Developing Safety Plans

A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA-SA-12-017
Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides highquality information to serve Government, industry, and the 

public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the 

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

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and 

processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability 

for its contents or use thereof.
Technical Report Documentation Page

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

FHWA-SA-12-017

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners March 2012

6. Performing Organization Code

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

Andrew H. Ceifetz, P.E.; Jeffrey Bagdade, P.E.; Dan Nabors, P.E., 

Michael Sawyer, P.E., Kim Eccles, P.E.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB)

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700

Vienna, VA 22182

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00022, T-10-002

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590-9898

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HSST

15. Supplementary Notes

The Task Manager for this document was Rosemarie Anderson, FHWA Office of Safety.

The Technical Oversight Working Group included Kaye Bieniek (Olmsted County, Minnesota), Michael Briggs 

(Planning Department, City of Nashville, Tennessee), Mike Castellano (FHWA), Pam Fischer (independent 

consultant), Hillary Isebrands (FHWA), Lance Johnson (FHWA), Kelly Larosa (FHWA), Pete McGeshick (Sokaogon 

Chippewa of Mole Lake, WI), Jana R. Simpler (Office of Highway Safety, Delaware), Kimberly Vachal (Upper 

Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University), and Jennifer Warren (FHWA).

16. Abstract

Local road practitioners across the country play a critical role in addressing crash risks at the local level and 

may be able to identify the specific or unique conditions that contribute to crashes within their jurisdictions. 

The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) offers a foundation for consensus and focus. It defines key emphasis areas 

and strategies that impact local rural roads and provides a framework to accomplish safety enhancements at 

the local level. The LRSP helps communities take a proactive stance in reducing and preventing local road 

fatalities and injuries. This document guides the development of an LRSP.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Safety Plan, Local, Rural, Implementation, Emphasis 

Areas, Vision, Mission Statement, Goals, Local Road, 

Safety.

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 66 NA

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

Developing Safety Plans | i

Table of Contents

Acronyms... ....................................................................................................1

Executive Summary... .....................................................................................2

Introduction... ................................................................................................4

Purpose of this Guide 4

Background 4

1 The Importance of Developing a Local Road Safety Plan...............................6

Local Roads in Rural Areas 6

Benefits of a Local Road Safety Plan 7

Critical Success Factors 9

2 Understanding the Process of Developing a Local Road Safety Plan... ......... 10

Step 1: Establish Leadership 11

Identify a Champion 11

Convene a Working Group 11

Identify and Contact Stakeholders 12

Program Coordination and Sustainability 14

Develop a Vision, Mission Statement, and Goals 14

Gain Leadership Support 15

Step 2: Analyze Safety Data 15

Gather Data 17

Data Analysis with Crash Data 17

Data Analysis with Other Safety Data 18

Step 3: Determine Emphasis Areas 18

Identify Emphasis Area Objectives and Performance Measures 20

Emphasis Area Examples 22

Step 4: Identify Strategies 23

Categorize and Review 23

Propose Ordinances and Policies 24
ii | Developing Safety Plans 

Step 5: Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies 24

Identify Priorities 24

Determine Intended Implementation Approach for Strategies 25

Draft the Plan 25

Step 6: Evaluate and Update the LRSP 26

Monitor Progress 26

Plan Evaluation 26

Living Document 27

3 Common Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges... ...................................... 28

Personnel 28

Funding 28

Limited Data 29

4 Case Studies... ........................................................................................... 31

Ongoing Commitments to Road Safety 31

Obtaining Data and Establishing Relationships are High Priorities 33

LRSP Generated Using SHSP Model 35

Securing Funding and Developing Partnerships 37

Developed a Model and Framework 39

5 Summary... ................................................................................................ 40

Appendix A: Template for Kickoff Meeting Agenda... ..................................A-1

Appendix B: Sample Emphasis Areas... .......................................................B-1

Appendix C: Emphasis Area Table... ............................................................C-1

Appendix D: Template for an LRSP ... ......................................................... D-1

Appendix E: Resources... ............................................................................. E-1
Developing Safety Plans | iii

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Summary of the Benefits of a Local Road Safety Plan......................8

Table 2.1: Local Road Safety Plan Stakeholders. ............................................ 13

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Structure of a Local Road Safety Plan............................................ 10

Figure 2.2: Emphasis Area Table.................................................................... 21

Figure 2.3: Sample Outline of Draft LRSP....................................................... 25

Developing Safety Plans | 1

Acronyms

AAA American Automobile Association

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ATSSA American Traffic Safety Services Association 

ATV All-Terrain Vehicles 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BOTS Bureau of Transportation Safety 

CATS Campus Area Transportation Study 

CERS Center for Excellence in Rural Safety 

CUUATS Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study

DOT Department of Transportation

EMS Emergency Medical Services 

ESSI State Farm Embedded Safety Specialist Pilot Initiative 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

Four (4) E’s Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services

FTA Federal Transit Administration

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program 

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation 

LRSAG Local Road Safety Advisory Group 

LRSP Local Road Safety Plan 

LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

NACE National Association of County Engineers 

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHI National Highway Institute 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RPO Regional Planning Organization

SAFER Safety Evaluation for Roadways Manual

SAFETEA-LU Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SCIL Selected Crash Intersection Locations 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

TIC Transportation Information Center 

TTAP Tribal Technical Assistance Program

usRAP United States Road Assessment Program

WACERS Wyoming Association of County Engineers and Road Supervisors

WAM Wyoming Association of Municipalities

WisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

WRRSP Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation
2 | Developing Safety Plans 

Executive Summary

Approximately 60 percent of all road miles in the U.S. are non‐Interstate, rural 

roads owned and operated by local entities, such as towns, counties, and tribal 

governments. In 2009, 56 percent of highway deaths occurred on rural roads and 

the fatality rate was 2.6 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas. These 

data underscore the need to systematically improve road safety in rural areas.

All States have a comprehensive safety plan that provides a framework for 

reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. This Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a data‐driven plan that establishes statewide 

goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas that integrate the 4 E’s of Safety – 

engineering, education, enforcement and emergency services. The SHSP can 

assist local practitioners in addressing safety on local rural roads but a locallyfocused plan is often needed to address the unique conditions that contribute 

to safety problems and to assist local practitioners in making informed safety 

investment decisions. These challenges faced by local agencies can be addressed 

through the creation of a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP).

Local practitioners play a critical role in addressing crash risks at the local level; 

an LRSP provides the framework for local practitioners to take a proactive stance 

to identify the specific or unique conditions that contribute to crashes within 

their jurisdictions. Similar to a State’s SHSP, an LRSP utilizes the 4 E’s to address 

safety issues. An LRSP provides an excellent opportunity for safety stakeholders 

and involved agencies at all levels of government (local, State, and Federal) to 

work together to align and leverage resources to address the safety challenges 

unique to rural roads.

Additional benefits may be realized in the process of developing an LRSP 

to include:

• Promoting road safety awareness.

• Developing lasting partnerships that may benefit future projects. 

• Instilling or enhancing a sense of collaboration among different disciplines. 

• Assisting local agencies to better leverage funding.
Developing Safety Plans | 3

LRSPs have been successful in comprehensively addressing safety for a variety of 

local agencies throughout the U.S. The safety plans developed by these agencies 

have strengthened multi-disciplinary commitments to road safety. For example, 

Olmsted County, Minnesota prepared an LRSP that resulted in the implementation 

of county-wide strategies such as enhancing delineation of horizontal curves, 

upgrading sign and pavement markings, and providing dynamic warning signs 

at rural stop-controlled intersections. These and other projects initiated from 

identified safety strategies in the LRSP received $962,000 of Federal funds for 

implementation.

Addressing safety on rural roads can be challenging. The development of an 

LRSP can serve as a cornerstone to building a comprehensive safety program to 

address the safety challenges on the roadways. Depending on safety needs of 

the jurisdiction, the LRSP will vary in size and level of detail. This guide provides 

the tools necessary to start a LRSP. It provides information to local practitioners 

about identifying stakeholders and partnerships needed to build support, tools to 

analyze data, and resources to identify safety issues and select safety strategies. 

Worksheets and other sample materials have been provided to aid in the LRSP 

process. Examples of programs and experiences of other agencies have also been 

included to provide examples of successes in implementing LRSPs and improving 

safety for all road users.
4 | Developing Safety Plans 

Introduction

Purpose of this Guide

The purpose of this document is to guide local rural road practitioners in 

developing a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). The expected result of a successful 

LRSP is to save lives and prevent injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes. 

Practitioners may be road supervisors, engineers, planners, local officials, law 

enforcement officers, or others who deal with transportation issues. This guide 

may be referenced throughout the process of developing an LRSP to assist 

local rural road practitioners in improving safety in a comprehensive manner, 

incorporating engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services 

measures—the 4 E’s of safety—into a framework.

This guidebook outlines the process for developing an LRSP. An LRSP is a locallycoordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing 

highway fatalities and serious injuries on local rural roads. An LRSP is flexible and 

utilizes the 4 E’s as appropriate to establish and gain support for an agency’s local 

safety goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas. LRSP development is usually 

initiated by a transportation professional or elected official. The purpose of an 

LRSP is to identify key safety needs and guide investment decisions to achieve 

reductions in fatalities and serious injuries on local rural public roadways. An 

LRSP provides an opportunity for agencies at all levels of government (local, 

State, and Federal) and other stakeholders to work together to align and leverage 

resources to address the safety challenges unique to rural roads.

Background

Approximately 60 percent of all road miles in the U.S. are non-Interstate, rural 

roads owned and operated by local entities, such as towns, counties, and tribal 

governments.1 Local rural roads include facilities with two or more lanes and 

range from paved to unpaved roadways. The majority of these roads are twolane, paved roads. Rural roads reflect a disproportionate number of fatalities 

and serious injuries. In 2009, 56 percent of highway deaths occurred on rural 

roads, though only 23 percent of Americans live in rural areas.2 

 1 FHWA Highway Statistics (2009)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/hm20.cfm

2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis, Traffic Safety Facts, Rural/Urban Comparison, 2008 Data (PDF), DOT HS 811 164.
Developing Safety Plans | 5

Furthermore, the fatality rate (deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) is 

2.6 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas, underscoring the need to 

systematically improve road safety in rural areas.
6 | Developing Safety Plans 

1 The Importance of Developing 

a Local Road Safety Plan

Local Roads in Rural Areas

Over three-fourths of all road miles in the U.S. are in rural areas. Of those three 

million miles of rural roads, almost 80 percent are owned and operated by local 

entities. In 2009, rural roads accounted for approximately 33 percent of the 

vehicle miles traveled in the U.S.3, but 56 percent of fatalities. 

Local roads in rural areas may have design elements that increase the risk of 

fatalities or serious injuries, such as inappropriately high speed limits, narrow lane 

widths and shoulders, steep ditches, or trees close to the roadway. Additionally, 

the low population density and sparse land use of rural communities can 

increase detection, response, and travel times for emergency services, reducing 

key factors in crash survivability. It typically takes more than twice as long for 

emergency services to arrive at a crash scene in a rural community compared to 

an urban community.4

All States already have a comprehensive safety plan. A State’s Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a 

comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on 

all public roads. It is a major component and requirement of the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP)5 and is developed by the State Department of 

Transportation (DOT) in a cooperative process with local, State, Federal, and private 

sector safety stakeholders. The SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive plan that 

establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas that integrates 

the 4 E’s – engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services.

3 Highway Statistics 2009 – Functional System Travel

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/vm2.cfm

4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Crashes 

Take Their Toll on America’s Rural Roads (PDF), 2006.

5 Highway Safety Improvement Program http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/
Developing Safety Plans | 7

The purpose of an SHSP is to identify the State’s key safety needs and guide 

investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in highway fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads. Very often a State’s SHSP will include local 

and or rural roads as a specific emphasis area for safety improvements. 

An LRSP can also be valuable for improving roadway safety. Local road 

practitioners across the country play a critical role in addressing crash risks at 

the local level and may be able to identify the specific or unique conditions that 

contribute to crashes within their jurisdictions. The LRSP offers a foundation for 

consensus and focus. It defines key emphasis areas and strategies that impact 

local rural roads and provides a framework to accomplish safety enhancements at 

the local level, whereas the SHSP prioritizes safety needs and investments at the 

State level. However, the State SHSP may provide inputs to the LRSP. Likewise, 

the LRSP can feed the SHSP process to identify local road specific safety issues. 

Altogether, the LRSP is a coordinated effort that assists local agencies in taking a 

proactive stance in reducing and preventing local road fatalities and injuries. This 

document guides the development of an LRSP.

Benefits of a Local Road Safety Plan

An LRSP can be an effective tool for saving lives and reducing injuries on local 

rural roadways. While this is ultimately the purpose of an LRSP, there are other 

benefits that may be realized in the process of developing an LRSP. These benefits 

are summarized in Table 1.1.
8 | Developing Safety Plans 

Table 1.1: Summary of the Benefits of a Local Road Safety Plan.

BENEFIT DETAILS

Proactive 

Approach

An LRSP offers a proactive approach for local road agencies to

address safety issues. An LRSP can show the public and policy 

makers that something is being done to systematically reduce 

severe crashes, thereby building trust with local government 

officials, key stakeholders, and the general public. 

Develop 

Partnerships 

An LRSP provides local agencies an opportunity to improve 

relationships with the public, stakeholders, and across 

governmental agencies by working through a collaborative 

process. Improving road safety is a benefit for everyone involved. 

Multidisciplinary 

Cooperation

An LRSP is a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing safety. 

Agencies are better able to develop more effective solutions and 

leverage resources by considering and coordinating engineering, 

enforcement, education, and emergency service strategies.

Safer 

Roadways 

An LRSP facilitates a comprehensive approach to addressing road 

safety that—if successfully implemented—can lead to projects 

that reduce severe crashes.

Safety 

Funding

An LRSP with a prioritized list of improvements can help agencies

better justify funding requests by documenting specific needs,

particularly if they are consistent with emphasis areas and 

strategies identified in the State’s SHSP. An LRSP also shows that 

an agency has done its due diligence and can help an agency 

compete more effectively for limited funds. 

Managing 

Liability

An LRSP is one of several proactive risk management techniques 

that demonstrate an agency’s responsiveness to the safety needs 

of the public.

Table 1.1: Summary of the Benefits of a Local Road Safety Plan.
Developing Safety Plans | 9

Critical Success Factors

The success of an LRSP is dependent on five critical components:

• Having a champion: A champion advocates for the LRSP and gathers the 

political support to assist in its implementation.

• Developing a clear vision and mission: A strategic vision and mission unite all

stakeholders with a common goal. 

• Assembling collaborative partners: Partners collaborate to implement 

the plan.

• Allocating appropriate resources: Manpower and management are essential 

for ensuring a plan’s success.

• Establishing open communication: The LRSP owners should foster open and 

frequent communication with stakeholders, community partners, and citizens 

as they develop and implement the plan.

If one of these components is not initially available, the plan should still move 

forward, as other components may be added or expanded as the plan is refined. 

For example, the plan may begin with a champion, but partners may be added as 

the plan develops. In fact, the plan itself may help attract partners.

Practitioners who are interested in developing and implementing an LRSP should 

also be fully aware of the other strategic goals within their organization and how 

the proposed LRSP will complement those goals.
10 | Developing Safety Plans 

2 Understanding the Process of 

Developing a Local Road Safety Plan

As shown in Figure 2.1, developing an LRSP consists of a general six-step process. 

The process is cyclical; when the last step of the plan is completed the process 

starts all over again. The intent of this approach is to provide a framework of the 

key steps in developing an LRSP, but this can be tailored to the unique needs and 

circumstances of the locality. 

Figure 2.1 Structure of a Local Road Safety Plan.

Step 1: Establish Leadership

Step 2: Analyze Safety Data

Step 3: Determine Emphasis Areas

Step 4: Identify Strategies

Step 5: Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies

Step 6: Evaluate and Update the LRSP

1. Identify a Champion

2. Convene a Working Group

3. Identify and Contact Stakeholders

4. Program Coordination 

and Sustainability

5. Develop a Vision, Mission 

Statement, and Goals

6. Gain Leadership Support

1. Gather Data

2. Data Analysis with Crash Data

3. Data Analysis with other Safety Data

1. Identify Emphasis Area Objectives 

and Performance Measures

2. Emphasis Area Examples

1. Categorize and Review 2. Propose Ordinances and Policies

1. Identify Priorities

2. Determine Intended Implementation 

Approach for Strategies

3. Draft the Plan

1. Monitor Progress

2. Plan Evaluation

3. Living Document

Page 11 Page 15 Page 18 Page 23 Page 24 Page 26

stakeholder involvement and communication utilized throughout
Developing Safety Plans | 11

Step 1: Establish Leadership

Identify a Champion

The safety champion, whether appointed or selected by the plan proponents, will 

advocate for the successful development, implementation, and evaluation of the 

LRSP. This person typically will have a keen understanding of the importance of 

moving forward with plan implementation and have some influence in acquiring 

and the use of safety resources. Champions may include a public works official, 

local engineer or transportation official, law enforcement officer, elected official, 

community administrator, or local citizen. 

Convene a Working Group

An LRSP can often be initiated through an informal meeting. The participants 

may eventually form the foundation of the LRSP working group, which is the 

team responsible for developing the LRSP. Bringing the right agencies or 

individuals together to be part of the working group will help foster a long-term 

commitment and build momentum to implement the plan. The responsibilities 

of this group include the following:

• Establishing a charter or memorandum of understanding to clarify each 

working group member’s role.

• Analyzing data (crash, traffic, etc.) to look for trends or potential 

problem areas.

• Recommending and prioritizing emphasis areas to include in the LRSP;

• Engaging relevant safety stakeholders.

• Identifying public, private, and non-profit funding sources to implement 

the LRSP.

• Writing the LRSP. 

• Marketing the LRSP through a communication plan with key messages for 

active public involvement.

• Encouraging local groups (civic organizations or business improvement 

districts) to adopt common safety goals as part of their plans.

• Participating in LRSP implementation efforts and tracking progress after the 

initial plan is developed. 
12 | Developing Safety Plans 

One strategy to initiate and formalize the function and roles of the working group 

is to hold a kick-off meeting for the LRSP. A block of time, approximately one 

hour, should be set aside for this initial meeting which may be useful inidentifying 

stakeholders, discussing ideas, or planning a future schedule for implementation.

A sample agenda for a working group kickoff meeting is provided in Appendix 

A. The sample agenda includes introductions, defining the LRSP and describing 

the benefits, the identification of other agencies or participants that should be 

invited, and information for the next meeting. The specific topics included in 

the kickoff meeting agenda should be at the discretion of the organizer. If an 

initial crash analysis has been conducted, this would be appropriate to present 

at the project kick-off to identify the scope of the safety challenge within the 

locality. If possible stakeholders may begin to outline key emphasis areas; 

however, covering essential items such as the logistics for regular meetings may 

be sufficient for the kick-off meeting. The most important outcome of the kickoff meeting is to establish a commitment to create the plan and set a meeting 

schedule for the future. 

Identify and Contact Stakeholders

The working group identifies and contacts LRSP stakeholders—individuals who 

have a vested interest in road safety. Stakeholders should include decision 

makers who can further the LRSP process by helping to plan, implement, and 

evaluate the progress of achieving the safety goals outlined in the LRSP. Typical 

LRSP stakeholders are listed in Table 2.1.
Developing Safety Plans | 13

Table 2.1: Local Road Safety Plan Stakeholders.

Table 2.1: Local Road Safety Plan Stakeholders.

AREA POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS

Engineering  County Engineer, Road Superintendent

 Director of Public Works

 Transportation Planner / Engineer

 Local Engineering or Public Works Department

 County Highway Department

 State DOT Region or District Office

 Federal Highway Administration Division Office

 Bureau of Indian Affairs  

Enforcement  Chief of Police

 Local/Tribal Police Department

 County Sheriff’s Department

 State Police/Patrol

Education  Public Safety Stakeholders (e.g., AAA, SafeKids,

Operation Lifesaver, League of American

Bicyclists, etc.)

 Driving Education and Training Professionals

 Local Public Information Official

Emergency

Services

 Local Emergency Service Providers

 Emergency Service Director

 Hospitals

 Fire Chief

Other

Stakeholders

 School District (facilities and/or transportation)

 Local Planning and Zoning Department or

Commission

 Governor’s or State’s Highway Safety Office  

 Local Agency Budgeting Office

 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) /

Rural Planning Organization / Regional Council

of Governments

 AARP

 Local Politicians/Commissioners

 Local/Tribal Technical Assistance Program

 Railroads

 Park District/Authority

 Transit Agency

 Community Groups (Chamber of Commerce,

Tourism Agencies, etc.)
14 | Developing Safety Plans 

Program Coordination and Sustainability

Stakeholders working together as a team can eliminate redundancy, increase 

program efficiency, and leverage limited resources. Active communication 

among organizations, whether at the Federal, State, regional, local, or Tribal 

level, can create a collaborative environment that results in reduced crashes 

by allowing diverse agencies to share expertise and unique ideas. It is critical 

that working group members are identified and make a commitment to 

pursue the safety vision and goals. As the plan evolves, local citizens should 

also be consulted for input and feedback. NCHRP Report 501 offers ideas for 

integrating and coordinating multi-disciplinary (4E) efforts within a jurisdiction 

and determining the most effective combination of strategies.6 While each 

safety management team is different, common themes of coordination, 

communication, and collaboration are paramount and are the hallmarks of a 

successful team approach. Regular meetings, more frequent in the development 

stages, should be convened to show incremental progress in the plan; this will 

help maintain momentum and focus. Consistent, effective communication is 

necessary to disseminate key information to team members and to relay key 

messages to the community. Finally, a collaborative environment between the 

involved stakeholders is required to identify barriers and to develop consensus 

on which safety challenges to address.

Even within a single organization, unique knowledge of assets may be known by 

different members of the staff or departments. An LRSP provides a framework 

for sharing and preserving this institutional knowledge.

Develop a Vision, Mission Statement, and Goals

Having a clear vision is important when beginning to develop an LRSP. A vision 

is a description of the desired outcome of the LRSP. This may be simple, such as, 

“to improve road safety within our jurisdiction in order to significantly reduce 

the number of people being killed and seriously injured.” A mission statement 

supports the overall vision and should provide direction. For example, the 2010 

Delaware SHSP lists the following mission statement:7

 6 NCHRP Report 501 Integrated Safety Management Process is available online at 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_501.pdf

 7 http://www.deldot.gov/information/community_programs_and_services/DSHSP/index.shtml
Developing Safety Plans | 15

“Toward Zero Deaths aims to eliminate fatalities on Delaware’s roadways through 

a multiagency approach that utilizes education, enforcement, engineering, and 

emergency service strategies.”

Goals are set to achieve a mission and vision. Goals should be linked to the 

mission statement and should be realistic. For example, “saving lives and 

preventing serious injuries over the next decade on our local county roads” is 

concise and easily understood. It creates the need to move forward because it 

prompts action. 

Gain Leadership Support

An LRSP can be a grassroots effort. Several LRSPs began as a basic conversation 

on road safety within a local agency. Gaining support from community leaders, 

such as a city or county council, will aid in the development of the plan and 

impact outcomes.

Sharing ideas and gaining feedback from a group of leaders can help gain 

support. People who are consulted in developing a plan will feel a greater sense 

of ownership, and will be stronger advocates for a plan they helped develop.

Around the country, a variety of agencies have taken the lead in the development 

of an LRSP. These range from city or county road agencies to an MPO or a Tribe. 

In States with limited local roadway ownership, the State DOT may take the lead. 

Several case studies illustrating how agencies have developed an LRSP can be 

found in Section 4.

Step 2: Analyze Safety Data

Local road practitioners should analyze safety data prior to identifying the problem 

and emphasis areas. The State SHSP is a great starting point for communities 

considering the development of an LRSP.8 In most cases, the SHSP has identified, 

through data analysis, issues on local roads in rural areas. The SHSP may have 

resources, data, and other information that can be used to develop an LRSP. Each 

SHSP typically lists the office or person responsible for the plan. In addition, 

there are several analysis resources available and may be in use at the State level. 

These resources include:

 8 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), FHWA Safety Program

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp
16 | Developing Safety Plans 

Crash Analysis Resources – These are guides that detail procedures for analyzing 

crash data. These resources include:

• Roadway Safety Information Analysis: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners, 

located at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasaxx1210/

• NCHRP Report 500, Volume 21: Safety Data and Analysis in Developing 

Emphasis Areas, which can be found at 

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Public/Blurbs/Safety_Data_and_Analysis_

in_Developing_Emphasis_Ar_160164.aspx

The purpose of the latter is to provide guidance on the sources of safety data 

needed and on the procedures for selecting strategies within a given emphasis 

area and targeting those treatment strategies to either roadway locations or 

road-user groups.

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) - The first edition of the HSM provides the best 

factual information and tools in a useful form to facilitate roadway planning, 

design, operations, and maintenance decisions based on precise consideration 

of their safety consequences. The primary focus of the HSM is the introduction 

and development of analytical tools for predicting the impact of transportation 

project and program decisions on road safety. Further information may be found 

at http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx.

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) - includes six evaluation 

modules: Crash Prediction, Policy Review, Design Consistency, Traffic Analysis, 

Driver/Vehicle, and Intersection Review. The Crash Prediction Module (CPM) 

implements Part C (Predictive Method) of the HSM for evaluating rural 2-lane 

highways, rural multilane highways and urban/suburban arterials. Further 

information may be found at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/projects/

safety/comprehensive/ihsdm/index.cfm.

Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse - includes a Web-based 

database of CMFs along with supporting documentation to help transportation 

engineers identify the most appropriate countermeasure for their safety needs. 

Further information may be found at http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/.
Developing Safety Plans | 17

SafetyAnalyst - incorporates state-of-the-art safety management approaches 

into computerized analytical tools for guiding the decision-making process 

to identify safety improvement needs and develop a system wide program 

of site-specific improvement projects. Further information may be found at 

http://www.safetyanalyst.org/.

Gather Data

Crash and other safety data are used to identify safety issues, select appropriate 

countermeasures, and evaluate performance. The analysis used in the 

development of an LRSP usually looks at the bigger picture and does not focus 

on analyzing crash data for a specific site. If crash data are not readily available, 

other safety-related data or crash risk assessments (such as locations with 

geometric similarities as locations of known concern) can help identify safety 

issues and concerns. Other data may include traffic citations, hospital records, 

insurance claims, speeds, traffic counts, and in some cases anecdotal evidence 

from safety partners.

The following additional data sources may be helpful in the development of 

an LRSP:

• Local law enforcement records.

• State/local crash reporting databases.

• State crash facts report. 

If local agencies encounter data challenges, the Road Safety Information Analysis: 

A Local Rural Road Owner’s Manual provides strategies in the collection and 

analysis of crash and other roadway data9. 

Data Analysis with Crash Data

Crash data are the most useful to identify safety issues, however, typically at least 

three years of crash data are needed. Basic crash data analyses may include 

identifying trends based on time-based indicators (e.g., time-of-day, day-ofweek, or month-of-year), environmental conditions (e.g., weather or lighting), or 

geographic factors (e.g., location). Examples of analyses include:

9 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasaxx1210/
18 | Developing Safety Plans 

• Crashes by severity and type for the entire city/county. 

• Crashes by severity and type by roadway functional classification or type.

• Contributing factors:

ͧ Restraint use (seat belts, car seats).

ͧ Alcohol or drug use.

ͧ Weather conditions. 

ͧ Distracted driving.

The analyses of these data could range from simply marking locations on a map to 

tallying common factors in a list, or using a spreadsheet application to determine 

trends by location, crash type, or other contributing factors.

Data Analysis with Other Safety Data

When State or local-jurisdiction crash data are not available or adequate, 

other sources to identify safety issues include hospital/emergency responder 

records, towing company records, insurance databases, or by conducting road 

safety ratings. Road safety ratings may be based on the presence of specific 

roadway or roadside designs, traffic control features, or other features that can 

be used to assess crash risk. For example, the United States Road Assessment 

Program (usRAP) provides a method to identify major safety shortcomings 

through a program of systematic assessment of risk. The result is a star rating of 

roadway safety. Details on the usRAP process and methodology can be found at 

www.usrap.us.

An agency may conduct an observational study or a road safety audit (RSA) 

to gain a better understanding of safety issues. An RSA is the formal safety 

performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an 

independent, multidisciplinary team.10 RSA’s may also be conducted to identify 

safety concerns at either a single location or along a corridor. Details on RSAs can 

be found at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/.

Step 3: Determine Emphasis Areas

The working group should identify the key emphasis areas of the LRSP. An emphasis 

area is an area of opportunity to improve safety through a comprehensive 4 E 

approach (engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services), if 

appropriate. The emphasis areas should be consistent with trends identified 

10 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/
Developing Safety Plans | 19

during the data analysis. In some cases, if data are unavailable, emphasis areas 

may address concerns of the various stakeholders and the community. Local 

citizens should be given the chance to identify areas of concern. Methods 

to reach out to citizens may include public forums, open-house meetings, an 

internet survey, or via a request for comments advertised in the local newspaper.

Emphasis areas are an opportunity to improve safety and should reflect the 

input of the group and consider strategies from the 4 E’s of roadway safety 

improvement when appropriate:11

• Education gives drivers information about making good choices, such as 

not texting while driving, avoiding alcohol or medications affecting level of 

consciousness, wearing a seatbelt, or informing people about the rules of 

the road.

• Enforcement of traffic laws and a visible police presence tend to deter 

motorists from unsafe driving behavior.

• Engineering addresses roadway infrastructure improvements to prevent 

crashes or reduce the severity of collision when they occur.

• Emergency services provide rapid response and quality of care when 

responding to collisions causing injury by stabilizing victims and transporting 

them to other facilities.

Combining the efforts of multiple strategies, such as education and enforcement 

can increase the likelihood of success in improving safety. The emphasis areas 

chosen for inclusion in the plan should reflect a balance of local issues identified 

by the working group and the resources (financial, expertise, and time) available 

to put them into practice. If an emphasis area is critical but does not currently 

have resources, it should still be included with the constraints listed. Sample 

emphasis areas are presented in Appendix B.

11 For more information on these countermeasures and strategies, consult the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 500 Series Guidance Documents, 

available at www.safety.transportation.org, or the Federal Highway Administration’s 

(FHWA’s) Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse at 

www.cmfclearinghouse.org. Ideas for education and enforcement countermeasures 

can be found in NHTSA’s Countermeasures that Work. Tools, training, guidance, and 

countermeasures for rural and local governments can be found on FHWA’s website 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/. Several manuals for local rural road 

owners are available that address intersection safety, roadway departure safety, 

safety information analysis, speed management and non-motorized transportation
20 | Developing Safety Plans 

Identify Emphasis Area Objectives and Performance Measures

Each emphasis area may help meet the plan’s overall goal by establishing 

objectives and performance measures. Performance measures are shorterterm outcomes that contribute to achieving the strategic plan. They provide 

milestones, indications of progress, and should be established within a specific 

time period. Performance measures may be set at specified time intervals 

measured over the life of the plan such as, “reducing roadway departure fatalities 

each year and an overall reduction of 10 percent within five years.”12

Depending on the amount of time and number of people involved, dividing the 

emphasis areas among people or groups may be a useful allocation of manpower. 

If a person or group indicates a strong interest in targeting a particular emphasis 

area, they may form an emphasis area team. Emphasis area teams would be 

responsible for tasks such as the data analysis, strategy selection, implementation, 

tracking, reporting and evaluation of their assigned emphasis area.

One way to present the emphasis areas is through the use of a table that details 

responsibilities for implementing an action, desired outcomes, dates, and 

performance measure(s) for monitoring and evaluation, as shown in the example 

outlined in Figure 2.2. This table is also included as a template in Appendix C. 

 12 See “A Primer on Safety Performance Measures for the Transportation 

Planning Process” at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/tsp/fhwahep09043/.
Developing Safety Plans | 21

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGIC LINKAGE

Intersection Safety Intersection safety was identified in the state-wide 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan as one of seven emphasis 

areas for the State

OBJECTIVES SUCCESS INDICATORS

Reduce the frequency and severity 

of crashes at signalized and 

unsignalized intersections

A reduction in intersection crashes, particularly severe 

intersection crashes for the Town of Sylvia and in the 

surrounding areas.

Actions Target 

Output

Organizations 

and Persons 

Responsible

Date of 

Completion

Performance 

Measures

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation

Education

Public service 

announcements 

regarding 

dangers of red 

light running 

and stop sign 

violations

Awareness 

of the 

dangers of 

running red 

lights and 

stop signs

Ms. Naomi 

Fay with the 

Gazette is 

coordinating 

PSAs in 

paper and on 

radio station 

(WKAE)

Dec. 2012 Number of 

PSAs

Informal 

survey 

of public 

response 

planned for 

June public 

meeting

Enforcement

Enforcement 

blitz for 

high-crash 

intersections

Reduction 

in signal 

and stop 

sign 

violations

Chief W. 

McGee is 

organizing 

both 

blitzes and 

coordinating 

with Ms. Fay 

for media 

coverage

May and 

Sept. 2012

Number of 

tickets issued

Crashes in 

2012 where 

red light 

running 

was cited 

compared 

to 2011

Engineering

Increase 

visibility by 

removing 

vegetation at 

intersections; 

place stop 

ahead 

pavement 

markings

Increased 

compliance 

of traffic 

control 

because of 

increased 

visibility

Mr. Haley 

with the 

county 

maintenance 

staff

Aug. 2012 Number of 

intersections 

improved

Number of 

intersection 

crashes 

in 2012 

where sight 

distance 

was cited 

compared 

to 2011

EMS

Install 

emergency 

signal outside 

ambulance 

depot

Increased 

response 

time to 

intersection 

crashes

Mr. Luca 

Burton from 

County Public 

Works

Sept. 2012 Ambulance 

response 

time

Compare 

average 

response 

times to 

2011 times

Figure 2.2: Emphasis Area Table.
22 | Developing Safety Plans 

Emphasis Area Examples

Emphasis areas are based on the data analysis completed early in the LRSP 

process. Some examples include pedestrians, intersections, roadway departure, 

impaired driving, distracted driving, aggressive driving, commercial motor 

vehicles, motorcycles, and improving data. 

For other examples of emphasis areas, consider reviewing the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan13, which focuses on 22 key emphasis areas and contains 

strategies designed to improve each area’s major problem areas or to advance 

effective practices by means that are both cost-effective and acceptable to a 

significant majority of Americans. The AASHTO SHSP divides the 22 key emphasis 

areas into six major categories: Drivers, Special Users, Vehicles, Highways, 

Emergency Services, and Management. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) Countermeasures 

that Work also includes a variety of behavioral-related strategies that address 

specific emphasis areas that may be included within an LRSP.14 Strategies address 

the following emphasis areas:

	 P Distracted and/or drowsy driving

	 P Occupant protection

	 P Impaired driving

	 P Speed management

	 P Teen drivers

	 P Hazardous locations

	 P Roadway/lane departures

	 P Intersection safety

	 P Non-motorized road users

	 P Older drivers

	 P Incident response

	 P Nighttime crashes

	 P Crash data

Appendix B provides examples of additional emphasis areas, possible 

performance measures, and potential strategies. Not all of the potentialstrategies 

may be applicable to all locations and their effectiveness, if applied, may vary.

13 AASHTO SHSP: http://safety.transportation.org/

14 Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State 

Highway Safety Offices (http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811444.pdf).
Developing Safety Plans | 23

Step 4: Identify Strategies

Categorize and Review

An LRSP should include a list of strategies focused on addressing the emphasis 

areas. Strategies will be based on identifying, categorizing, and reviewing highpriority corridors or intersections for improvement. These are locations where 

safety improvements are most needed to achieve the goals in the LRSP and can 

form the basis for system-wide improvement strategies. Strategy selection will 

also be based on effective and validated practices.

For example, if reducing excessive speed is an emphasis area, consider the 

following measures:

• The education component may include campaigns to educate the public 

about the dangers of speeding.

• The enforcement component may involve the use of automated enforcement.

• The engineering component may call for the installation of speed 

feedback signs.

• The emergency service component may require the enactment of strategies 

targeted at reducing response time for first responders, thus increasing the 

chance of survival for a person involved in a crash.

A variety of resources are available for selecting effective and validated 

countermeasures, including: 

• Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse.

• FHWA Proven Countermeasures.

• Highway Safety Manual.

• NCHRP 500 Series.

• NHTSA Countermeasures that Work.

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Manual.

• Roadway Safety Noteworthy Practices Database.

• Intersection Safety: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners.

• Roadway Departure Safety: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners.

Please see the resources section for links to these references. 
24 | Developing Safety Plans 

Propose Ordinances and Policies

Local ordinances and local government policies addressing local road safety 

may help support efforts to meet the goals and objectives of the LRSP and 

increase public awareness of driver behavior issues. For example, if speeding 

is identified as an emphasis area, certain agencies may be able to pass local 

ordinances targeting speeding through increased fines or the use of automated 

speed enforcement. A champion sitting on the local council may be helpful in 

identifying additional policies and passing appropriate ordinances. This is often 

a good time to initiate an educational campaign to increase public awareness of 

the ordinances.

Formalizing policies can also help to improve and institutionalize safety. For 

example, a locality can develop polices related to maintenance of signs and 

pavement markings, provision of pedestrian features, transverse rumble strips, or 

vegetation removal. These policies can also serve as proactive risk management 

tools if they improve and institutionalize safety, by showing a measured approach 

towards improving safety.

Step 5: Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies

Identify Priorities

The proposed strategies for each key emphasis area should be prioritized by 

comparing the benefits and costs of implementation. This comparison can help 

the implementation phase by starting with the strategies that provide the highest 

benefit (e.g., reduction in crashes) for the least cost. However, costs and benefits 

are not the only considerations. Other considerations for prioritization include 

the availability of manpower (e.g., does the county maintenance staff have time 

available to trim vegetation over the summer), the schedule for implementation 

(e.g., are there short-term strategies that can be implemented rather quickly), 

and the relative importance of each emphasis area. The working group can 

determine an agreed upon priority for the strategy with these considerations 

in mind.

The Lafayette MPO case study, included in Section 4, includes three of the MPO’s 

highest-priority challenges. These were used to define the four main goals 

of the plan, and the final recommendations proposed can be traced back to 

the priorities.
Developing Safety Plans | 25

Determine Intended Implementation Approach for Strategies

Before drafting the plan, some thought should be given to the various 

approaches that will be used to implement the strategies. Some strategies will 

be implemented as part of a systematic improvement process such as providing 

rumble strips along rural corridors as part of a summer paving program. Other 

strategies may be part of a one-time event, such as an enforcement blitz, or a spot 

improvement program, such as installing protected left turn phasing at critical 

intersections. Because the plan will involve multiple agencies and different types 

of strategies, several approaches for implementation will be used. 

Draft the Plan

Depending upon the resources available, a draft plan can be created to cover the 

basic elements, as shown in Figure 2.3, or to create a more advanced framework 

for anticipated growth. An advanced framework may include emphasis areas 

with resource or institutional barriers or may require assistance from another 

level of government (e.g., adopting a primary seatbelt law). 

After a brief introduction that discusses the current condition of the local 

jurisdiction with respect to roadway fatalities, the purpose of the plan and how 

the plan will help reduce fatalities and serious injuries, the plan should state 

Figure 2.3: Sample Outline of Draft LRSP.

Emphasis Areas

• Objectives

• Performance Measures

• Strategies

• Action Plans

Introduction

Purpose

Mission and Vision Statements

Findings from Crash Analysis
26 | Developing Safety Plans 

the mission and vision for safety partners to work towards. The plan should 

discuss what data were gathered and analyzed and present the decision process 

regarding which emphasis areas were selected to include in the plan. Each 

emphasis area should identify an objective, goal, performance measures, and 

strategies. Defining the objective should tie back to the overall vision statement 

(e.g., to reduce roadway departure fatalities by 10 percent by 2020). The 

performance measures should monitor the progress in attaining the objective. 

The strategies should be listed by priority actions that can be performed by 

the 4 E’s as appropriate. Each strategy should include a performance measure. 

These strategies will be incorporated in the action plans that are created for each 

emphasis area, as suggested in Figure 2.2. 

Each section should be expanded with supporting information, such as tables or 

charts describing the crash data analysis results, maps detailing the area included 

within the plan, and photos representing areas of concern. A template for an 

LRSP can be found in Appendix D.

Step 6: Evaluate and Update the LRSP

Monitor Progress

Successful LRSPs are monitored for implementation progress. This helps 

provide accountability and can be used to keep stakeholders informed and 

engaged. Milestones should be set to measure progress, which may entail 

meeting periodically to determine if strategies that support emphasis areas are 

being implemented. By monitoring progress opportunities for collaborating on 

implementing strategies could be realized, which may assist with implementation. 

It is also important to keep a record of the implementations to serve as a 

historical record of completed strategies. This data will be essential in scheduling 

evaluations of the strategies implemented.

Plan Evaluation

Evaluation of the LRSP strategies should be ongoing to ensure the effectiveness 

of the projects and the overall plan. After strategies have been in place for at 

least one year (several years may be necessary for sufficient data), an agency 
Developing Safety Plans | 27

may wish to evaluate their effectiveness for larger-scale implementations. In 

many cases a before-and-after study using crash data will not be feasible because 

of the unavailability or lack of crash data. When sufficient crash data are not 

available, other measures of effectiveness (MOEs) can be used to evaluate the 

safety performance of an implemented strategy. Some example MOEs include 

the following:

• Number and type of public comments and concerns.

• Numbers and types of police citations.

• Number of fence/wall/sign impacts.

These MOEs are observed during a field study. The MOEs should be observed 

under similar periods and durations before and after implementation. Traffic 

volume data can help provide context on the results.

If sufficient crash data are available, a simple before-after study that compares 

the number of crashes before implementation to the number of crashes after 

implementation can be conducted to determine the effectiveness of implemented 

strategies. Typically a decrease in crashes would indicate that the treatment has 

successfully improved safety. However, to verify that a decrease in crashes is due 

to the strategies implemented and not a reduction in trips, before and after traffic 

data should be collected and compared between periods. The effectiveness of 

each strategy should be compared to the goals for each emphasis area. This is 

the ultimate measure if the LRSP is achieving the desired improvements in safety. 

Living Document

The working group should review the LRSP, examine progress, evaluate 

effectiveness, and, if needed, suggest changes or modifications to the plan. 

This ongoing evaluation of the LRSP may present opportunities to improve the 

plan. Advances in roadway development, legislation, and technology may also 

invite opportunities to update the plan. The working group should review these 

advances for possible incorporation into the plan. Regularly scheduled updates 

allow the working group to review what is working well and adjust what needs 

improvement. Establishing a regular evaluation and update cycle can assure 

routine examination of the plan and maximize the plan’s effectiveness. 
28 | Developing Safety Plans 

3 Common Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges

When developing an LRSP, agencies may be confronted with challenges from lack 

of personnel and data to funding restrictions and/or limitations.

Resolving these issues provides an opportunity to build new alliances, collaborate 

with other organizations, and secure new sources of funding. Guidance related 

to these challenges follows.

Personnel

Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and Tribal Technical Assistance 

Program (TTAP) centers, universities and other research institutions that work 

on transportation safety issues may also be available to provide assistance in the 

development of an LRSP. State DOTs and Regional MPOs or Regional Planning 

District Commissions may be able to assist with an LRSP. These agencies have 

resources or information on the development of LRSPs and about other LRSPs 

previously developed.

Some agencies have engaged a consultant to help create their LRSPs. A consultant 

may be able to bring additional expertise to the project.

Other organizations, such as AAA and local community groups, may be able 

to assist in the development of an LRSP as well. This may include creating a 

broad coalition of participants such that volunteers and other resources can 

be leveraged.

Funding

Limited funding is often a concern to most road agencies as they seek to implement 

roadway safety improvements. Agencies may also be concerned about how they 

will fund projects identified within an LRSP. In many cases, having an LRSP in 

place will increase an agency’s ability to secure funding to implement its safety 

strategies when competing for funding resources. An LRSP can also be useful 

for leveraging private funds from local businesses and corporations interested 

in investing in traffic safety. An LRSP can be developed using in-house staff in 

coordination with other agencies, thereby limiting the costs of time and financial 

resources spent developing the plan.
Developing Safety Plans | 29

Several options for funding both the development of an LRSP and the 

implementation of its strategies are discussed below.

• The State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (Section 402) was 

developed to provide funding to implement initiatives targeted at improving 

safety. Funds are typically used for safety projects related to enforcement, 

education, and emergency services and are administered by each State’s DOT 

or highway safety office. Additional information is available at 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/section402/.

• Federal funds within the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

may be used to develop an LRSP, as well as be used to implement the 

infrastructure-based improvements identified within an LRSP. HSIP funding is 

administered by each State’s DOT; the process to apply for funding varies by 

State. More information about HSIP can be found at 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/.

• Contacting the State’s DOT or other county and local transportation entities 

may help identify other funding opportunities. An MPO or Regional 

Planning Organization (RPO) may be able to allocate financial assistance for 

developing a plan. While money may appear to be a significant hurdle to 

the implementation of an LRSP, funding sources are available, and having an 

LRSP will typically increase an agency’s ability to secure funding to implement 

its strategies.

Limited Data

Limited data should not inhibit the development of an LRSP. Sources of crash 

data include NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the State DOT, 

raw law enforcement data, or the existing SHSP.

Data, such as traffic citations, hospital records, and speed monitoring, can also 

be used in the development of an LRSP. Other risk assessment processes, such as 

road safety audits or the usRAP, which provide methods to identify major safety 

shortcomings through a program of systematic assessment of risk as discussed in 

Section 2, can be used to identify safety issues for an LRSP. 
30 | Developing Safety Plans 

In many cases, agencies use their LRSPs to develop strategies to improve their 

local data. By including data collection as an emphasis area within an LRSP, 

an agency or group of agencies can begin to assess gaps in data and develop 

strategies for improvement. Roadway Safety Information Analysis: A Manual for 

Local Rural Road Owners was developed by FHWA to provide strategies in the 

collection and analysis of crash and other roadway data. This document can be 

found at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasaxx1210/.

Existing State and regional databases may also be used as a model for developing 

and implementing a data collection program. Data collected may include road 

conditions, maintenance records, weather, or other environmental factors, 

or any other data that may help to generate a snapshot of safety concerns. 

To find out if the State DOT may be able to provide this information, refer to

http://www.dottrcc.gov.
Developing Safety Plans | 31

4 Case Studies

LRSPs have been implemented by a variety of jurisdictions around the US. This 

section contains examples of programs implemented to address local rural 

safety issues.

Ongoing Commitments to Road Safety

Champaign County, Illinois

The agencies in Champaign County mapped out a unified strategy in a multidisciplinary LRSP (originally called a Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan). This 

was an effort to continue their commitment to road safety following the State 

Farm Embedded Safety Specialist Pilot Initiative (ESSI) which was launched in 

December 2006 in Champaign County, Illinois. ESSI was designed to develop and 

implement strategies for improving safety by reducing crashes instilling a more 

integrated safety culture within participating agencies.

The plan envisioned cooperation by various agencies. Each agency’s engineering 

department would be able to accomplish the engineering aspects of the plan, 

having both the authority and responsibility to build and maintain a safe road 

system. Challenges were also identified, including securing sustainable funding 

and developing partnerships with organizations that can assist with the education 

and enforcement aspects of the plan.

The plan focused on several key objectives:

1. Recommending proven safety measures.

2. Providing a structured and realistic set of responses that implement 

changes over time. 

3. Integrating a 4-E approach in its proposed solution strategies. 

4. Identifying road safety partners that could sustain a long-term effort.

The process for developing the plan included:

• Identification of the Champion and Safety Partners: The champion was the 

MPO, Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS). 

CUUATS took the lead on the implementing the process. An important part 

of the plan process was the identification of road safety partners already 

in the community. The LRSP served as a basis for setting up a county-wide 

safety committee which included engineering, enforcement, education, 
32 | Developing Safety Plans 

and emergency service representatives. The partners provided substantial 

input associated with problem identification and prioritization, as well as 

recommended solutions that were incorporated into the Comprehensive 

Highway Safety Plan.

• A Gap Analysis: As a part of the Comprehensive HighwaySafety Plan process, 

agency interviews were conducted to identify safety concerns.

• Network Screening: Network screening was a systematic process that 

extracted from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Local 

Accident Reference System (LARS) database useful information on the risk 

and potential mitigation of crashes at locations in Champaign County.

The following 13 key road safety issues were identified during the 

development process:

1. Intersections.

2. Information for decision-making.

3. Alcohol and other impaired drivers.

4. Driver behavior and awareness.

5. Roadway departure.

6. Vulnerable users.

7. Traffic signs.

8. Highway-railroad grade crossings.

9. Work zones.

10. Large trucks.

11. Safety belts / occupant protection.

12. Congestion.

13. Travel modes.

A set of 36 education, enforcement, engineering, emergency service, and 

institutional strategies was developed to improve safety in response to these 

concerns. These strategies were summarized and timeframes were recommended 

for implementation. Through the committee, a variety of intersection and 

corridor studies were implemented within the county leading to a number of 

RSA’s, HSIP-funded safety projects, and a teen driver safety initiative. 
Developing Safety Plans | 33

Obtaining Data and Establishing Relationships are High Priorities

Lafayette MPO, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana

Financed through grants from FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), the Lafayette Consolidated Government MPO sought to develop an LRSP 

(originally called a Transportation Strategic Safety Plan).

The plan included more than 250 strategies that incorporated the 4 E’s and varied 

by cost, proven effectiveness, and the number of partners, among other factors. 

Lafayette Parish has a high fatality crash rate that is well above the State average.

High-priority challenges were identified: obtaining crash data from parishes and 

municipalities included in the MPO study area, re-establishing and improving 

current relationships among enforcement agencies and emergency services, 

and establishing new relationships among enforcement agencies and Emergency 

services in parishes now included in the MPO Study Area.

More than 30 agencies were identified as key stakeholders in fostering 

collaboration, including school systems, law enforcement agencies, cities, 

departments of safety and transportation, and citizen committees.

Four main goals were proposed in the plan:

1. Protection of drivers and passengers.

2. Protection of all roadway users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, 

and motorcyclists.

3. Improvement of infrastructure.

4. Implementation of system-wide programs.

The most important goal was driver and passenger protection. Louisiana 

has been a “primary” enforcement State (i.e., one in which a driver may be 

pulled over solely for not wearing a seatbelt without needing any other visible 

infraction) with regards to safety belt usage since 1995, as the most obvious form 

of occupant protection is the safety belt.
34 | Developing Safety Plans 

To achieve these goals, the plan proposed the following actions:

1. Maximizing the use of occupant restraints by all vehicle occupants.

2. Insuring that restraints, especially child and infant child safety seats, are 

used properly.

3. Providing access to appropriate information, materials, and guidelines for 

implementing programs to increase the use of safety restraints among 

vehicle occupants.

The plan also listed all of the objectives and strategies along with the associated 

lead department or agency responsible for their implementation to include 

partners, approximate cost, and effectiveness.

Two primary measures of effectiveness for the implementation of these strategies 

were identified:

1. Safety belt use rate and percentage for the Lafayette MPO study area.

2. Number of unbelted fatal and serious injury crash victims and proportion 

of all fatalities.

The plan includes details about annually reviewing performance measures 

and guidelines as to how changes may be implemented. Additionally, there is 

a section devoted to funding implementation and continued management of 

the plan.

For the 2011-2012 fiscal year, Lafayette MPO proposed the following five 

recommended actions in their implementation plan totaling $3,210,000:

• Know Your Traffic Law Program - To educate the public about traffic safety 

and other risky behavior commonly experienced by Lafayette motorists.

• Safety Town – To construct a permanent, interactive education facility where 

children learn about traffic safety in a safe environment.

• Safety Fair – To educate youth about the basics of road safety.

• DWI Crash Emergency Room Program – To provide mobile trauma room 

demonstrations from high school to high school.

• Judicial Community Service Plan for Traffic Violators – To have judges assign 

community service hours based on the MPO Safety Plan.
Developing Safety Plans | 35

LRSP Generated Using SHSP Model 

Olmsted County, Minnesota

Olmsted County prepared an LRSP as part of an effort to reduce the number of 

fatal and serious injury crashes that occurred on its system of highways. It was 

part of a coordinated effort with the Southeast Minnesota Towards Zero Deaths 

organization and the sheriff’s department to identify opportunities for targeted 

enforcement campaigns.

The traffic safety priorities identified were based on the data-driven analysis of 

approximately 11,000 crashes that occurred in Olmsted County between 2003 

and 2007. The analysis was done in accordance with the guidelines for Federal 

transportation safety funds and Minnesota’s SHSP.

These primary steps were performed in completing the plan:

• Conducting a comprehensive crash analysis, including system (i.e., State vs. 

local), severity, location (i.e., urban vs. rural), intersection-related vs. road 

departure, and crash type.

• Identifying Olmsted County’s safety emphasis areas (22 identified causes 

of crashes).

• Identifying a short list of high-priority proven safety strategies effective at 

reducing specific types of crashes.

• Identifying locations on the county’s highway system that were most at-risk 

based on a variety of system-wide factors.

• Identifying safety improvement projects that would be eligible for funding 

through the State’s HSIP.

Following the same procedure used to generate the State’s SHSP, Olmsted 

County identified the following emphasis areas as being highest-priority on its 

local highway system:

• Driver behavior – young drivers, aggressive driving, impaired driving, and seat 

belt usage.

• Specialist users – bicyclists.

• Highways – road departure and intersections.
36 | Developing Safety Plans 

Potential safety improvement strategies for each of the emphasis areas were 

evaluated. The initial list came from the NCHRP 500 Series Reports. Some 

proposed strategies were then eliminated from further consideration because 

they were considered too expensive or were experimental strategies that had no 

history of application in Minnesota.

A safety strategies workshop was held in Olmsted County and was attended by 50 

safety partners representing the State, county, townships, and cities, as well as 

the Mayo Clinic, bicycle advocates, and driver education professionals. The two 

primary objectives of the workshop included sharing the results of the analytical 

process and providing a forum to discuss the short list of safety strategies. The 

participants further prioritized the safety strategies from highest to lowest.

As a result of the strategies identified in the LRSP, safety strategies were 

implemented county-wide, not just at specific locations. These strategies 

included the implementing the following safety measures and resulted in 

$962,000 of federally funded improvements over three years:

• Improving the edges of rural highways and enhancing delineation of 

horizontal curves in rural areas.

• Upgrading the signs and pavement markings, installing street lights, and 

providing dynamic warning signs at rural stop-controlled intersections.

• Adding technology at signalized intersections to support increased 

enforcement levels for red light running.

• Adding channelization and median islands to restrict/control turning 

maneuvers at urban stop-controlled intersections.

The potential improvements were low-cost in nature and aligned with the State’s 

SHSP, placing Olmsted County in a position to qualify for HSIP funding.

The County LRSP also included a section on policy addressing edge line rumble 

strips and rumble stripes, pavement markings, and pedestrian crosswalks.
Developing Safety Plans | 37

Securing Funding and Developing Partnerships 

Sokaogon Chippewa Band of Mole Lake, Forest County, Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) commissioned a multidisciplinary Tribal Highway Safety Plan to map out a unified strategy to address 

highway safety on tribal lands within Mole Lake, Wisconsin.

Several challenges associated with implementing the plan were identified, 

including securing sustainable funding and developing partnerships with 

organizations that can assist with the education and enforcement initiatives 

outlined in the plan. Key stakeholders were identified and partnerships were 

formed between the Sokaogon Chippewa of Mole Lake, WisDOT, the Forest 

County Sheriff’s Department, and the Forest County Highway Administration.

The following represent the five key emphasis areas identified in the plan:

1. Interaction of Modes (All-Terrain Vehicles [ATVs], Snowmobiles, Dirt Bikes).

2. Speeding.

3. Pedestrians and Bicycles.

4. Large Trucks.

5. Enforcement.

Objectives were identified for each of the key safety issues, with short-, medium-, 

and long-term initiatives in engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency 

services proposed for each. 

Speeding was identified as a great concern within Mole Lake, and targeted in the 

following safety objective:

Reduce speed- and behavior-related collision frequency and 

severity, and promote observance of speed limits and traffic 

control devices to improve safety for all road users.

Potential strategies were identified to reduce speeding in the areas of engineering, 

enforcement, and education.
38 | Developing Safety Plans 

Education

• Targeted education campaigns to high-risk populations (short- and 

medium-term).

• Public Service Announcements (short- and medium-term).

Enforcement

• Coordination with WisDOT on speed enforcement grant through the 

Bureau of Transportation Safety (BOTS) or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

(short-term).

• Targeted enforcement, by time or location (short- and medium-term).

• Use of permanent speed feedback displays at locations where speeding is a 

safety concern (short-term).

Engineering

• Install gateway treatments on the northbound and southbound approach 

to the Mole Lake business district (long-tem).

• Install a two-way left turn lane through Mole Lake as a strategy to slow 

driver speeds (medium-term).

Regarding non-motorized safety, there was a significant pedestrian safety issue 

on a section of the state highway that crossed Swamp Creek. As a result of the 

LRSP, an RSA was conducted and the Tribe was able to secure American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act funding (ARRA) to build a bridge for non-motorized users 

parallel to the state highway. In addition, sidewalk and marked pedestrian 

crossings were installed throughout the reservation. 

The enforcement emphasis area dealt with partnerships. The Forest County 

Sheriff was contracted to provide enforcement on the reservation; however, the 

Department only had authorization to enforce traffic laws on the state highway 

and county roads. Therefore, the Sheriff had no authorization to enforce traffic 

laws on the BIA roads and they could only respond to crashes if called by the 

tribe. The LRSP presented several strategies for evaluating the options to provide 

enforcement on the BIA roads. 
Developing Safety Plans | 39

Developed a Model and Framework 

Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program

The Wyoming LTAP Center developed a Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program 

(WRRSP) with funding from Wyoming DOT (WYDOT), Mountain Plains Consortium 

(MPC), and FHWA, and in cooperation with Wyoming counties. The main 

objective of the WRRSP was to develop and evaluate a transportation safety 

program that could help local agencies reduce crashes and fatalities on rural 

roads statewide. It was written to provide other local agencies with a framework 

to be used if they were interested in implementing a rural road safety program.

Through this LRSP concept, local jurisdictions qualify for HSIP funding from the 

Wyoming DOT. Through the Spring of 2011, the WRRSP has allocated more than 

$1.5 million to implement low-cost safety improvements.

As part of the study, a Local Road Safety Advisory Group (LRSAG) was established, 

including representatives from WYDOT, the Wyoming LTAP, Wyoming Association 

of County Engineers and Road Supervisors (WACERS), the Wyoming Association 

of Municipalities (WAM), and FHWA.

Four subtasks were identified in the WRRSP:

1. Identify roadway classifications systems used by counties in Wyoming.

2. Develop a methodology for using available data (crash records, traffic 

volume, speed, etc.) for crash prediction on rural roads.

3. Establish a five-step methodology to identify safety measures on high-risk 

rural roads.

4. Develop a procedure to perform economic analysisfor safety measures.

The report consisted of seven sections:

1. Introduction.

2. Summaries of literature reviews for each of the three research objectives.

3. Introduction of the detailed procedure of the WRRSP.

4. The roadway classification survey and its results.

5. The regression model methodology used to predict crashes on rural roads.

6. The procedure for performing economic analysis for safety improvements.

7. Summation of the conclusions and recommendations for future studies.

The plan also provides forms, guidelines, photos, surveys, and sample data useful 

for implementing this framework in other jurisdictions.
40 | Developing Safety Plans 

5 Summary

Approximately 60 percent of all road miles in the U.S. are non‐Interstate, rural 

roads owned and operated by local entities, such as towns, counties, and tribal 

governments. In 2009, 56 percent of highway deaths occurred on rural roads, 

though only 23 percent of Americans live in rural areas. Furthermore, the fatality 

rate was 2.6 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas, underscoring the 

need to systematically improve road safety in rural areas.

All States already have a comprehensive safety plan that provides a framework 

for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; this is 

known as the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The SHSP is a data‐

driven plan that establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis 

areas that integrates the 4 E’s of Safety – engineering, education, enforcement 

and emergency services. The SHSP can assist local practitioners in addressing 

safety on local rural roads but a locally-focused plan is often needed to address 

the unique conditions that contribute to safety problems and to assist local 

practitioners in making informed safety investment decisions. These challenges 

faced by local agencies can be addressed through the creation of a Local Road 

Safety Plan (LRSP).

An LRSP is a locally‐coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive 

framework to identify key safety needs and guide safety investment decisions 

on local rural roads. An LRSP provides an excellent opportunity for agencies at 

all levels of government (local, State, and Federal) and other stakeholders to 

work together to align and leverage resources and funding to address the safety 

challenges unique to rural roads.

In general, the LRSP development process involves six steps:

Step 1: Establish Leadership

Step 2: Analyze Safety Data

Step 3: Determine Emphasis Areas

Step 4: Identify Strategies

Step 5: Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies

Step 6: Evaluate and Update the LRSP
Developing Safety Plans | 41

Successful development of an LRSP depends on fostering leadership and 

communication among various stakeholders. This can start with the identification 

of a safety champion. The safety champion advocates for the plan’s successful 

development, implementation, and evaluation. It is also important to establish 

an LRSP working group. This is the team responsible for developing the LRSP, 

performing duties ranging from defining each working group member’s role 

to tracking progress after the initial plan is developed. The working group also 

identifies and contacts other stakeholders who can further the LRSP process by 

helping to plan, implement, and evaluate the progress of achieving the safety 

goals outlined in the LRSP.

Local road practitioners should analyze any available safety data to identify 

problem areas that will be addressed in the LRSP. Crash data should be used to 

identify safety issues. Typically, three years of crash data are needed to average 

out those years of extreme numbers. If crash data are not readily available, other 

safety‐related data can be used to identify safety issues. The analyses of these 

data could range from simply marking locations on a map to using a spreadsheet 

to determine trends by location, crash type, or other factors.

The working group should identify emphasis areas consistent with trends identified 

during the data analysis and the concerns of the various stakeholders. Strategies 

to address emphasis areas should consider the 4 E’s to comprehensively address 

safety. The proposed strategies for each emphasis area should be prioritized 

based on benefit (e.g., reduction in crashes) verses cost, the availability of 

manpower, the schedule for implementation, and the relative importance of 

each emphasis area. Some strategies can be implemented as part of a systemic 

improvement process such as providing rumble strips along rural corridors as 

part of a summer paving program or conducting an enforcement blitz. Detailed 

information on effective strategy selection may be acquired through partnerships 

with State or local agencies or by contacting the State Local Technical Assistance 

Program (LTAP).
42 | Developing Safety Plans 

LRSPs should be monitored for progress to ensure implementation of strategies 

that support emphasis areas and to determine if new strategies need to 

be considered. This helps provide accountability and can be used to keep 

stakeholders informed and engaged. Evaluation of the LRSP strategies should be 

ongoing to ensure the effectiveness of the projects and the overall plan. 

Addressing safety on local rural roads can be challenging. The development of 

an LRSP can serve as a cornerstone to building a comprehensive safety program 

to address the safety challenges on the roadways. Depending on needs and 

jurisdiction, the LRSP will vary in size and level of detail. The LRSP is a living 

document and should be revisited as established goals are achieved.
Developing Safety Plans | A-1

Appendix A: Template for Kickoff Meeting Agenda

[INSERT AGENCY NAME] Local Road Safety Plan

Kick-off Meeting

Date and Time: [INSERT DATE AND TIME]

Location: [INSERT MEETING LOCATION AND ADDRESS]

1. Welcome remarks by the Local Road Safety 

Plan coordinator or champion

2. Introductions

3. What is a Local Road Safety Plan – Presentation outlining 

what a Local Road Safety Plan is and how developing 

one can benefit [INSERT AGENCY NAME].

4. Identify other agencies or individuals who should 

be invited to join the working group.

5. Summarize Data Analysis – An initial data analysis has 

been conducted prior to this meeting to provide the 

group with background information on a variety of 

potential safety issues in [INSERT AGENCY NAME]. 

6. Begin Identifying Emphasis Areas for the Plan

a. Education

b. Enforcement

c. Engineering

d. Emergency Services

7. Next Meeting – Schedule a date for a follow-up meeting

8. Adjourn

9. Meeting Contact: 

[INSERT PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL FOR MEETING ORGANIZER]

Developing Safety Plans | B-1

Appendix B: Sample Emphasis Areas

Emphasis Area Measure(s) Potential Strategies

Reduce 

Distracted 

Driving

ͧReduce annual 

distracted driving 

crashes from 100 in 

2010 to 90 or fewer 

in 2020 (a 10-percent 

reduction).

ͧReduce annual 

distracted driving 

injuries from 40 in 

2010 to fewer than 36 

in 2010 (a 10-percent 

reduction).

ͧDevelop a public outreach 

campaign that coincides with 

other jurisdictions’ efforts 

to raise awareness about 

distracted driving.

ͧReduce roadside distractions.

ͧPass and enforce legislation that 

specifically penalizes distracted 

driving, including making 

distracted driving a subsection 

of negligent driving.

ͧIncrease the use of techniques 

that limit the frequency and 

severity

Increase 

Occupant 

Protection

ͧReduce annual 

unrestrained crashes 

from 20 in 2008 to 5 

or fewer in 2018 (a 

75-percent reduction).

ͧReduce annual 

unrestrained injuries 

from 16 in 2008 to 

fewer than 4 in 2018 (a 

75-percent reduction).

ͧIncrease safety belt 

use from 75 percent 

in 2008 to 90 percent 

or greater in 2018 (a 

17-percent increase).

ͧDevelop an incentive/

recognition program for law 

enforcement efforts.

ͧConduct an enforcement 

program that targets pickup 

truck drivers and passengers.

ͧConduct sustained high-visibility 

enforcement initiatives.

ͧContinue current best practice 

enforcement and educational 

programs (e.g., Chiefs’ 

Challenge, Click It or Ticket).

ͧProvide more paid media 

campaigns in local publications.

ͧConduct outreach to teens.
 B-2 | Developing Safety Plans 

Emphasis Area Measure(s) Potential Strategies

Reduce 

Impaired 

Driving

ͧReduce annual alcoholrelated crashes from 9 

in 2009 to 3 or fewer 

in 2014 (a 67-percent 

reduction).

ͧReduce annual impaired 

driving injuries from 10 

in 2009 to fewer than 2 

in 2014 (an 80-percent 

reduction).

ͧIncrease the number and 

effectiveness of sobriety 

checkpoints and targeted 

enforcement.

ͧEnact stronger and more effective 

legislation, such as license 

suspension or mandatory ignition 

interlocks for first time offenders.

ͧDevelop educational programs 

targeting specific audiences, such 

as elementary and middle school 

students, or the 18-to-34 year-old 

age group.

ͧCreate effective media campaigns 

in both visual and print media.

Speed 

Management

ͧReduce annual 

aggressive driving 

injuries from 24 in 

2009 to fewer than 20 

in 2014 (a 17-percent 

reduction).

ͧReduce annual fatalities 

involving excessive 

speed from 15 in 

2009 to 10 or fewer 

in 2014 (a 50 percent 

reduction).

ͧReduce annual injuries 

involving excessive 

speed from 100 in 

2009 to fewer than 75 

in 2014 (a 25-percent 

reduction).

ͧChange the driving culture by 

conducting and supporting public 

education and outreach activities 

that elevate the awareness of the 

dangers of aggressive driving.

ͧEducate the judiciary and elected 

officials on the risks associated 

with aggressive driving.

ͧCommunicate the factors 

associated with aggressive driving 

to the transportation engineering 

and planning communities.

ͧIncrease enforcement targeting 

aggressive driving.
Developing Safety Plans | B-3

Emphasis Area Measure(s) Potential Strategies

Develop Safe 

Teen Drivers

ͧReduce annual crashes 

involving teen drivers 

from 200 in 2009 to 

150 or fewer in 2020 (a 

25-percent reduction).

ͧReduce annual injuries 

involving teen drivers 

from 50 in 2009 to 

fewer than 25 in 

2020 (a 50-percent 

reduction).

ͧReview, evaluate, and improve 

the driver preparation program.

ͧDevelop a program to increase 

enforcement, prosecution, and 

adjudication of young driver 

traffic law violations.

ͧIdentify opportunities for 

engineering solutions to prevent 

young driver crashes through 

road safety audits and other 

measures.

Eliminate Highcrash LocationsͧConduct a public information and 

education campaign targeting 

the various aspects of hazardous 

locations.

ͧIdentify best practices and 

innovative enforcement 

techniques to eliminate highcrash 

locations in high-crash pedestrian 

locations and in work zones.

ͧConduct road safety audits 

targeting high-risk pedestrian 

and intersection locations to 

determine the contributing crash 

factors and identify effective 

countermeasures.

ͧDevelop and implement projects 

to reduce or eliminate safety 

hazards or otherwise to enhance 

safety for road users.
 B-4 | Developing Safety Plans 

Emphasis Area Measure(s) Potential Strategies

Reduce 

Roadway/Lane 

Departures

ͧReduce annual run-offthe-road fatalities from 

8 in 2009 to 4 or fewer 

in 2020 (a 50-percent 

reduction).

ͧReduce annual run-offthe-road injuries from 

40 in 2009 to fewer 

than 30 in 2020 (a 

25-percent reduction).

ͧImplement stricter law 

enforcement of motor vehicle 

laws and increase fines for 

serious violations that result in 

run-off-the road crashes (e.g., 

driving too fast for conditions).

ͧImprove data collection and 

analysis for fatal and injury 

run-off-the-road crashes to 

provide critical information to 

transportation planners and 

engineers.

ͧEvaluate pavement strategies 

to reduce speed and increase 

friction (e.g., pavement type, 

pavement application method, 

pavement marking spacing).

ͧImprove traffic control strategies 

to provide positive guidance to 

keep vehicles on the road.

ͧImplement forgiving roadway 

designs that mitigate the impact 

of cars leaving the road.

Improve 

Incident 

Response

ͧReduce crash injury 

mortality by 10 percent 

or greater by 2015.

ͧImprove electronic data and voice 

communications for emergency 

response.

ͧImprove resource deployment for 

emergency service response.

ͧDevelop a safer, faster EMS 

response.

ͧImprove crash scene safety.

ͧImprove patient care.
Developing Safety Plans | B-5

Emphasis Area Measure(s) Potential Strategies

Improve 

Intersection 

Safety

ͧReduce annual 

intersection-related 

fatalities from 12 in 

2009 to 6 or fewer in 

2020 (a 50-percent 

reduction).

ͧReduce annual 

intersection-related 

injuries from 60 in 

2009 to fewer than 45 

in 2020 (a 25-percent 

reduction).

ͧReduce the number of conflict 

points and provide better 

guidance for motorists at 

intersections.

ͧDevelop a system to track 

and evaluate countermeasure 

effectiveness at high-crash 

intersections.

ͧEncourage more multidisciplinary 

collaboration at the State and 

local level on intersection safety.

ͧCreate intersection safety 

checklists for existing conditions 

and new design.

Increase NonMotorized 

Road User 

Safety

ͧReduce annual 

pedestrian injuries from 

15 in 2009 to fewer 

than 10 in 2015 (a 

33-percent reduction).

ͧConduct public education and 

outreach to motorists to raise 

their awareness of pedestrian 

and bicyclist safety needs.

ͧConduct periodic roadway safety 

assessments of locations with 

growing traffic and pedestrian 

volumes and locations at greatest 

risk for pedestrian fatalities and 

injuries, and share information 

with other local partners.

ͧImplement effective 

countermeasures for problem 

areas as determined by roadway 

safety assessments.

ͧEducate the judiciary on the 

importance of penalties for 

violation of pedestrian laws.

ͧIdentify opportunities for 

alternate funding; for instance, 

the Safe Routes to School 

Program.
 B-6 | Developing Safety Plans 

Emphasis Area Measure(s) Potential Strategies

Increase 

Safe Driving 

Behaviors in 

Older Drivers

ͧReduce annual fatalities 

involving drivers 65 

years or older from 12 

in 2009 to 8 or fewer 

in 2020 (a 33-percent 

reduction).

ͧReduce annual injuries 

involving drivers 65 

years or older from 120 

in 2009 to less than 100 

in 2015 (a 17-percent 

reduction).

ͧDevelop effective methods to 

identify at-risk older drivers.

ͧDevelop enhanced training for 

emergency service personnel on 

the proper assessment and triage 

of older persons at crash scenes.

ͧIncorporate the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Older 

Driver and Pedestrian Guidelines 

into the local design guidelines.

Reduce 

Nighttime 

crashes

ͧReduce annual 

nighttime fatalities 

from 36 in 2009 to 32 

or fewer in 2015 (an 

11-percent reduction).

ͧReduce annual 

nighttime injuries from 

96 in 2009 to fewer 

than 80 in 2015 (a 

17-percent reduction).

ͧReview, evaluate, and replace 

signage showing wear or reduced 

retroreflectivity.

ͧReview and evaluate locations 

exhibiting higher incidence of 

nighttime crashes for possible 

supplementary lighting.

Improve Crash 

Data Reporting

ͧImprove crash report 

submission time from 

90 days to 30 days.

ͧIdentify best practices in crash 

reporting, as well as barriers to 

complete, accurate, and timely 

information.

ͧStandardize crash reporting 

policies and protocols for all 

agencies operating within the 

jurisdiction.

ͧIdentify tools to increase timely 

and accurate reporting (e.g., GPS 

devices and laptops in responding 

vehicles).
Developing Safety Plans | C-1

Appendix C: Emphasis Area Table

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGIC LINKAGE

OBJECTIVES SUCCESS INDICATORS

Actions Target Output

Organizations 

and Persons 

Responsible

Date of 

Completion

Performance 

Measures

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation

Education Enforcement Engineering EMS

Developing Safety Plans | D-1

Appendix D: Template for an LRSP 

Introduction

Background

Discuss the current condition of the local jurisdiction with respect to roadway 

fatalities. Discuss the purpose of the plan and how the plan will help reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries. 

Vision: A vision statement describes what the group is striving to achieve.

Mission: The mission statement defines the purpose of the plan, what it does, 

and what it is about. The mission statement usually does not change and helps 

to define organizational culture.

Goals: What does the group hope to achieve in a specified amount of time? 

Goals should be realistic and measurable and can evolve over time.

Safety Partners/Stakeholders

List the agencies that were consulted in the development of the LRSP and 

are crucial to achieving plan goals. The following is a list of potential safety 

partners. Expect to engage a variety of organizations in plan development and 

implementation. (List Organizations Only)

• Local engineering or public works department

• County Highway Department

• State DOT Region or District Office

• Federal Highway Administration Division Office 

• Bureau of Indian Affairs 

• Local/Tribal Police Department

• County Sheriff’s Department

• State Police/Patrol

• Local public information official

• Governor’s Highway Safety Office 

• Public safety stakeholders (i.e., AAA, SafeKids, Operation Lifesaver, League of 

American Bicyclists, etc.)
 D-2 | Developing Safety Plans 

• Local emergency service providers

• School district (facilities and/or transportation)

• Local planning and zoning department or commission

• Local agency budgeting office

• Metropolitan Planning Organization

• Consultants

• Local/Tribal Technical Assistance Program

• Railroads

• Community groups (chamber of commerce, tourism bureaus, etc.)

Metholodology

Discuss the process used to develop the plan, recognizing that the LRSP 

development process is every bit as important as the actual finished product. 

Because there will be many activities that lead to the LRSP, it might be difficult to 

determine whether the required process was followed just by reading the LRSP. 

For this reason, it is recommended that some documentation or explanation 

of the process be included in the LRSP. The LRSP is a living document and is 

expected to evolve over time.

Turnover of team members is inevitable, and it should also be expected that many 

who were not directly involved in the development process will read and use the 

LRSP. By including some explanation of the development process, both new team 

members and those existing ones who were not as closely involved will be able 

to follow the progression of the plan’s creation. A section on the development 

process or reference to documentation will also help approving officials.

Data Analysis 

Discuss how the data were gathered and analyzed. Include any concerns about 

the quality and reliability of data, improvement needs, and assumptions.
Developing Safety Plans | D-3

Emphasis Areas 

List emphasis areas, explain how they were determined, and why addressing 

them is vital to achieving plan goals. The list will serve as a quick reference and 

introduction to the body and structure of the plan. The following information 

should be provided for each emphasis area and can be entered into the chart 

located in Appendix C. 

Background

The background for the emphasis area should include a brief explanation 

regarding why this was important to the LRSP. In this section, the writers should 

provide fatality data and show trends via graphs and charts to demonstrate need 

to address this issue.

Objective

What is the objective for this emphasis area? (E.g., to reduce roadway departure 

fatalities by 10 percent by 2020.)

Performance Measures

What measures will be used to monitor progress in attaining this objective after 

implementation?

Strategies

List the strategies that will be performed. These strategies should include actions 

that can be performed by the 4 E’s, if appropriate. Each strategy should include 

a performance measure. These strategies will be carried over as action plans 

that are created for each emphasis area. Further information about what, how, 

when, where, and who of safety activities will be included in the action plans. 

Action plans can also provide specifics such as various funding sources for safety 

activities and may also contain some project-level detail, responsible agencies, 

and timeframes for safety activities.
 D-4 | Developing Safety Plans 

Implementation Process

Discuss how the group plans to implement the LRSP. Include a schedule of 

projects or how projects will be scheduled (i.e., action plan).

Evaluation Process

What will the evaluation process entail and how often will evaluation take place? 

Is someone responsible for monitoring progress throughout the year,and when 

will plan revisions be made? How will the LRSP evaluation affect future projects 

funded through HSIP or other funding sources? How will the project evaluations 

in these programs affect the LRSP?

Next Steps

To keep everyone engaged and on task, discuss what comes next and who is 

responsible for what and when. What are the partners’ responsibilities and what 

will each of them do with the plan? Remember, this is a living document!

References

This section could list other plans that were referenced in the development of 

the LRSP, such as the State’s SHSP, as well as provide more detail on the emphasis 

areas described in the plan. The LRSP is a strategic planning document and is 

intended to be concise. Action plans are based on the emphasis areas outlined 

in the LRSP and expand on the supporting data and strategies. These details 

would describe the what, how, when, where, and who. Action plans can also 

provide specifics on funding and some project-level detail. They may also 

include evaluation criteria for assessing the success of the implemented safety 

strategies. Ideally, each emphasis area in the LRSP should be supplemented with 

an action plan.
Developing Safety Plans | E-1

Appendix E: Resources

FHWA has a number of resources on its website for the Local and Rural Road 

Safety Program. These include information about crash facts; funding, policy, 

and guidance; safety programs; and partners and resources 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural.

The National Association of County Engineers (NACE) has a page on its website 

(www.countyengineers.org) devoted to the promotion of safety on country 

roads.

The Center for Excellence in Rural Safety (CERS) at the University of Minnesota 

maintains a Web site with news, webinars, and publications 

www.ruralsafety.umn.edu.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/shspquick.cfm safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp

National Highway Institute (NHI), Low-Cost Safety Improvements Workshop

Instructor Lead: FHWA-NHI-380076 

http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/course_detail.aspx?num=FHWA-NHI380076&get=all

Web Based: FHWA-NHI-380083 

http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/course_detail.aspx?num=FHWA-NHI380083&cat=t&num=380

ATSSA, NACE, Low-Cost Local Rural Road Safety Solutions

docs.mvrpc.org/safety/Low_Cost_Local_Roadway_Safety_Solutions.pdf

Transportation Information Center (TIC), Safety Evaluation for Roadways (SAFER) 

Manual

http://epdfiles.engr.wisc.edu/pdf_web_files/tic/other/SAFER_96.pdf

FHWA, Maintenance of Signs and Sign Supports 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa09025/fhwasa09025.pdf

FHWA, Proven Countermeasures 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/
 E-2 | Developing Safety Plans 

FHWA, Road Safety Audits 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/

FHWA, Road Safety Audit Guidelines 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/documents/FHWA_SA_06_06.pdf

FHWA, Tribal Road Safety Audits: Case Studies 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/tribal_rsa_studies/tribal_rsa_studies.pdf

NCHRP 500 Series (Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan Transportation Research)

http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/152868.aspx

Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse 

www.cmfclearinghouse.org

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip

FHWA, Intersection Safety Toolkits 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/teams/safety/saf_3IST.pdf

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

Roads – A Domestic Scan 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10027/

Local and Rural Roads Safety Peer-to-Peer Program 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/p2p/

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA, Work Zone Law Enforcement Pocket Guide 

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/law_enforce/

AASHTO, Highway Safety Design and Operations Guide 

safety.transportation.org/prgpub.aspx?pid=971
Developing Safety Plans | E-3

Tribal Highway Safety Improvement Program Model and Implementation Plan for 

Hazard Elimination Projects Guide 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tribal/topics/safety/saf_ack/

Building Tribal Traffic Safety Capacity 

http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/atrc/Publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ592.pdf

Tribal Traffic Safety Funding Guide 

http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/atrc/Publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ592s.pdf

Building Technical Capacity for Improved Tribal Consultation and Communication 

http://www.tribalplanning.fhwa.dot.gov/caseStudies/arizona.pdf

Roadway Safety Noteworthy Practices Database

http://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/

NHTSA Countermeasures that Work

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811444.pdf

AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan

http://safety.transportation.org/

Local Rural Road Owners Manuals: Intersection Safety 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/

Roadway Departure Safety 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1109/

Safety Information Analysis 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasaxx1210/ 

For More Information

Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590-9898

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA-SA-12-017