT employees to take to improve safety. T

Strategic Plan enhances the link between the MI Transportation Plan and department-level goals and 

Measuring performance helps the public understand how money is invested and why investment p

selected. MDOT is in the process of developing a web page to provide performance measures and 

the public. 
23

incorporates safety planning goals and performance measu

its regional transportation planning process by aligning i

range transportation plan with the State’s Strategic Highwa

Plan (SHSP), providing data analysis support for project 

cation to local governments, and using safety performan

sures to plan investments. The SEMCOG Traffi c Safety P

provides data collection and technical analysis support to local governments by identifying high-crash lo

and recommending potential solutions. The program ensures data collection, technical analysis and planni

cesses support SEMCOG’s long-range planning goals and objectives. 

The region’s long-range transportation plan identifi es fi ve strategic goals, one of which is to promote a s

secure transportation system. SEMCOG developed performance indicators for each goal and identifi 

analysis tools to track and analyze each measure. SEMCOG’s long-range transportation plan is aligned w

SHSP fatality goal to set target performance measures for the region. 

SEMCOG has developed quantitative tools for relating investment to performance for the transportation 

The MPO uses an asset management approach to develop a regional transportation investment plan based 

benefi ts meeting-specifi c performance targets. The approach estimates the budget needed to achieve spec

formance targets, one of which is safety. The tools allow the region to estimate the benefi ts of various inv

scenarios and compare to system performance at current investment levels. The MPO determines the per

of regional investments needed to meet the performance measure goals and prioritizes safety mitigation st

SEMCOG conducts an analysis of various scenarios for allocating available safety funds. Based on that a

an investment approach for funding various safety mitigation strategies is recommended. Safety mitigation 

gies include intersection signal improvements, intersection geometric improvements (i.e., turn lanes), and s

improvements (i.e., median barriers and center left-turn lanes). 

To promote a comprehensive approach to traffi c safety analysis, SEMCOG provides a central location f

fi c crash data and a Traffi c Safety Manual, which describes a comprehensive approach to traffi c safety a

The innovative traffi c records system uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to spatially analyze cra

obtained from the Michigan Department of State Police’s Criminal Justice Information Center (CJIC). 

data reports on specifi c intersections and segments of roadway are available. The traffi c data reports, hig

location, transportation data map, and intersection and roadway segments databases allow users to identif

related to SHSP emphasis areas or view community profi les.

The Traffi c Safety Program develops maps and defi ciency analyses for each goal and performance measu

SEMCOG identifi es road segments and intersections with safety defi ciencies related to the SHSP emphas

and tags crashes in the regional crash database related to specifi c emphasis areas. The MPO provides 

defi ciencies to its local governments so they can identify projects for the State’s annual call for safety proje

consider them in long-range planning.

• Integrates regional goals, objectives, and performance measures into traffi c safety analysis 

process.
24

to local agencies for high-risk location analysis and cost-benefi t analysis. This approach ensures local s

sis and project prioritization is aligned with the region’s and State’s long-range goals, objectives, and p

measures. The region has exceeded the statewide goal of reducing traffi c crash fatalities to one per 

vehicle miles traveled.

Federal Highway Administration

Offi ce of Safety E71-115

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-2288 Fax: 202-493-3222

Federal Highway Administration

Offi ce of Planning E72-123

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-0106 Fax: 202-493-2198

FHWA-HEP-09-043

September 2009