USA Banner
  U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Here's how you knowOfficial US Government Icon
              **Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
            Secure Site Icon
              **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                  A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
 U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation
 Search DOT
            Search
                    About FHWAFHWA Organization
                Headquarters Offices
                Field Offices
                Strategic Plan
                Business Opportunities
                Staff Directories
                Careers
                Highway History
                Contact UsProgramsAcquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                Safety
                Browse by TopicsResourcesCore Highway Topics
                Federal Aid Essentials
                Automation
                Complete Streets
                Laws and Regulations
                Policy & Guidance Center
                Section 508
                Publications and Statistics
                Professional Development
                National Highway Institute
                Resource Center
                Accessibility Resource Library
                FHWA Research LibraryNewsroomPress Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Photos
                Videos
                Media ContactsMenu FHWA Highway Safety Programs Home
                        Safety
                        Learn Safety
                        Noteworthy Practices


            
            In This Section
        Learn Safety
                About RSPCB
                Road Safety Fundamentals
                Roadway Safety Noteworthy Practices
                                Search Noteworthy Practices
                Resources
                Training and Education
                                Overview
                Training Opportunities
                Road Safety Course Finder
                NHI Courses
                Roadway Safety Champions
                Get Help
                                Overview
                Technical Assistance Guidelines
                Technical Assistance Online Application
                Safety Data Dashboard
                
                Alternate Approaches for Justifying HSIP Projects
**Publication Year:** 
            2015
    
        Alaska and Minnesota

Description

In order to foster a data-driven process, many states utilize benefit-cost ratios (BCR) or similar formula methods to prioritize potential projects for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. These formulas often rely on estimates of crash reduction from the implementation of specific countermeasures. These estimates, in turn, rely heavily on the use of crash modification factors (CMFs). There are a number of resources for estimating CMFs, including the Federal Highway Administration's CMF Clearinghouse. However, the number of potential countermeasures far exceeds the number of available CMF studies. Many viable countermeasures don't have an approved CMF, and as a result, states are often reluctant or unwilling to include these projects in their prioritization process.

To establish the merit of countermeasures lacking a CMF, several states have developed processes for justifying projects using alternative means. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (AKDOT&PF) uses a sensitivity analysis as documented in the Alaska HSIP Handbook to include projects that would otherwise go un-ranked in their prioritization process due to their lack of an approved CMF; Figure 1 highlights methods in which AKDOT analyzes and selects projects Two BCRs are calculated assuming CMFs of 5% and 100% for crashes potentially corrected by the proposed countermeasure(s). The two resulting ratios, along with a narrative explaining the project benefits, are then used to justify project advancement. Systemic improvement projects that prevent or reduce the severity of crashes can also advance using this method, as these types of projects may not have sufficient crash data to generate BCRs meeting the threshold for projects ranked in the typical manner.

"diagram showing three Alternative Project Prioritization Methodologies: Countermeasure with approved CMF, Countermeasure without approved CMF, and Systemic project with low crash experience"

Figure 1. Alternative Project Prioritization Methodologies (Source: Adapted from the Alaska HSIP Handbook)

The Minnesota Department of Transportation's (Mn/DOT's) Metro District Traffic Engineering Unit, which is responsible for the selection of projects for HSIP Funding in the Twin Cities region, employs a similar strategy. Instead of relying on crash modification factors, project proposals may contain an estimate of crash reductions based on logical assumptions. Each proposal must thoroughly and logically demonstrate how each improvement will impact each type of crash. Before any project proposal is submitted, Mn/DOT encourages project initiators to contact a member of the HSIP Committee to discuss crash reduction assumptions for each improvement. The HSIP Committee then reviews the proposal for accuracy and logic.

Key Accomplishments

Developed a documented methodology for considering HSIP projects with safety countermeasures that do not include crash modification factorsResults

Both AKDOT&PF and Mn/DOT established documented means (via their HSIP Guides) for the consideration of alternative countermeasures in their HSIP project selection process. By developing procedures for evaluating projects with countermeasures that do not have CMFs, they employed a more encompassing arsenal of countermeasures to improve safety performance through the most effective means possible.

Contacts

Jeff Jeffers, P.E.
State Traffic & Safety Engineer
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
6860 Glacier Highway
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) 465-8962Jeff.Jeffers@alaska.gov

Julie Whitcher, P.E., PTOE
Assistant State Traffic Safety Engineer
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Blvd
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-3000Julie.Whitcher@dot.state.mn.us U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**Federal Highway Administration**

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, SE

WASHINGTON, DC 20590

202-366-4000Subscribe to email updates
                    About
  

        
              About FHWA
                Careers
                Org Chart
                Staff Directories
                Work with UsPrograms
  

        
              Acquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                SafetyPolicies, Rights, Legal
  

        
              About DOT
                Accessibility
                Budget and Performance
                Civil Rights
                FOIA
                Information Quality
                No FEAR Act
                Office of Inspector General
                Privacy Policy
                USA.gov
                Web Policies and Notices
                Web StandardsNews & Events
  

        
              Newsroom
                Press Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Media Contacts
                Connect with Us