http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA Safety Program

Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

 

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no 

liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

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

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

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

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

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

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

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

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

ii 

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-17-071

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

 

4. Title and Subtitle

Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis

5. Report Date

January 2018 

6. Performing Organization Code

7.Author(s) 

Tim Harmon, Geni Bahar, and Frank Gross 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

VHB

8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700

Vienna, VA 22182-2626 

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-16-D-00005 (VHB)

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

Final Report, Feb. 2017 – Jan. 2018

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

The contract manager for this report was Karen Scurry. 

16. Abstract

Highway safety benefit-cost analysis is a critical component of improving safety on our roadways. Highway safety improvement 

projects—including those implemented through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)—must be economically 

justified such that their expected benefits exceed the costs. To determine the economic benefits of safety treatments, analysts 

use crash costs to quantify the impacts of crashes reduced by the safety improvement project. Additionally, crash costs are 

often used as part of network screening to identify the roadway locations with highest potential for safety improvement by 

quantifying the potential reductions in crash costs to roadway users.

This guide documents a literature review and the results of a questionnaire sent to all FHWA Division Offices regarding crash 

unit costs and their application. Currently, there is no nationally recommended set of crash unit costs for use in highway safety 

benefit-cost analysis. States independently select, modify, and update crash unit costs from one or more sources for their 

highway safety analyses.

The Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis guide describes the various sources of crash costs, current practices and crash 

costs used by States, critical considerations when modifying and applying crash unit costs, and an exploration of the feasibility of 

establishing national crash unit cost values. This guide proposes a new set of national crash unit costs for the FHWA Highway 

Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide and Tool as well as procedures to (1) update the crash unit costs over time, and (2) adjust 

the crash unit costs to States based on State-specific cost of living, injury-to-crash ratios, and vehicle-to-crash ratio. 

17. Key Words: 

crash, cost, safety, analysis, benefit, economic, 

QALY, comprehensive, HSIP

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 105 

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

iii
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... V

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... IX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2. TERMS AND CONCEPTS ................................................ 4

CHAPTER 3. SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE ......................................11

CHAPTER 4. SYNTHESIS OF PRACTICE ...........................................28

CHAPTER 5. CRASH COST CONSIDERATIONS..............................36

CHAPTER 6. FHWA SAFETY BCA TOOL CRASH COSTS .............58

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY........................................................................67

APPENDIX A: SELECTED CRASH GEOMETRIES...............................70

APPENDIX B: STATE CRASH COST QUESTIONNAIRE...................71

APPENDIX C: STATE CRASH COSTS BY SEVERITY ........................75

APPENDIX D: PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING AND UPDATING 

CRASH COSTS .........................................................................................78

APPENDIX E: QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO THE FEASIBILITY 

OF RECOMMENDING NATIONAL CRASH COSTS...........................87

APPENDIX F: STATE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 91

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................94

REFERENCES ............................................................................................95
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

v 

List of Tables

Table 1. AIS injury codes.(5) .............................................................................................. 9

Table 2. HSM crash costs for EPDO crash frequency (2001 dollars).(7).....................14

Table 3. HSM crash unit costs by severity (2001 dollars).(7)........................................14

Table 4. HSM crash unit costs by type (2001 dollars).(7)..............................................15

Table 5. Updated HSM crash unit costs (2016 dollars). ..............................................15

Table 6. National crash unit costs (2009 dollars).(10)....................................................16

Table 7. National police-reported MAIS person-injury incidence in 2010.(11) ...........17

Table 8. MAIS economic person-injury unit costs and property damage per-vehicle 

unit costs, for reported and unreported crashes (2010 dollars).(11)............................19

Table 9. MAIS comprehensive person-injury unit costs and property damage pervehicle unit costs, for reported and unreported crashes (2010 dollars).(11)...............20

Table 10. KABCO-based non-fatal person-injury unit costs (2010 dollars).(11) .........20

Table 11. Average economic person-injury unit cost by injury severity and pervehicle unit cost for PDO (2015 dollars).(14)..................................................................21

Table 12. Comprehensive person-injury unit cost by severity (2015 dollars).(14)......21

Table 13. Updated AASHTOWare Safety Analyst crash unit costs (2015 dollars).(15)

...........................................................................................................................................22

Table 14. Person-injury unit costs based on 2016 VSL (2016 dollars).(12) ..................25

Table 15. KABCO to MAIS translation factors.(19) .......................................................26

Table 16. Literature review summary...........................................................................27

Table 17. National economic crash cost sources.(7,13) ..................................................30

Table 18. National comprehensive crash cost sources.(7,12,13)......................................30

Table 19. Crash unit cost summary of 33 States. ........................................................31

Table 20. Person-injury unit cost summary of seven States.......................................31
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

vi

Table 21. State severity-weighted cost levels...............................................................34

Table 22. Common uses for crash cost considerations and calculations. .................36

Table 23. Translation factors to translate between KABCO and MAIS.(19) ..............40

Table 24. Example KABCO person-injury distribution...............................................41

Table 25. Translating KABCO person-injuries to MAIS person-injuries (using data 

in Table 23 and Table 24). ..............................................................................................41

Table 26. MAIS to KABCO comprehensive person-injury unit cost translation for 

KABCO level A (2010 dollars). ......................................................................................42

Table 27. Example State-specific KABCO crashes and person-injury distribution. 47

Table 28. MAIS person-injury unit costs (2010 dollars).(11) .........................................58

Table 29. National KABCO person-injury unit costs (2010 dollars)..........................59

Table 30. 2010 MAIS to KABCO incidence translation (GES 2011-2015). ...............60

Table 31. National injury-to-crash ratios (GES 2011-2015). .......................................61

Table 32. National KABCO crash unit costs (2010 dollars)........................................62

Table 33. National KABCO crash unit costs (2016 dollars)........................................63

Table 34. Recommended national KABCO comprehensive crash unit costs for the 

FHWA BCA Guide and Tool (2016 dollars).................................................................63

Table 35. Example State-specific KABCO crash unit costs (2010 dollars). ..............64

Table 36. Example State-specific KABCO crash unit costs (2016 dollars). ..............65

Table 37. Example KABCO crash unit costs (2016 dollars). ......................................65

Table 38. Example State-adjusted KABCO comprehensive crash unit costs (2016 

dollars). .............................................................................................................................66

Table 39. State crash costs. ............................................................................................75

Table 40. Alaska DOT base crash costs. .......................................................................78
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

vii

Table 41. Alaska DOT HSIP crash costs and EPDO weights for BCA (2016 dollars).

...........................................................................................................................................79

Table 42. Arizona DOT crash unit costs for BCA (2008 dollars)...............................79

Table 43. Colorado DOT economic crash unit costs for BCA (2013 dollars). .........80

Table 44. Florida DOT crash unit costs for predictive BCA (2013 dollars)..............80

Table 45. Georgia DOT comprehensive crash unit costs for BCA (2013 dollars). ..81

Table 46. Illinois DOT comprehensive crash unit costs for BCA (2016 dollars)......81

Table 47. Minnesota DOT comprehensive crash unit costs for HSIP BCA (2015 

dollars). .............................................................................................................................82

Table 48. North Carolina DOT injury-to-crash ratios.................................................83

Table 49. North Carolina DOT computation of fatal crash unit cost (2013 dollars).

...........................................................................................................................................83

Table 50. Oklahoma DOT MAIS to KABCO direct conversion and comprehensive 

crash unit costs (2016 dollars)........................................................................................84

Table 51. Puerto Rico comprehensive crash unit costs. .............................................84

Table 52. Texas DOT comprehensive crash unit costs (2014 dollars). .....................85

Table 53. Wyoming DOT comprehensive crash unit costs (2013 dollars). ..............86

Table 54. State crash cost PCI ratio adjustment factors.(20) .......................................91
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Equation. VSL update equation. ....................................................................23

Figure 2. Graphic. Map of crash cost questionnaire respondents. .............................28

Figure 3. Chart. State crash cost sources. ....................................................................29

Figure 4. Equation. Severity-weighted costs. ...............................................................33

Figure 5. Chart. Summary of preferences on recommending national crash costs.35

Figure 6. Equation. Converting person-injury unit costs into a fatal crash unit cost 

using numbers of crashes and injuries...........................................................................48

Figure 7. Equation. State-specific crash cost adjustment. ..........................................50

Figure 8. Equation. CPI adjustment ratio calculation. ................................................51

Figure 9. Equation. MUWE adjustment ratio calculation...........................................51

Figure 10. Chart. Process for developing and adjusting national KABCO crash unit 

costs...................................................................................................................................59

Figure 11. Equation. Converting person-injury unit costs into a fatal crash unit cost 

using injury-to-crash ratio...............................................................................................61

Figure 12. Equation. Calculation of comprehensive fatal crash unit cost from injuryto-crash ratios and person-injury unit costs. ................................................................61

Figure 13. Equation. Example calculation of State-specific comprehensive fatal 

crash unit cost using crash and person-injury data from Table 27 in 2010 dollars. . 64
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACCRA Cost of living index developed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce researchers 

AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale

BCA benefit-cost analysis

BCR benefit-cost ratio

CDS Crashworthiness Data System

CPI consumer price index 

CPI-U consumer price index for all urban consumers, current series

DOT Department of Transportation

EB empirical Bayes

ECI employment cost index 

EMS emergency medical services

EPDO equivalent property damage only

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GDP gross domestic product

GES General Estimates System

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

KABCO scale used to represent injury severity in crash reporting 

MAIS Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale

MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria

MUWE Median Usual Weekly Earnings

NASS National Automotive Sampling System

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NSC National Safety Council

PCI per capita income

PCR police crash report

PDO property damage only

QALY quality-adjusted life years

SPF safety performance function

TRB Transportation Research Board

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

VSL value of a statistical life
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Safety practitioners and researchers use crash costs to determine if safety improvement 

projects are economically justified and to quantify economic impacts of crashes. Estimating the 

cost of crashes has been a relevant topic in highway safety for decades. The development of the 

second edition of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and the variance in the crash costs used by States in 

safety benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has reignited discussion regarding the crash costs used in the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), HSM, and highway safety research projects. 

There are currently no universally recommended national crash costs for highway safety 

analysis, although this guide explores the feasibility of national crash costs. National costs would 

provide consistency in project decisions and research, while lessening the burden on States to 

each adopt and maintain their own crash costs.

This guide summarizes literature that reports crash cost estimates, synthesizes current State 

practices to select and update crash costs, and presents the major issues surrounding crash 

cost estimation and application. A questionnaire sent to Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Division Offices showed that State procedures in selecting, updating, and applying 

crash costs vary widely. However, the variance in States’ practices has a greater impact on 

comparisons between States than on the effectiveness of programs and projects within each 

State. 

The following crash cost considerations are discussed throughout the guide: 

• Differences in crash cost estimation methodologies.

• Difference in economic and comprehensive crash unit costs.

• Impact of injury scale on crash unit costs, including the translation between injury scales.

• Crash unit cost values by type and severity.

• Weighted crash unit costs.

• Conservativeness in crash costs.

• Converting between crashes and injuries or vehicles. 

• Differences in crash costs among jurisdictions and how to account for those differences.

• Importance of consistent crash costs in application.

• Feasibility of recommending national crash cost values.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS

2 

Regarding those considerations, the guide identifies the following recommendations for 

practice:

• In general, it is only practical to use estimated crash unit costs in safety BCA. 

• It is critical to account for the comprehensive costs of crashes. 

• Analysts should strive to estimate the long-term average predicted or expected crash 

frequency and apply unweighted crash unit costs, rather than continue to use observed 

crash frequency in safety BCA and attempt to fix the results with weighted crash unit

costs (e.g., combining fatal and serious injury costs). 

• Using weighted crash unit costs in safety BCA is acceptable if developed with an actual 

crash severity distribution from the jurisdiction to which they will be applied. 

• Regardless of injury scale, analysts should use comparable data from only one injury 

scale in safety BCA and translate between the scales if needed.

• It is important to use accurate estimations, rather than arbitrarily using high or low 

crash unit costs without considering the accuracy of the estimation methodology. 

• Analysts should consider costs of all crash severities and types in safety BCA. 

• Crash unit costs should be applied to the number of crashes, and person-injury unit 

costs should be applied to the number of involved-persons in crashes, throughout BCA. 

• Analysts should adjust for differences in crash unit costs from national estimates to 

State-specific estimates when possible. 

• Analysts should use and apply consistent crash unit costs for all projects.

This guide presents the following national crash unit costs for use as default crash unit cost 

values in the FHWA Highway Safety BCA Guide and Tool, as well as procedures to adjust these 

costs to States.

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost (2016 dollars)

K $11,295,400 

A $655,000 

B $198,500 

C $125,600 

O $11,900 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1 

3 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

Safety improvement projects are investments that aim to reduce crash frequency or severity at 

one or more locations. Each project should be economically justified, such that the benefits of 

the project (e.g., predicted crash reduction) outweigh the sum of costs incurred as a result of 

the project (e.g., engineering, construction, maintenance, change in user costs). Crash costs are 

the means to monetize the change in crashes (i.e., benefits) for economic comparison to costs.

There is no universally standard set of crash costs to use in safety economic analysis. Each State

typically establishes crash costs for use internally or across their jurisdiction, which has led to a 

great disparity in crash costs between States. 

1.1 OBJECTIVES

The objective of this guide is to present the various sources of crash costs, the methods used 

to estimate crash costs, current practices at State Departments of Transportation (DOT), 

considerations when applying crash costs in safety analysis, and the feasibility of establishing 

national crash cost values for safety programs and research. The guide does the following to 

achieve this objective: 

• Summarizes the methodologies used by State agencies to determine crash cost values.

• Describes the impacts of the different crash cost estimation methodologies and values 

on road safety program development and research.

• Discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a national set of crash cost values.

• Recommends crash unit costs for the FHWA Highway Safety BCA Guide and Tool.

Based on a review of literature and practice, this guide also presents procedures for analysts to 

adjust national crash unit costs to States as well as information on how analysts could improve 

the accuracy and consistency of safety economic analysis. 

1.2 GUIDE ORGANIZATION

This guide begins by defining terms and concepts used throughout the document such as injury 

scales, crash cost types, and crash cost components. The following sections synthesize relevant 

literature and practice before discussing various crash cost considerations. This guide concludes 

with recommended default crash unit costs for use in the FHWA Highway Safety BCA Guide 

and Tool as well as suggestions for future practice and research.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2

4 

CHAPTER 2. TERMS AND CONCEPTS

This chapter presents terms and concepts used throughout the guide. The chapter begins with 

a list of definitions and terminology, followed by crash cost concepts and injury scales used in 

the guide. 

2.1 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

This section defines important terminology and conventions used throughout the guide. 

Crash: An event that may involve multiple vehicles, vehicle occupants, and non-occupants. Each 

crash involves at least one involved person and may include one or more injuries. The 

maximum injury severity of the victims in each crash defines the overall severity of the crash.

Crash costs: For the purpose of this guide, this term describes some general valuation of the 

impacts of crashes in monetary terms. Such valuation may represent the cost of a crash, cost 

per injury, or otherwise.

Crash cost components: The individual aspects of crash costs (e.g., medical costs, property 

damage costs).

Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO): A method of weighting crashes by severity 

using the equivalent number of property damage only (PDO) crash costs to develop the 

weights. For example, given a fatal crash unit cost of $10,000,000 and PDO unit cost of 

$10,000, the fatal EPDO weight would be 1,000, as a fatal crash unit cost is equivalent to the 

cost of 1,000 PDO crashes. EPDO is similar to crash costs and is less dependent on annual 

updates; however, it cannot be compared to other monetary benefits or costs.

Incidence: The frequency of crashes or injuries in a jurisdiction for a given period.

Injury: Each person in a crash may sustain several injuries of various severities. The injured 

person is typically classified by their most severe injury. Injury typically refers to the individual 

injuries a person sustains. However, most of this guide discusses injuries on a per-person basis. 

In most cases, the guide uses the term person-injury, discussed below, to clarify this point.

Involved person: Someone included in the crash event as a driver, passenger, bicyclist, or 

pedestrian (i.e., not simply a witness), who may be injured or have no injury from the crash.

Person-Injury: Data for an injured person. While a person may sustain multiple injuries in a 

crash, the term person-injury serves to clarify that each injured person is counted once and 

that such costs are on a per-injured-person basis, rather than considering each of a person’s 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2

5 

many potential injuries separately. Person-injuries are classified by the most severe injury 

incurred by each person.

State: For ease of writing, this guide refers to “States” or “State-specific” in many contexts 

that could also include District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and potentially other United States 

territories.

Unit costs: The specific cost values per crash (i.e., crash unit costs) or cost values per injury 

or involved person (i.e., person-injury unit costs). Unit costs may be disaggregated by severity, 

type, or both. 

Unweighted costs: The estimated costs of crashes by disaggregate severity and type (i.e., 

without weighting, as described next).

Weighted costs: Estimated crash unit costs or person-injury unit costs that are averaged or 

blended across two or more crash types or severity levels. For example, a weighted average 

fatal and serious injury cost averages the fatality cost and serious injury cost by the proportion

of respective crashes to develop one weighted cost for all fatal and serious injuries. The 

weighted cost is then applied to both fatal and serious injury crashes. Weighted costs are 

indicated using notation such as K/A for a fatal and serious injury weighted cost or A/B/C for a 

weighted non-fatal injury cost (in the KABCO scale, which is defined later). Although most 

weighted costs are developed for multiple crash types or severity levels, they could be 

developed for other combinations of crash characteristics. Weighted costs are discussed 

further in Chapter 5.

2.2 CRASH COSTS

Crashes result in tangible and intangible consequences. The tangible consequences—or 

economic costs—can be directly measured in monetary terms (e.g., medical bills, lost wages). 

The intangible consequences—such as the physical pain and emotional suffering of people 

injured in crashes and their families—comprise the other impacts of crashes. The intangible 

consequences can be monetized as quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

2.2.1 Economic Costs

Economic costs (a.k.a., human capital costs) are the monetary impacts of crashes including 

goods and services related to the crash response, property damage, and medical costs. 

Economic costs are the direct and indirect costs to individuals and society from a decline in 

general health of crash victims, including the following components:

• Emergency services provided by police, emergency medical services (EMS), fire services, 

and incident management services at the scene of the crash.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2

6 

• Medical services provided in the emergency rooms, in hospitals as inpatients and 

outpatients, out of hospital costs (e.g., physical therapy, rehabilitation, prescriptions, 

prosthetic devices, home modifications), and coroner services in the event of fatal 

injuries. Some studies include EMS costs within medical costs.

• Market productivity loss due to lost wages and fringe benefits over the victim’s 

remaining life span, expressed in present value.

• Household productivity loss due to the lost ability to perform one’s normal household 

responsibilities (i.e., related to the injured or killed victims and other family members 

caring for the crash victim), equivalent to the present value of hiring a person to 

accomplish the same tasks.

• Insurance administration to process insurance claims (e.g., medical expenses, liability, 

disability, worker’s compensation, welfare payments, sick leave, property damage, life 

insurance) resulting from the crash, and the cost of defense attorneys. 

• Workplace costs due to an employee’s absence (e.g., new employee retraining, overtime 

to accomplish work of the injured employee, administration of processing personnel 

changes). 

• Legal costs due to operating courts and fees during civil litigation resulting from the 

crash. 

• Congestion impacts due to travel delay to those not involved in the crash, added fuel 

consumption, and increased pollution.

• Property damage to vehicles, cargo, roadways, and roadside furniture.

2.2.2 Quality-Adjusted Life Years

The lost quality-of-life due to death or injury can be quantified by estimating the value that 

people put on their lives (i.e., by determining the price they would pay to avoid risk of death or 

injury, often based on revealed preferences from marketplace choices such as deciding to 

purchase safer, more expensive protective gear or equipment) and then quantifying the portion 

of a full life lost due to the crash. An estimated value based on willingness to pay is referred to 

as the value of a statistical life (VSL). VSL is the monetary valuation of risk reduction in terms of 

the cost corresponding to the prevention of one fatality. VSL is not a valuation of life (i.e., an 

average actual life); rather it is a valuation of risk reduction. VSL does not include economic 

costs.

The intangible consequences due to a non-fatal injury are referred to as the lost quality-of-life. 

The metric to value these losses is the QALY. QALY costs are determined by the duration and 

severity of the health problem. A numerical scale for rating health-related quality-of-life ranges 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2

7 

from death with a value of 0 to perfect health with a value of 1. The VSL guidance from United 

States Department of Transportation (USDOT), described in Chapter 3, establishes relative 

disutility factors for non-fatal injury levels using the maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS). 

Relative disutility factors are relative fractions of VSL adopted for a given analysis year.(1)

2.2.3 Comprehensive Costs

Comprehensive crash costs (a.k.a., societal crash costs) are the combination of tangible impacts 

(i.e., economic costs) and the monetized pain and suffering (i.e., QALY). Comprehensive costs 

are meant to capture all the impacts that result from crashes.

2.3 INJURY SCALES 

Crash costs are most often reported by crash severity. Crash severity is reported using injury 

scales. This guide presents two injury scales: KABCO and Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Some 

States may use a variation of one of these injury scales and other injury scales exist. Brief 

descriptions of each injury scale are provided next. 

2.3.1 KABCO

Most police crash reports (PCR) use the KABCO scale to report crash and injury severity. 

Differences are found when reviewing each State’s definitions of the severity attributes of 

KABCO.

(2) KABCO is defined in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), a 

standardized set of data elements and attributes for crash reporting. 

MMUCC 5th edition retains the same KABCO definitions from the 4th Edition.(3) MMUCC 5th

Edition provides the following definitions:

(4)

Fatal Injury (K): A fatal injury is any injury that results in death within 30 days after

the motor vehicle crash in which the injury occurred. If the person did not die at the

scene but died within 30 days of the motor vehicle crash in which the injury occurred, 

the injury classification should be changed from the attribute previously assigned to the 

attribute “Fatal Injury.”

Suspected Serious Injury (A): A suspected serious injury is any injury other than

fatal which results in one or more of the following:

• Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood. 

• Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg). 

• Crush injuries. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2

8 

• Suspected skull, chest, or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor 

lacerations. 

• Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more of the body). 

• Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene. 

• Paralysis. 

Suspected Minor Injury (B): A minor injury is any injury that is evident at the scene

of the crash, other than fatal or serious injuries. Examples include lump on the head,

abrasions, bruises, minor lacerations (i.e., cuts on the skin surface with minimal bleeding

and no exposure of deeper tissue/muscle).

Possible Injury (C): A possible injury is any injury reported or claimed which is not a

fatal, suspected serious, or suspected minor injury. Examples include momentary loss of 

consciousness, claim of injury, limping, or complaint of pain or nausea. Possible injuries 

are those which are reported by the person or are indicated by his/her behavior, but no 

wounds or injuries are readily evident.

No Apparent Injury (O): No apparent injury is a situation where there is no reason

to believe that the person received any bodily harm from the motor vehicle crash.

There is no physical evidence of injury and the person does not report any change in

normal function. 

Non-fatal injuries include A, B, and C codes. Non-fatal crashes include A, B, C, and O codes.

The “O” code is also often called PDO, indicating that property damage was the highest 

severity impact of the crash. Some States also include a “U” code, which may mean either there 

was an injury and the severity of that injury is unknown or it is unknown if there was an injury 

in the crash, depending on the State and their definition.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) compiled the State Serious Injury 

Conversion Tables to assist States not already using MMUCC 5th Edition.(4)

2.3.2 Abbreviated Injury Scale

AIS is an integer scale developed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive 

Medicine to rate the severity of individual injuries. AIS includes current medical terminology, 

providing an internationally accepted anatomically-based tool for ranking injury severity.(5) AIS 

classifies individual injuries per their relative severity on a six-point scale, as shown in Table 1, 

with 1 meaning very minor and 6 meaning currently untreatable injuries. A value of 0 indicates 

no injury, while the value of 9 means the injury level is unknown or not classifiable. Hospitals 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2

9 

and motor vehicle crash investigators (e.g., NHTSA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) use 

AIS to classify actual injuries and improve vehicle design, respectively. 

While the AIS scale is a measurement tool for single injuries, the MAIS is the score of the most 

severe injury suffered by an injured person in a crash. 

Table 1. AIS injury codes.(5)

AIS 

Code Injury Example Probability of Death (%)

0 None No injury 0 

1 Minor Superficial laceration 0 

2 Moderate Fractured sternum 1 – 2 

3 Serious Open humerus fracture 8 – 10 

4 Severe Perforated trachea 5 – 50 

5 Critical Ruptured liver with tissue loss 5 – 50 

6 Maximum Total severance of aorta 100 

9 Not further specified N/A N/A

2.4 NATIONAL CRASH DATABASES

Several national crash databases have been used to develop the crash costs discussed in 

Chapter 3. These crash databases describe the incidence of samples of national crashes (i.e., 

crash distributions by types, severity, and location characteristics). The following is a brief 

description of the main databases used in crash cost estimation. 

2.4.1 National Automotive Sampling System

NHTSA established the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) in 1979. The original 

NASS included the General Estimates System (GES) and the Crashworthiness Database System 

(CDS). The GES and CDS were subsequently replaced with the Crash Report Sampling System 

(CRSS) and the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS), respectively, which together make 

up the current NASS. 

During the initial years of the NASS (also referred to as GES at that time), the crash records 

included both KABCO and AIS codes. Even recently, researchers have used NASS data from 

1984 to 1986 to estimate crash costs due to the ability to convert between the two injury 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2

10

scales. The CDS also contains both injury scales, but CDS only examined tow-away crashes 

involving passenger vehicles. These older NASS files contain medical descriptions of injuries 

suffered by victims found in a representative sample of PCRs of medium and heavy truck and 

bus occupants, non-occupants, and other crash victims. The data from 1984 to 1986 are still 

used for crash analysis and developing injury scale translator tables because no more recent 

national sampling with KABCO and AIS exists for all crashes in such a data set. When used in 

new research, NASS data are reweighted based on the latest CRSS data, which is described in 

the next section. 

2.4.1.1 Crash Report Sampling System

In 2014, the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) replaced the GES that was established in 

1997. The CRSS provides data on a representative sample of all police-reported crashes with 

KABCO ratings. Data collectors make weekly visits to approximately 400 police jurisdictions in 

60 areas across the United States, where they randomly sample about 50,000 PCRs each year. 

These 60 areas reflect the national geography, roadway mileage, population, and traffic density. 

The collectors obtain copies of the PCRs and send them to a central contractor for coding. 

CRSS records injury severity by crash victim on the KABCO scale. 

2.4.1.2 Crash Investigation Sampling System

In 2014, the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) replaced the CDS, which began with 

the establishment of the NASS in 1979. The CISS provides detailed crash investigation data that 

focuses on a few thousand crashes annually involving passenger cars, pickup and light trucks, 

and vans. CISS does not include heavy vehicle, pedestrian, and non-motorist records. 

2.4.2 Fatality Analysis Reporting System

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a national database of all fatal crashes. It 

includes complete data from all States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The data 

comprise crashes that resulted in a fatality within 30 days of the collision event and occurred on 

a public road. Since 2011, FARS and CRSS have been reconciled with MMUCC and are fully 

compatible.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

11

CHAPTER 3. SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE

This literature synthesis is limited in its scope, covering solely recent and relevant publications 

to the objectives of this guide. Each section is a resource that directly proposes crash costs or 

has made substantial advances in estimating crash costs. The literature covers the following 

aspects:

• Crash costs by MAIS. 

• Crash costs by KABCO.

• Injury scale translators. 

• Costs by crash type. 

• Estimates for cost components.

• Procedures to update crash costs over time. 

• Procedures to adjust crash costs to States. 

The literature is presented in the following sections by chronological order.

3.1 CRASH COST ESTIMATES BY MAXIMUM POLICE-REPORTED INJURY 

SEVERITY WITHIN SELECTED CRASH GEOMETRIES (2005)(6)

The FHWA report Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Report Injury Severity within Selected 

Crash Geometries, by Council et al., developed estimates for the economic and comprehensive

costs per crash using the KABCO scale. The NASS, GES, and CDS national databases were 

used for the development of the crash cost components for the FHWA study. KABCO and AIS 

data were matched in an injury severity estimation procedure. All costs were in 2001 dollars. 

Crash cost estimates were reported extensively in 6 levels for 22 crash geometries, as 

described in the FHWA report:

(6)

 (Appendix A: Selected Crash Geometries lists the 22 crash 

geometries and types.) 

• Level 1 – For each of 22 crash geometries—categorized by two speed limit categories 

as a surrogate for urban/rural locales, and all combined—estimates of cost were made 

for crash severity levels K, A, B/C, and O.

• Level 2 – For each crash geometry, estimates of cost for K/A, B/C, O—all with and 

without categorization by speed-limit. 

• Level 3 – For each crash geometry—with and without speed limit categorization—two 

subgroups were formed, recognizing the two definitions that police use for C injury: a 

minor injury (thus, K/A/B/C and O) or possible injury (thus, K/A/B and C/O). 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

12

• Level 4 – For each crash geometry—with and without speed limit categorization—crash 

costs were estimated without regard to crash severity (i.e., for all severities combined). 

• Level 5 – For each level of crash severity—with and without speed limit 

categorization—crash costs were estimated without regard to crash geometry (i.e., for 

all crash geometries combined). 

• Level 6 – Level 5 cost estimates for the K/A, K/A/B, K/A/B/C, B/C, and C/O 

combinations of crash severity. 

In addition to the KABCO levels and combinations in each level, the following two unknown 

severity levels were developed for crash cost estimates:

• Injury, severity unknown: At least one injury in the crash, but the severity was not 

recorded on the police report.

• Unknown severity: No injury severities were recorded on the police report, and the 

severity of the crash is unknown. 

Standard errors were presented in the FHWA report, which represent the variance in crash 

costs “caused by differences in the number of people involved in crashes of the same type, the 

severity of injuries suffered (as described by AIS, body part, and fracture status of the injury), 

and the age and sex of the victims (very important for the magnitude of lost productivity and 

QALYs).”(6)

The FHWA report provided important conclusions and recommendations regarding the use of 

the crash costs, at the different levels, for safety BCA. The authors of the FHWA report

recommended using comprehensive cost estimates. This recommendation was supported by 

the fact that “comprehensive cost estimates include not only the monetary losses associated 

with medical care, other resources used, and lost work, but also nonmonetary costs related to 

the reduction in the quality of life. Since human capital costs do not capture the full burden of 

injury, comprehensive costs are generally used in analyses related to not only safety issues, but 

also other public health issues (e.g., effects of the environment on health) and by other nontransportation federal and State agencies.”(6)

The choice of cost level (i.e., 1 through 6) is dependent on the number of fatal and serious

injury crashes in the FHWA study. Level 1 estimates may be more appropriate for national 

samples of data. Using Level 1 estimates with a small sample of data (e.g., for a single

intersection study) may lead to distortion in the economic results when applied to one or two 

fatal crashes.

Another aspect to consider is the selection of crash type and severity of interest to the analyst. 

In general, the report recommends that analysts “should use the highest (least detailed) cost 

level possible that can still provide information on the study question of interest. For example, 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

13

the research information needed may require that specific crash types be analyzed, but may not 

require categorization by speed limit. Other studies may not require categorization by crash 

type, and available sample sizes of fatal crashes may allow the use of crash-cost for each 

KABCO severity level (i.e., as in Level 5 estimates).”(6)

The FHWA study noted that the estimates will require adjustments for future years. The 

adjustment procedure is as follows. 

1. Multiply the economic costs provided in the tables in the report by the ratio of the 

consumer price index (CPI)—using the consumer price index for all urban consumers 

current series (CPI-U) for all items, annual average indexes, unadjusted for the year of 

interest—divided by the CPI for 2001. 

2. The difference between the comprehensive cost and the economic cost (i.e., QALY 

cost) for a given crash unit cost is multiplied by the ratio of the employment cost index 

(ECI)—not seasonally adjusted, total compensation, total private industry for the year of 

interest—divided by the ECI for 2001.

3. Add the two results to get an updated comprehensive crash unit cost.

Further, “this procedure should provide adequate cost estimates for roughly 5 years or until 

the next major DOT update of unit crash cost data and methods.”(6)

3.2 AASHTO HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL, FIRST EDITION (2010)(7)

The AASHTO HSM “provides analytical tools and techniques for quantifying the potential 

effects on crashes as a result of decisions made in planning, design, operations and maintenance. 

.... The information in the HSM was provided to assist agencies in their effort to integrate 

safety into their decision-making process.” Crash costs are important to HSM chapters 4, 7, 8, 

and 9, which cover network screening, economic appraisal, project prioritization, and safety 

effectiveness evaluation, respectively.(7) 

The HSM crash unit costs were sourced from the previously discussed FHWA report Crash 

Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Reported Injury Severity within Selected Crash Geometries. HSM 

Chapter 4 listed the costs in Table 2 of this guide for applying the EPDO average crash 

frequency performance measure in network screening.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

14

Table 2. HSM crash costs for EPDO crash frequency (2001 dollars).(7)

Crash Severity Level Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost

Fatality (K) $4,008,900 

Injury (A/B/C) $82,600 

PDO (O) $7,400 

HSM Appendix 4A listed more crash unit costs for crash severities and types as shown in Table 

3 and Table 4, respectively. The crash unit costs by severity in Table 3 were repeated in HSM 

Chapter 7, along with a weighted K/A/B crash cost value. HSM Appendix 4A also outlined the 

procedure to update the crash unit costs to current dollars, as described previously in the 2005 

FHWA study.

(6) The recommended procedure applied a CPI adjustment ratio to the economic

cost portion and an ECI adjustment ratio to the QALY costs. 

While not explained in detail in the HSM or the 2005 FHWA report Crash Cost Estimates by 

Maximum Police-Reported Injury Severity within Selected Crash Geometries, analysts can use the CPI 

and ECI ratios for either the December indexes for each year or the annual average indexes 

(i.e., the unweighted average of all 12 monthly index values or four quarterly index values). 

Annual average indexes are more reliable; however, the difference in the trend between the 

December ratio to annual average ratio is usually negligible. The annual average CPI for 2001 is 

177.1 and the annual average ECI for 2001 is 86.2. 

The sum of the updated economic cost and QALY cost portions yielded the updated 

comprehensive crash unit cost. An example was provided in HSM Appendix 4A. When using 

only economic costs, the ECI adjustment ratio is not needed. 

Table 3. HSM crash unit costs by severity (2001 dollars).(7)

Crash Severity Economic

Crash Unit Cost

QALY Crash 

Unit Cost

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Cost

EPDO 

Weights

Fatality (K) $1,245,600 $2,763,300 $4,008,900 542 

Disabling Injury (A) $111,400 $104,600 $216,000 29 

Evident Injury (B) $41,900 $37,100 $79,000 11 

Possible Injury (C) $28,400 $16,500 $44,900 6 

PDO (O) $6,400 $1,000 $7,400 1 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

15

Table 4. HSM crash unit costs by type (2001 dollars).(7)

Crash Type Economic Crash 

Unit Cost

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Cost

Rear-End, Signalized Intersection $16,700 $26,700 

Rear-End, Unsignalized Intersection $10,900 $13,200 

Sideswipe/Overtaking $17,600 $34,000 

Angle, Signalized Intersection $24,300 $47,300 

Angle, Unsignalized Intersection $29,700 $61,100 

Pedestrian/Bike at an Intersection $72,800 $158,900 

Pedestrian/Bike, Non-Intersection $107,800 $287,900 

Head-On, Signalized Intersection $15,600 $24,100 

Head-On, Unsignalized Intersection $24,100 $47,500 

Fixed Object $39,600 $94,700 

Other/Undefined $24,400 $55,100 

Using the procedure described in the HSM Appendix 4A, with 2016 annual average CPI of 

240.0 and ECI of 126.4, values of the 2016 HSM crash unit costs rounded to the nearest $100

are shown in Table 5.

(8,9)

Table 5. Updated HSM crash unit costs (2016 dollars). 

Crash Severity Economic Crash 

Unit Cost

QALY Crash 

Unit Cost

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Cost

EPDO 

Weights

Fatal (K) $1,688,100 $4,052,000 $5,740,100 568 

Disabling injury (A) $151,000 $153,400 $304,400 30 

Evident injury (B) $56,800 $54,400 $111,200 11 

Possible injury (C) $38,500 $24,200 $62,700 6 

PDO (O) $8,700 $1,400 $10,100 1 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

16

3.3 ESTIMATING THE COSTS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS DUE TO 

HIGHWAY-RELATED FATAL AND NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES (2011)(10)

Estimating the Costs to State Governments Due to Highway-Related Fatal and Non-Fatal Injury Crashes,

by Bahar, was prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 

Project 20-24, Task 68. The NCHRP report detailed a methodology to disaggregate the crash 

cost components and calculate crash costs borne by the State governments. Part of the 

methodology included an adjustment of costs from national crash unit costs to State-specific 

crash unit costs or from State-specific crash unit costs to those in another State, which 

accounts for differences in cost of living and medical costs.

The national economic crash unit costs by KABCO severity levels from the NCHRP report are 

shown in Table 6, rounded to the nearest $100. 

Table 6. National crash unit costs (2009 dollars).(10) 

Crash Severity Economic Crash Unit Cost

K $1,587,000 

A $132,600 

B $48,700 

C $34,100 

K/A/B/C $90,500 

O $6,100 

K/A/B/C/O $31,200 

The national economic crash unit costs from Table 6 of this guide required adjusting to 

represent the State-specific price levels. The adjustment factors used in this process are as 

follows:

• Per capita income (PCI). 

• Federal medical assistance percentages. 

• Tax revenue as a percent of personal income by State. 

• Medicaid and CPI adjusters. 

The NCHRP study offered the following text regarding the State-specific adjustments:

“To perform the adjustment, multiply the national mean State (generic) unit costs by the 

ACCRA ... medical price and all-items price adjusters and PCI (wage-related) adjusters 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

17

and then divide by the national average value (1.0 for the ACCRA adjusters, national 

average PCI of $40,152 [2008 dollars] for the wage adjuster).”(10)

The NCHRP study also developed a calculator tool to help State DOTs estimate the crash 

costs borne by their State DOT when focusing on relevant target crash types and maximum 

crash severity injury level. The tool calculates the cost of expected annual crashes entered by 

the analyst, based on a set of pre-defined site and safety attributes. The site attributes refer to 

the posted speed limit, geometry/traffic control in terms of segment, or signalized or 

unsignalized intersection. Subsequently, the analyst enters potential treatment(s) to the site and 

respective CMFs and target crashes, and the tool calculates the State DOT’s potential savings in 

terms of the treatment’s safety effect in future crash occurrence following implementation. 

3.4 THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL IMPACT OF MOTOR VEHICLE 

CRASHES, 2010 (REVISED) (2015)(11)

NHTSA’s 2015 report The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised), 

by Blincoe et al., documented the most recent and comprehensive study of the costs incurred 

by society due to the consequences of crashes. The total economic cost of crashes in 2010 was 

estimated to have been $242 billion. Of this total, the most significant economic costs were lost 

productivity costs of $77.4 billion (i.e., for market and household combined), property damage 

of $76.1 billion, congestion costs of $31.5 billion, and medical costs of $23.4 billion. The QALY 

cost estimate was $594 billion, yielding a total comprehensive cost estimate of $836 billion in 

2010 dollars.(11) To develop these estimates of the total crash burden on society, the NHTSA 

report estimated the cost of economic crash components and QALY costs, including the costs 

of reported and unreported crashes. NHTSA’s Table 1-3 provides national 2010 MAIS injury 

incidence data, shown in Table 7.

(11)

Table 7. National police-reported MAIS person-injury incidence in 2010.(11)

Severity Police-Reported Person-Injuries

Fatal (MAIS 6) 32,999 

MAIS 5 5,749 

MAIS 4 17,086 

MAIS 3 96,397 

MAIS 2 271,160 

MAIS 1 2,578,993 

MAIS 0 2,147,857 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

18

3.4.1 Crash Components

Descriptions of the estimation methodologies for each component were explained in detail in 

NHTSA’s report. The economic cost components were medical care, EMS, market productivity 

loss, household productivity loss, insurance, workplace loss, legal, congestion, and property 

damage.(11) The estimation of these cost components relied on records of the number of people 

and vehicles involved in each crash, the severity of each person’s injuries, the costs of those 

injuries, and damage to each vehicle. 

Intangible consequences included the physical and emotional anguish of victims who were 

injured, may have suffered permanent disability that could profoundly limit a person’s life, or

result in dependence on others for daily physical care, among others. For an individual, these 

non-monetary outcomes can be the most devastating aspect of a motor vehicle crash. The 

QALY estimates used new relative disutility factors stratified by MAIS to estimate the QALY 

for non-fatal injuries, presented later in Table 14.

(12)

The NHTSA study recommended that “for the analysis of crash impact and injury 

countermeasures, it is important to include only those cost components that are applicable to 

the specific programs addressed. For example, programs that encourage seat belt use may 

reduce costs associated with injuries, but would not have an effect on property damage or 

congestion costs.”(11)

3.4.2 Reported and Unreported Crashes and Their Costs

The NHTSA study found that approximately 60 percent of all PDO crashes and approximately 

40 percent of all non-fatal injury crashes were not reported to police. Overall, police-reported 

crashes were estimated to account for 83 percent of all economic crash costs. Crash unit costs 

for police-reported and unreported crashes were documented in the report. For analyses of 

safety countermeasures based on police-reported crashes, the analysis should be based on unit 

costs that are specific to police-reported crashes. Crash costs from Tables 1-9, 1-10, and 1-11 

of the NHTSA report are synthesized in Table 8 (economic) and Table 9 (comprehensive) of 

this guide.

(11)

Unit costs were expressed on a per-person basis for all injury levels. PDO costs were 

expressed on a per-damaged vehicle basis. Generally, all MAIS 4, 5, and fatal injuries were 

believed to be police-reported, but unreported injury values were still included for reference to 

cover any exceptional case where unreported crashes might have been found for these injury 

severity categories.

(11)

A discount rate of 3 percent was used in the NHTSA report for lifetime cost impacts such as 

lost productivity and medical care. This discount rate was established by the Office of 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

19

Management and Budget. For consistency, the discount rate of 3 percent was used for VSL (i.e., 

QALY) estimates as well. 

In Chapter 6 of the NHTSA study, economic crash cost burdens were also estimated for each 

State. Crash costs were given in terms of total State crash costs in 2010 dollars, percentage of 

total national crash costs, cost per capita, and percentage PCI. The report also described a 

procedure to adjust national costs to State-specific costs. 

At the national level, the NHTSA study developed KABCO to MAIS and MAIS to KABCO 

translator tables for the estimation of total economic crash costs for several crash scenarios. 

Table 8. MAIS economic person-injury unit costs and property damage per-vehicle 

unit costs, for reported and unreported crashes (2010 dollars).

(11)

Severity Police-reported 

Crashes

Unreported 

Crashes

All 

Crashes

Fatal (MAIS 6) $1,398,916 $1,393,654 $1,398,916 

MAIS 5 $1,001,089 $999,740 $1,001,089 

MAIS 4 $394,608 $393,277 $394,608 

MAIS 3 $187,128 $175,731 $181,927 

MAIS 2 $58,754 $51,731 $55,741 

MAIS 1 $20,701 $14,127 $17,810 

MAIS 0 $4,380 $1,337 $2,843 

PDO (per vehicle) $6,076 $1,928 $3,862 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

20

Table 9. MAIS comprehensive person-injury unit costs and property damage pervehicle unit costs, for reported and unreported crashes (2010 dollars).

(11)

Severity Police-Reported 

Crashes

Unreported 

Crashes

All 

Crashes

Fatal (MAIS 6) $9,145,998 $9,140,736 $9,145,998 

MAIS 5 $5,579,614 $5,578,265 $5,579,614 

MAIS 4 $2,432,091 $2,430,760 $2,432,091 

MAIS 3 $992,825 $980,940 $987,624 

MAIS 2 $399,626 $392,603 $396,613 

MAIS 1 $43,942 $37,368 $41,051 

MAIS 0 $4,380 $1,337 $2,843 

PDO (per vehicle) $6,076 $1,928 $3,862 

3.4.3 KABCO Person-Injury Unit Costs

In recognition of the police-reported data using KABCO, the NHTSA study provided a KABCO 

non-fatal injury unit cost table, abbreviated in Table 10 of this guide, which were costs per 

injured person. To determine the unit costs per crash, the number of people involved in a crash 

by KABCO severity would need to be tabulated, and subsequently multiplied using the injury 

unit costs. This procedure is explained in detail in Chapter 5 of this guide. While K costs are 

not shown in Table 10, the economic and comprehensive K person-injury unit costs shown in 

Table 8 and Table 9, respectively, pair with the costs in Table 10 because a fatality is the same 

in KABCO and MAIS. The person-injury unit costs in Table 10 do not factor in the many 

uninjured cases that are documented as injuries in police reports. 

Table 10. KABCO-based non-fatal person-injury unit costs (2010 dollars).(11)

Cost Type O C B A 

Economic $10,439 $19,494 $23,742 $82,048 

QALY $31,859 $108,274 $252,268 $919,158 

Comprehensive $42,298 $127,768 $276,010 $1,001,206 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

21

3.5 ESTIMATING THE COSTS OF UNINTENTIONAL INJURIES (2015)(14)

The National Safety Council (NSC) publishes annual estimates of economic and comprehensive 

crash and person-injury unit costs in their Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries briefs. 

NSC’s costs “represent income not received or expenses incurred because of fatal and nonfatal 

unintentional injuries.”(13) The cost estimation procedure determined benchmark unit costs for 

each cost component (e.g., property damage costs, medical costs, lost quality of life) from other 

literature or available data, adjusts each benchmark cost to current value, and estimates the 

proportion of crashes or persons that each cost component applies to. The total crash impacts 

were determined by multiplying the cost components by the number of crashes they apply to, 

and then summing the products across all components and crashes. From that point, the 

average costs per crash and per injury can be calculated.(13)

The latest available estimates were from 2015, which are shown in Table 11 (economic personinjury costs) and Table 12 (comprehensive person-injury unit costs) of this guide. 

Table 11. Average economic person-injury unit cost by injury severity and pervehicle unit cost for PDO (2015 dollars).(14)

Severity Person-Injury or Per-Vehicle Unit Cost

Death (K) $1,542,000 

Disabling (A) $90,000 

Evident (B) $26,000 

Possible (C) $21,400 

No injury observed (O) $11,400 

PDO (cost per vehicle) $4,200 

Table 12. Comprehensive person-injury unit cost by severity (2015 dollars).(14)

Severity Person-Injury Unit Cost

Death (K) $10,082,000 

Disabling (A) $1,103,000 

Evident (B) $304,000 

Possible (C) $141,000 

No injury observed (O) $46,600 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

22

3.6 UPDATED DEFAULT CRASH COST ESTIMATES FOR USE IN SAFETY 

ANALYST (2016)

(15)

AASHTOWare Safety AnalystTM is a software package that assists State and local highway 

agencies in implementing the HSM roadway safety management process.

(16) Among other input 

variables, crash costs are needed for network screening with EPDO weights, economic 

appraisal, and project prioritization procedures. Updated Default Crash Cost Estimates for Use in 

Safety Analyst, a white paper, presented at the 2016 Transportation Research Board (TRB) 

ANB25 Highway Safety Performance Committee midyear meeting in 2016, recommends that 

“...the HSM crash cost values be used as a basis for crash cost estimates in Safety Analyst, but 

that they be updated to current cost levels.”(15)

Prior to the publication of the white paper, the default crash unit costs had not been updated in 

Safety Analyst since its release in 2010. Safety Analyst users can also enter their own crash unit 

costs to override the default costs.

The white paper explained the preferred update procedure, which uses the CPI and ECI as 

prescribed in the HSM. Table 13 lists new costs for Safety Analyst as presented in the white 

paper, updated by applying the 2015 CPI index to the economic crash unit cost and 2015 ECI 

index to the QALY component. The software only uses comprehensive crash unit costs in 

analysis, unless changed by the user. The white paper suggested these default values be replaced 

every two years in Safety Analyst with newly updated crash unit costs, per the HSM 

procedure.(15)

Table 13. Updated AASHTOWare Safety Analyst crash unit costs (2015 dollars).(15)

Crash Severity Economic Crash 

Unit Cost

QALY Crash 

Unit Cost

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Cost

Fatal (K) $1,674,100 $4,048,200 $5,722,300 

Disabling injury (A) $149,700 $153,200 $302,900 

Evident injury (B) $56,3000 $54,400 $110,700 

Possible injury (C) $38,200 $24,200 $62,400 

PDO (O) $8,600 $1,500 $10,100 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

23

3.7 GUIDANCE ON TREATMENT OF THE ECONOMIC VSL IN USDOT

ANALYSES – 2016 ADJUSTMENT (2016)

(12)

The USDOT produces an annual update of guidance on the VSL. The 2016 guidance 

memorandum, Guidance on Treatment of the Economic VSL in USDOT Analyses – 2016 Adjustment, 

considered recent studies on VSL and their applicability in modifying, or not, past VSL 

guidance.(12)

The primary purpose of the USDOT guidance is to provide a basis for which the USDOT 

evaluates—in monetary terms—the costs and benefits of their regulations, investments, and 

administrative actions. The guidance adopts the annually-updated VSL and the relative values of 

preventing injuries of varied severity, each as a fraction of the VSL, for this purpose. The VSL is 

suited for these applications as it is a valuation of risk reduction, which such regulations try to 

achieve.

In the 2016 guidance memorandum, the VSL was based on nine empirical studies that provided 

estimates of VSL for a wide cross-section of the population.(12) These studies (dated 1997-2003 

and updated to current dollars) were selected because they used data from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, which comprises a complete census of 

occupational fatalities classified by both industry and occupation. The studies’ analysts used 

advanced statistical econometric modeling techniques to process the data and estimate VSL 

values based on “the wage differential that employers must pay workers to accept riskier 

jobs.”(12)

The USDOT adopted the following methods and recommended values:

1. Prevention of an expected fatality is assigned as single, nationwide value in each year, 

regardless of age, income, mode of travel, nature of risk, and other factors. The VSL of 

$9.6 million is provided for analyses in 2016.

2. The VSL is updated from the year of the source data using growth in median real 

income and monetary inflation, for the last full year before the date of the guidance.

Projection of VSL from the base year to a future year should be estimated with the 

equation in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Equation. VSL update equation.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

24

Where: 0 = Original base year

t = Updated base year

Pt = CPI in year t

P0 = CPI in year 0

It = Real incomes in year t, measured by Median Usual Weekly Earnings 

(MUWE)

I0 = Real incomes in year 0, measured by MUWE

E = Income elasticity of VSL, with respect to increases in real incomes 

(value of 1.0 adopted until more comprehensive studies are completed).

3. The VSL will be published annually.

4. Sensitivity analyses (for low and high estimates) should be conducted for the two VSL of 

$5.4 and $13.4 million (in 2015 dollars). 

5. The value of preventing non-fatal injuries will be calculated by multiplying the disutility 

factor of the MAIS level for each injured person, as shown in the third column of Table 

14, by the VSL value in year t. Each relativity disutility factor means the relative fraction 

of VSL based on the expected injury outcome for a given MAIS level. The values shown 

below can be used for analyses using 3 percent or 7 percent discount rates. They were 

calculated using an intermediate rate of 4 percent. 

The method to update the VSL values from year to year differs from that in the HSM. In the 

HSM, the economic cost portion is multiplied by a CPI ratio and the QALY portion—

represented by the difference between the comprehensive cost and the economic cost—is 

multiplied by an ECI ratio. In the VSL guidance, the ECI is replaced by the MUWE, and the 

entire VSL is multiplied by the CPI ratio and the MUWE ratio. The VSL guidance notes the ECI 

is less appropriate than MUWE because the ECI assigns fixed weights to employment 

categories, while the MUWE uses a median employment cost for all wage and salary workers 

over the age of 16. The median value better indicates the factors influencing typical travelers, 

whereas some extremely high incomes increase the mean above what most people make. The 

MUWE index also does not factor in employer contributions to retirement, health insurance,

and other workplace savings plans. These fringe benefits (included in the ECI) are not likely 

significant for average earners. The values in Table 14 do not include economic cost

components.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

25

Table 14. Person-injury unit costs based on 2016 VSL (2016 dollars).

(12)

MAIS Level Severity Fraction of VSL Person-Injury Unit Cost

Fatal (MAIS 6) Unsurvivable 1.000 $9,600,000 

MAIS 5 Critical 0.593 $5,692,800 

MAIS 4 Severe 0.266 $2,553,600 

MAIS 3 Serious 0.105 $1,008,000 

MAIS 2 Moderate 0.047 $451,200 

MAIS 1 Minor 0.003 $28,800 

The relativity disutility factors in Table 14 have two applications. First, “as a basis for 

establishing the value of preventing non-fatal injuries in [safety] BCA. The total value of 

preventing injuries and fatalities can be combined with the value of other economic benefits not 

measured by VSLs, and then compared to costs to determine either a benefit/cost ratio or an 

estimate of net benefits.”(12) Second, “the values in [Table 14] may be used to translate non-fatal 

injuries into fatality equivalents which, when added to fatalities, can be divided into costs to 

determine the cost per equivalent fatality.”(12)

3.8 TIGER BCA RESOURCE GUIDE (2016)(19)

The TIGER BCA Resource Guide is a supplement to the USDOT’s Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance 

for TIGER Grant Applicants.

(18, 19) As of May 2017, the most recent version of the BCA Resource 

Guide was posted in November 2016.

(19)

 The TIGER BCA Resource Guide provides key values 

for different types of benefits and costs that grant applicants must use in their safety BCA. 

Regarding crash analysis, the TIGER BCA Resource Guide recommends the 2016 (i.e., current) 

VSL value as well as monetized values of injuries by MAIS levels, as described previously.

Further, it recommends the cost of $4,198 per damaged-vehicle (in 2015 dollars) for PDO 

crashes. The PDO cost value originates from the $3,862 cost for all crashes, shown in Table 1-

9 of The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised), described in an 

earlier section, updated to 2015 dollars.

(11) This PDO cost is consistent with NSC as well.

Typically, crash data originating from law enforcement records are provided in KABCO scale.

The TIGER BCA Resource Guide provided a translator table to convert person-injuries from 

KABCO to MAIS, as shown in Table 15. The table reads with KABCO as the input and MAIS as 

the output, such that for each O injury in KABCO there is a 92.53 percent probability that 

injury was indeed MAIS 0 (i.e., no injury), but there is a 7.257 percent probability of a minor 

injury, 0.198 percent probability of moderate injury, and so on. The distributions in columns are 

the focus of the table; row distributions are meaningless. Multiplying a sum of KABCO injuries 

by the translation factors by severity yields an equivalent number of MAIS injuries, to which 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

26

MAIS costs can be applied. The translator table can also be used in reverse to convert personinjury unit costs. The use of translator tables is discussed further in Chapter 5.

Table 15. KABCO to MAIS translation factors.

(19)

Severity O C B A K U Unknown 

if injured

MAIS 0 0.92534 0.23437 0.08347 0.03437 0.00000 0.21538 0.43676

MAIS 1 0.07257 0.68946 0.76843 0.55449 0.00000 0.62728 0.41739

MAIS 2 0.00198 0.06391 0.1088 0.20908 0.00000 0.10400 0.08872

MAIS 3 0.00008 0.01071 0.03191 0.14437 0.00000 0.03858 0.04817

MAIS 4 0.00000 0.00142 0.00620 0.03986 0.00000 0.00442 0.00617

MAIS 5 0.00003 0.00013 0.00101 0.01783 0.00000 0.01034 0.00279

Fatality 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Total 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000

The TIGER BCA Resource Guide does not explicitly propose the procedure to monetize the 

cost of all injuries per KABCO crash.(19)

3.9 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE 

Table 16 presents a consolidated summary of the literature review, comparing the topics 

covered by each resource. The authors reviewed the following resources during the literature. 

The numbered list below corresponds to the columns in Table 16. 

1. Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Report Injury Severity within Selected Crash 

Geometries (2005)

2. AASHTO HSM (2010) 

3. Estimating Costs to State Governments Due to Highway-Related Fatal and Non-Fatal 

Injury Crashes (2011)

4. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised) (2015)

5. Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries (2015)

6. Updated Default Crash Cost Estimates for Use in Safety Analyst (2016)

7. Guidance on Treatment of the Economic VSL in USDOT Analyses (2016)

8. TIGER BCA Resource Guide (2016)
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 

27

Table 16. Literature review summary. 

Topic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Costs by MAIS • • •

Costs by KABCO • • • • • •

Economic costs • • • • • • 

QALY costs • • • • • •

Comprehensive costs • • • • • • 

Injury scale translators • •

Costs by crash type • • • •

Cost component estimates • •

Procedures to update crash costs over time • • • • • • •

Procedures to adjust crash costs to States • •
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

28

CHAPTER 4. SYNTHESIS OF PRACTICE 

In April 2017, FHWA circulated a questionnaire to all FHWA Division Offices regarding crash 

costs that States use in safety analyses, to which 42 responses were received. Figure 2 shows a 

map of the United States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico with the Division Offices that 

responded highlighted in green (or darker shade when viewed in grayscale). Appendix B: State 

Crash Cost Questionnaire presents the questionnaire form.

Any references to States, their responses, and their perspectives throughout this guide are 

based on the FHWA Division Office responses. The authors of this guide did not contact 

States, District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico directly for their input. However, in some cases 

the FHWA Division Office did coordinate with the State DOT on the response.

Figure 2. Graphic. Map of crash cost questionnaire respondents.

The following questions were the focus of the questionnaire: 

1. Does your State use crash costs in safety analysis?

2. Please provide the crash cost values used in the HSIP and for other purposes.

3. How does your State develop/establish crash cost values?

4. Does your State regularly update their crash cost values?
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

29

5. What crash cost components are included in your State’s crash cost values?

6. How does your State apply crash cost values in economic analyses?

7. Would adopting a set of national crash costs be advantageous or disadvantageous to 

your State?

This chapter summarizes current practice through a synthesis of responses from the crash cost 

questionnaire, supplemented by an online search for relevant information. The purpose of this 

chapter is to present States’ practices in selecting, updating, and applying crash costs.

4.1 STATE PRACTICES IN SELECTING AND UPDATING CRASH COST 

VALUES

This section summarizes the crash cost values States use in safety analyses and practices to 

update their crash costs, as described in the crash cost questionnaire responses and as 

documented online. The first subsection presents the most commonly used national crash cost 

values. The second subsection summarizes the crash costs States apply in their analyses as well 

as the implications of variation in State practices.

4.1.1 National Crash Costs

Based on the questionnaire responses and online research, 72 percent of States use or derive 

their crash costs from the crash cost values presented by AASHTO in the HSM, NSC in their

annual injury cost publications, or USDOT in the annual VSL guidance memoranda. Figure 3

presents the distribution of crash costs sources used by States.

Figure 3. Chart. State crash cost sources.

32%

26%

14%

6%

8%

10%

4%

HSM

USDOT

NSC

NHTSA

Others

Unknown

No crash costs
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

30

Table 17 (economic) and Table 18 (comprehensive) compare the values presented in the three 

most common resources, rounded to the nearest $100. USDOT values, which are presented as 

person-injury unit costs for MAIS scale, were converted to KABCO person-injury unit costs for 

comparison using the translation table in the TIGER BCA Resource Guide, shown in Table 

15.

(19) The translation procedure is explained in detail in Chapter 5. 

The latest published values (i.e., HSM updated with annual average 2016 CPI and ECI, 2015 

NSC publication, 2016 USDOT guidance) are presented in Table 17 and Table 18. While the 

HSM has only one set of published values (i.e., there is only one version), the others have newly 

published values annually or as revisions are available. In some cases, States reported using 

crash cost values from earlier NSC or USDOT publications directly or as the basis for annual 

updates with economic factors. 

Table 17. National economic crash cost sources.(7,13)

Severity HSM 2016 Crash 

Unit Costs

NSC 2015 PersonInjury Unit Costs

K $1,688,100 $1,542,000 

A $151,000 $90,000 

B $56,800 $26,000 

C $38,500 $21,400 

O $8,700 $11,400 

Table 18. National comprehensive crash cost sources.(7,12,13)

Severity HSM 2016 Crash 

Unit Costs

NSC 2015 PersonInjury Unit CostsUSDOT 2016 PersonInjury Unit Costs* 

K $5,740,100 $10,082,000 $9,600,000 

A $304,400 $1,103,000 $459,100 

B $111,200 $304,000 $125,100 

C $62,700 $141,000 $63,900 

O $10,100 $46,600 $3,200 

*The USDOT costs do not include economic costs.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

31

4.1.2 State Practices

The actual crash cost values that States use in safety BCA—as identified from the questionnaire 

responses and online research—are listed in Appendix C: State Crash Costs by Severity. Table 19

and Table 20 present summaries of responding States’ crash unit costs and person-injury unit 

costs, respectively. Five States responded using both crash and person-injury costs (but did not 

indicate which type of costs they apply in safety BCA) and three States’ cost types are 

unknown. Those eight States are not included in these summary tables. Additionally, two States 

indicated that they do not use crash costs, and two others did not provide complete responses 

and could not be included in the summary statistics. 

The dollar costs in the summary tables are not updated to a consistent year, although they do 

represent the crash costs currently used by States. In other words, even if older crash costs are 

not updated to current dollars, the old crash costs are still being compared to construction 

costs in current dollars in States’ BCA. 

Table 19. Crash unit cost summary of 33 States. 

Severity Minimum Cost Mean Cost Maximum Cost

K $190,200 $4,288,422 $10,100,000 

A $89,200 $781,094 $3,300,000 

B $0 $174,335 $955,500 

C $0 $98,188 $955,500 

O $0 $10,582 $42,298 

Table 20. Person-injury unit cost summary of seven States. 

Severity Minimum Cost Mean Cost Maximum Cost

K $1,542,000 $7,119,608 $10,133,000 

A $90,000 $611,932 $1,429,846 

B $26,000 $137,117 $304,000 

C $7,620 $55,993 $141,000 

O $3,048 $11,579 $46,600 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

32

The following statistics represent a summary of the other responses in the questionnaire. 

• 48 percent of responding States adapt cost values from the source values, 34 percent 

use the source values directly, and the other 18 percent indicated they have other 

practices, did not indicate their practice, or do not use crash costs. 

• 66 percent of responding States indicated they use crash unit costs, 14 percent of States 

reported using person-injury unit costs, and the other 20 percent use both types, did 

not indicate, or do not use crash costs. However, the responses to this question in 

some cases seem to contradict other responses, particularly related to the source and 

the type of costs they provided, which may imply some confusion about the sources’ 

values. Some States also appear to apply person-injury costs as crash costs without 

making a conversion.

• 62 percent of responding States update their crash costs at least annually or as new 

publications are released (e.g., new annual NSC or USDOT guidance memos), 8 percent 

do not update or update infrequently, 6 percent update biennially, and the other 24 

percent of States did not indicate their update frequency or do not use crash costs. 

• 61 percent of responding States said they use comprehensive costs, 21 percent of States 

indicated they use economic costs, and the other 18 percent use both, did not indicate 

their practice, or do not use crash costs. 

The implications of these findings vary. When considering the implications of these statistics 

across several or all States, the wide-ranging procedures and policies create difficulties when 

comparing research, eligibility and funding decisions, and effectiveness evaluations for projects, 

countermeasures, and programs. The actual differences in project, countermeasure, or program

effectiveness between States or research reports can be difficult to discern when compounded 

by the following differences:

• Crash cost type (i.e., economic or comprehensive, crash or person-injury). 

• Crash cost estimation methodologies.

• State-specific adaptations (often at least partially subjective). 

• Update frequency and procedure.

It is often difficult or impossible to work backward to account for differences in crash costs 

among two or more BCA results if the details of the costs and calculations were not provided. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

33

In terms of quality of an individual State’s program, such differing practices across States is not

as concerning. The most important factor within a State is that a single set of crash costs—or a 

single set with appropriate adjustments based on economic factors or differences in severity 

and type—is used to analyze all projects, such that all projects are analyzed equally and fairly. 

Applying crash costs in an unintended or inappropriate way may lower the accuracy of BCA 

results and shift the threshold of project eligibility, but this concern is not as critical as applying 

those costs consistently. Most sources of crash costs produce costs that represent 

approximately the same proportion of cost to each severity (i.e., roughly equal EPDO weights). 

Slightly dissimilar weights may have a marginal effect on project priority, but if crash costs are 

applied consistently then the relative priority of projects should be mostly consistent, 

regardless of the values used in the analysis.

4.2 WEIGHTED CRASH COST METHODS AND VALUES

Although more than 75 percent of States indicated that they use crash costs from the HSM, 

NSC, USDOT, or NHTSA in Figure 3, the majority of States noted that they do not use these 

values directly. Most States adjust or weight the original unit cost values to obtain values that 

represent combinations of severities, omit severities, or convert the costs to suit their 

preferences. States’ intentions for weighting costs is typically to lessen the impact of high fatal 

crash costs in safety BCA or to adjust the values to something they are more comfortable using 

for analysis of project eligibility and in prioritization decisions.

Many States use a base set of crash cost values and adapt the values into severity-weighted 

crash costs. Figure 4 shows the equation for developing a K/A/B severity-weighted crash cost, 

although any set of two or more severities can be used in a similar way. The weight for each 

severity is the number of crashes of the severity (e.g., K crashes) divided by the number of 

crashes of interest (e.g., K/A/B crashes).

Figure 4. Equation. Severity-weighted costs.

Where: SWC = severity-weighted cost for two or more severities.

C = crash unit cost or person-injury unit cost for a given severity.

N = number of crashes or person-injuries (depending on the type of 

cost) of a given severity or group of severities.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

34

There are numerous possible combinations for developing severity-weighted costs (e.g., 

weighted K/A costs or A/B/C costs). Some States also develop weighted person-injury costs 

based on the AIS scale using the same mathematical procedure shown in Figure 4. 

Table 21 lists the States that develop weighted costs and the severity levels they have costs for, 

as indicated in the questionnaire and online documentation. Some States use the severityweighted method in Figure 4, while others did not indicate how the weighted values are 

developed. A few States developed their own weighting procedures. (Appendix D: Practices in 

Developing and Updating Crash Costs contains several detailed explanations of State practices for 

developing and updating crash costs.)

Table 21. State severity-weighted cost levels. 

State Severity Levels

Alabama K/A/B, C, and O

Colorado K, A/B/C, and O

Delaware K/A/B/C and O

Georgia K, A/B/C, and O

Indiana K/A, B/C, and O

Kentucky K/A/B and C/O

Ohio K/A, B, C, and O

Oregon K/A, B/C, and O

Puerto Rico K and A/B/C

Rhode Island K/A, B, C, and O

South Dakota K/A/B/C and O

Texas K/A and B

Utah K/A, B, C, and O

Washington K/A, B, C, and O

Wisconsin K/A/B, C, and O

Wyoming K/A, B/C, and O/U

4.3 PERSPECTIVES ON NATIONAL CRASH COSTS

There are several considerations to adopting national crash cost values. Many advantages and 

disadvantages were highlighted in the crash cost questionnaire responses. Figure 5 presents a 

summary of the responses. Appendix E: Questionnaire Responses to the Feasibility of Recommending 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4

35

National Crash Costs lists each response to explain whether recommended national crash costs 

would be advantageous or disadvantageous.

The opinions on the topic of national crash costs vary, and respondents had different reasons 

for why they view national costs as advantageous or disadvantageous. In addition to those 

reasons raised by the respondents, there are other advantages and disadvantages discussed in 

Chapter 5.

Figure 5. Chart. Summary of preferences on recommending national crash costs.

40%

10%

26%

24%

Advantageous

Disadvantageous

No preference

Unknown
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

36

CHAPTER 5. CRASH COST CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter presents considerations relating to estimating, selecting, updating, and applying 

crash costs. Each section discusses a separate issue concerning crash costs and includes insights 

regarding current practices, and, when appropriate, provides recommendations for 

consideration. Table 22 lists the sections of this guide that analysts can refer to for common 

crash cost considerations, translations, conversions, and adjustments that may be needed when 

performing safety analysis and conducting research.

Table 22. Common uses for crash cost considerations and calculations. 

Crash Cost Considerations and Calculations Section

Analyst is considering using actual crash costs in BCA rather than estimated 

average crash costs 5.2 

Analyst is considering whether to use economic or comprehensive crash unit 

costs in BCA 5.3 

Analyst has some data in KABCO and other data in MAIS 5.4.1 

Analyst has number of KABCO injuries and is interested in understanding the 

distribution of those injuries in MAIS 5.4.2.1 

Analyst has MAIS person-injury unit costs and needs to translate to KABCO 

for BCA of KABCO crash data 5.4.2.2 

Analyst is considering crash costs by crash type or by crash type and severity

for BCA 5.5 

Analyst would like to develop severity-weighted crash costs for application with 

observed frequencies or to emphasize program goal 5.6 

Analyst is considering using conservative crash cost values in BCA 5.7 

Analyst needs to perform basic conversion between number of person-injuries 

or vehicles and number of crashes 5.8.1 

Analyst has person-injury unit costs or vehicle unit costs and would like to 

convert to crash unit costs within the same injury scale for analysis of crashlevel benefits5.8.2 

Analyst would like to adjust national crash costs to State-specific crash costs 

for more accurate BCA 5.9 

Analyst needs to update crash costs from year to year 5.10 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

37

The final section of the chapter summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of recommending 

national crash costs. Recommendations for practice are highlighted in bold text 

throughout this chapter.

5.1 DIFFERENCES IN CRASH COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES

As discussed throughout Chapter 3, there are several methodologies that researchers employ 

to estimate the unit cost of crashes and injuries. While there are differences, there is not 

necessarily a preferred method. Each provides some advantages and disadvantages over the 

others. For safety BCA and government use, it is likely that costs developed with as many 

measurable economic components as possible will be preferred. However, not all components 

have been fully quantified to date and the intangible consequences are difficult to completely

and accurately estimate. 

5.2 DIFFERENCE IN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL COSTS

Actual crash costs differ in every crash due to the specific circumstances related to each crash 

event—the damage, injuries, response, and lasting effects. It is unlikely that future crashes, even 

at the same site, will bear the same economic or societal costs as previous crashes. Further, it 

is extremely difficult, costly, or impossible to quantify and consistently know the finite costs of 

each individual crash. For these reasons, estimating average crash unit costs for certain 

circumstances provides a more practical, consistent, and reliable way to estimate the impact of 

past crashes and predict the impacts of future crashes.

However, estimating average crash unit cost values is not a simple feat either. Most of the 

numerous cost components are not quantified or logged in an accessible database, and, if they 

are, the data only exist for sample sets of crashes. Developing average crash unit cost values 

based on actual injuries, damage, and other factors is difficult due to complexities with 

accessing, integrating, and analyzing injury surveillance databases and other information with 

crash data. States may not have adequate resources, nor the capability, to quantify accurate 

crash unit cost estimates specific to their State. In general, it is only practical to use 

estimated average crash unit costs. 

5.3 ECONOMIC AND COMPREHENSIVE CRASH COSTS

Economic crash costs are more intuitive than costs that include the intangible impacts of pain 

and suffering because of the straightforward accounting methods to estimate economic costs. 

Intangible QALY costs are derived from choices that people make about safety or the value 

they place on an increase in safety, regardless of whether they have a level of income that 

would allow them to pay for such an increase in safety. Even with an understanding of the 

methodology and the number of influencing factors that are accounted for in estimating the pain 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

38

and suffering costs of crashes, it can be difficult to place a high degree of confidence in these 

numbers (i.e., at least at the same level of confidence in economic costs). However, the 

methodologies used in most recent studies are the best methods that have been developed to 

estimate these costs, and it is critical to account for the comprehensive costs of 

crashes in safety BCA.

5.4 IMPACT OF INJURY SCALE ON CRASH COSTS AND TRANSLATING 

BETWEEN KABCO AND MAIS INJURY SCALES

Crash costs are most commonly developed and presented by severity for a specific injury scale

(e.g., AIS), which can be a problem for States when the crash cost injury scale does not align 

with the severities reported by police officers in their State. Translator tables allow analysts to 

convert between the scales, although the conversion is not exact and introduces error in the 

analysis. Further, not all States use a conversion and instead sometimes directly apply MAIS 

costs to KABCO severity levels, introducing potentially more error into the analysis.

5.4.1 Impact of Injury Scale

The presence of two injury scales creates complications not only in comparing disaggregate 

crash costs, but also the total burden of certain injuries in projects or across a State, 

particularly when characterizing serious injuries differently. Generally, while there is some 

variation in the allowable period from time of crash to time of death (e.g., 30 days or 12 

months), there is agreement on what level of injury constitutes a fatality between databases and 

injury scales (e.g., FARS, KABCO, AIS, and others). However, the KABCO level A, B, and C 

injuries (and U in some States) do not align with 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 injuries in the AIS. Research 

has shown that each of the KABCO injury types, even those coded as “O” indicating no injury, 

result in some of each of the AIS injuries once doctors medically assess the injuries that victims 

incurred. Regardless of injury scale, analysts should use comparable data from only 

one injury scale in analysis and translate between the scales when needed. There is 

no need to translate fatal or PDO crash costs or number of non-injured persons between 

injury scales.

Consistency in injury scale between all State crash reports and crash costs would alleviate the 

confusion and inconsistency created by two separate conventions. The KABCO scale is notably 

inaccurate, and the AIS scale is as good as injury data will likely get; however, there is not a 

clear path forward without both scales. Not all injured persons can be assessed in MAIS. 

Reconciling the impact of injury scale on crash cost is an important consideration 

for future crash cost estimates and for safety analysis in general.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

39

5.4.2 Translating Between KABCO and MAIS

As noted throughout Chapter 3 and other sections of this chapter, analysts regularly need to 

translate costs and injury counts between KABCO and MAIS injury scales to get comparable 

data. Translator tables are available that allow analysts to convert between the two injury 

scales. Translator tables are not updated regularly, and they do not need to be. The tables are 

developed from crash databases with KABCO and AIS injury scales reported for each crash 

record. Few databases contain both injury scales. Updates to translator tables are only 

necessary every few years as new data are included in these databases or as new databases 

become available. Translator tables only work for police-reported crashes and personinjuries; those not reported by the police are typically not included.

Table 23, reorganized from Table 15, converts data between KABCO and MAIS injury scales. 

The translator table provides two translation capabilities, listed below. Translating in reverse of 

these is complicated and not necessary in practice. The following subsections of this chapter 

provide examples demonstrating these procedures.

1. Translate number of person-injuries from KABCO to MAIS. 

2. Translate person-injury unit costs from MAIS to KABCO. 

Crash unit costs do not work accurately with the Table 23 translator. The translation between 

person-injury unit costs and conversion to crash unit costs should be accounted for separately.

Analysts should not translate the number of PDO crashes and PDO crash unit costs between 

scales; they are equivalent in AIS and KABCO. Including KABCO “O” and MAIS 0 in the 

translation process accounts for the cases when injuries were reported, but were later 

determined (e.g., by physicians) to be not injured, and when persons were determined to have 

an injury, but were reported by police to have no injury.

Table 23 presents the translation table factors from the TIGER BCA Resource Guide.

(19) Analysts 

can convert between person-injuries and person-injury unit costs with either injury scale. The 

following sections illustrate the translation procedures and example translations. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

40

Table 23. Translation factors to translate between KABCO and MAIS.(19)

Severity MAIS 6 MAIS 5 MAIS 4 MAIS 3 MAIS 2 MAIS 1 MAIS 0

K 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 

A 0.00000 0.01783 0.03986 0.14437 0.20908 0.55449 0.03437 

B 0.00000 0.00101 0.0062 0.03191 0.10898 0.76843 0.08347 

C 0.00000 0.00013 0.00142 0.01071 0.06391 0.68946 0.23437 

O 0.00000 0.00003 0.00000 0.00008 0.00198 0.07257 0.92534 

5.4.2.1 Translating Number of Person-Injuries Example

The following example illustrates a translation from KABCO person-injuries to MAIS personinjuries. In Table 23, the translation reads horizontally. The apparent distributions in 

the columns are meaningless. For example, each reported KABCO level A person-injury 

has a 1.783 percent chance to result in MAIS 5 person-injury, 3.986 percent chance to result in 

MAIS 4, and so on. Conversely, the factors also represent the cost proportions for each injury, 

such that 1.783 percent of a KABCO level A person-injury unit cost is from MAIS 5 costs, 

3.986 percent from MAIS 4, and so on. These proportions are used to directly translate 

number of person-injuries from KABCO to MAIS and person-injury unit costs from MAIS to 

KABCO.

Table 24 contains an example KABCO person-injury distribution to translate into MAIS personinjuries. An analyst could perform this type of translation to examine the average MAIS 

outcomes from a given KABCO injury distribution. Table 25 displays the intermediate results 

by multiplying each number of KABCO injuries in Table 24 by the factors horizontally in Table 

23 (e.g., for A level injuries, multiply 1,003 by 0.00000, 1,003 by 0.01783, 1,003 by 0.03986, and 

so on, continuing for each row). The final translation results are shown in the bottom row of

Table 25, and are calculated by summing down each column to obtain the total MAIS injuries by 

severity, rounded to the nearest whole injury. 

To check that the person-injury translation was performed correctly, the total number of 

injured persons of all severities (i.e., before rounding) should be equal in KABCO and MAIS. In 

this case, the KABCO and MAIS person-injury totals each equal 131,310, indicating the 

calculation was performed correctly.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

41

Table 24. Example KABCO person-injury distribution.

Severity Number of Injured or Involved Persons

K 202 

A 1,003 

B 11,481 

C 5,006 

O 113,618 

Table 25. Translating KABCO person-injuries to MAIS person-injuries (using data 

in Table 23 and Table 24). 

Severity MAIS 6 MAIS 5 MAIS 4 MAIS 3 MAIS 2 MAIS 1 MAIS 0

K 202 0 0 0 0 0 0 

A 0 17.88 39.98 144.80 209.71 556.15 34.47 

B 0 11.60 71.18 366.36 1251.20 8822.34 958.32 

C 0 0.65 7.11 53.61 319.93 3451.44 1173.26 

O 0 3.41 0 9.09 224.96 8245.26 105135.28 

Total 202 34 118 574 2,006 21,075 107,301 

5.4.2.2 Translating Person-Injury Unit Costs Example

Translating person-injury unit costs from MAIS to KABCO is an important step in determining 

accurate crash unit costs in the KABCO scale. Person-injury unit costs are usually developed 

using the MAIS scale (MAIS is rarely used for crashes), in which injury severity—the largest 

influence on costs—is more accurately known than with KABCO. The translator table is used 

to bring the MAIS person-injury unit costs to KABCO person-injury unit costs that are later 

converted into KABCO crash unit costs for BCA.

To translate person-injury costs, the translator table is used in reverse. Considering Table 23

and the information in the previous section for translating number of person-injuries, an 

average KABCO level A person-injury will result in 0.0 MAIS 6 person-injuries, 0.0178 MAIS 5 

person-injuries, 0.03986 MAIS 4 person-injuries, and so on.

While Table 23 can translate KABCO level A person-injuries to MAIS person-injuries, when 

translating MAIS costs to a KABCO level A cost, the distribution listed above also serves as the 

weights for proportioning the MAIS person-injury unit costs. For example, MAIS 5 costs make 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

42

up 1.78 percent of a KABCO level A person-injury unit cost, MAIS 4 person-injury unit costs 

makes up 3.986 percent of a KABCO level A person-injury unit cost, and so on.

Table 26 shows the calculations for determining a KABCO level A person-injury unit cost from 

the comprehensive, police-reported, MAIS person-injury unit costs listed in Table 9 and the 

translator table in Table 23. The comprehensive, police-reported MAIS person-injury unit costs 

from Table 9 are multiplied by the translation factors in Table 23 to determine the portions of 

the KABCO level A person-injury unit cost accounted for by each MAIS level. In other words, 

the translator values are used to develop a weighted average KABCO level A person-injury unit 

cost based on the MAIS person-injury costs multiplied by the MAIS person-injury proportions. 

The sum of the cost portions (i.e., $447,831.55) represents the translated KABCO level A 

comprehensive person-injury unit cost. This procedure could be repeated for each injury level 

to determine a full set of KABCO person-injury unit costs by severity.

Table 26. MAIS to KABCO comprehensive person-injury unit cost translation for 

KABCO level A (2010 dollars). 

Severity MAIS PersonInjury Unit Costs

KABCO A Injury 

Translation Factors 

A Person-Injury 

Unit Cost Portions

Fatality $9,145,998 0.00000 $0.00 

MAIS 5 $5,579,614 0.01783 $99,484.52 

MAIS 4 $2,432,091 0.03986 $96,943.15 

MAIS 3 $992,825 0.14437 $143,334.15 

MAIS 2 $399,626 0.20908 $83,553.80 

MAIS 1 $43,942 0.55449 $24,365.40 

MAIS 0 $4,380 0.03437 $150.54 

Total N/A 1.00000 $447,831.55 

Although the MAIS 4 and 5 injuries in Table 26 carry high person-injury unit costs, MAIS 4 and 

5 injuries are quite rare—as shown in Table 7 and demonstrated in the Table 25 translation—

and do not contribute to a large portion of KABCO level A person-injury unit costs. While 

Table 23 indicates that over 85 percent of MAIS 5 person-injuries result in KABCO level A 

person-injuries, the third column in Table 26 indicates that less than two percent of A personinjuries are MAIS 5. This fact is due in part to the low incidence of MAIS 5 injuries (i.e., it may 

be more likely for either a lower injury severity or death to occur, with few persons surviving 

with such severe injuries) and the unreliable nature of the KABCO scale as reported by police, 

which is demonstrated by the translation values in Table 23. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

43

5.5 CRASH COST VALUES BY TYPE AND SEVERITY

Most crash costs are only reported by severity levels for several reasons. Crash costs vary 

more by severity than by crash type; a higher severity injury adds exponentially more cost as 

other cost components come into play. For this reason, it is more important to account for 

severity in BCA than crash type, for which unit costs do not vary as much. Estimates of crash 

type inherently involve consideration of crash severity, which is not as much the case in 

reverse. Sample size of some crash types may also preclude investigation into their costs, and 

national crash databases are limited in certain crash types. Sometimes it is difficult to assign a 

single crash type to a crash or ensure consistent reporting of crash types. However, there are a 

few studies that report costs by crash type.(6,7,10,11) Although not explored in this guide, those 

costs could potentially be updated or calibrated to more recent costs.

The use of crash unit cost values by crash type, however, can be important in some analyses. 

Particularly, when either the severity of future crashes is uncertain (i.e., the past crash 

experience is not an indicator of future crash experience) or when there is reason to question 

the reported severity of historical crashes, crash unit costs by type allow analysts to monetize 

crashes relatively accurately without needing severity. Additionally, crash type analysis can be

important for certain treatments—such as traffic signal installation—where some crash types 

are increased and others are reduced. However, at present, safety performance functions 

(SPFs) are less frequently developed for specific crash types (CMFs by type are more frequently 

available), and crash type distributions may be needed to apportion predicted or expected 

crash frequency into crash type components.

Crash unit costs disaggregated by both type and severity provide arguably the most accurate 

estimates, but there is a similar concern that distributions are needed to apportion crash 

frequency into crash type and severity components. When analyzing observed crash frequency 

in safety BCA there is often a limited or zero sample for some crash type and severity 

combinations, potentially leading to deceiving results if the past crash experience is not 

representative of future crashes. The recommended practice is to use EB or other SPFbased methods to estimate the long-term average crash frequency by type and 

severity to serve as the basis of safety BCA.

5.6 WEIGHTED CRASH COST VALUES

As discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix D: Practices in Developing and Updating Crash Costs, there 

is variation in how analysts develop severity weighted crash costs. Some use a weighted average 

based on an actual injury or severity distribution and others develop subjective injury severity 

weights (e.g., based on EPDO weights they deem more fitting or realistic). Although less 

common, crash cost values may be weighted by crash type as well.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

44

States, analysts, and researchers develop weighted crash or person-injury unit cost values for 

several reasons. The three primary reasons for weighting crash costs in safety BCA application 

are as follows.

• Unweighted crash costs by injury severity place a high cost on fatal and serious injury 

crashes and related injuries, which is often attributed to skewing the results of safety 

BCA, particularly when agencies base the BCA on a short-term observed crash history. 

More reliable methods (e.g., using SPFs) can help to account for the fluctuation in the 

short-term observed frequency of fatal and serious injury crashes. The AASHTO HSM 

contains more information about the EB method and reliable procedures for estimating 

benefits.(7) Weighted costs (e.g., combining K/A or A/B/C costs) may normalize higher 

severity crashes, but also increases the impact of lower severity crashes that could yield 

an even stronger bias that may be harder to detect.

• Distrust or misunderstanding of crash unit cost estimates, particularly for higher severity 

crashes. Several States reference studies (i.e., in their questionnaire responses or HSIP 

documentation) that indicate there is a small difference in the circumstances of crashes 

that determines whether a crash results in a fatality or serious injury, and often the 

factors that contribute to the resulting severity of a crash are not roadway-related. 

However, in many crash cost estimates (e.g., in Table 5 and many others throughout 

this guide), there is an order of magnitude difference between the unit cost of a fatal 

crash and the unit cost of a serious injury crash. Some States use weighted crash costs 

to help balance the costs of higher severity crashes over a larger sample.

• Weighted crash costs may allow for safety BCA to better reflect the objectives of safety 

programs. For example, if the objective of the program is to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries, a weighted K/A cost will place an equal value on fatal and serious injury crashes 

in safety BCA, which can lead to projects that best achieve that objective. 

The practice noted in the first bullet is common among States. Using observed crash frequency 

may overestimate the long-term average frequency of less common crash severities and types 

(e.g., fatal and serious injury crashes). For example, considering a five-year crash history, a site 

may have 1 fatal crash recorded in the past 5 years, meaning an average of 0.2 fatal crashes per 

year. For the same site, using the EB method to combine the observed crashes and predicted 

crashes from an appropriate SPF, the expected frequency of fatal crashes is 0.02 fatal crashes

per year for this site. Thus, the monetized value of the fatal crashes per year for this site using 

the observed versus the expected crash frequencies would overestimate the value by a factor 

of 10. With the high cost of fatal crashes, this effect can skew economic analyses. Using the EB 

method to combine the observed crash history of a given site with the crash prediction from an 

appropriate SPF is a more reliable way to estimate the long-term average frequency of crashes.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

45

Developing and applying weighted crash costs does not fix the problem of using observed crash 

data. Weighted crash costs can reduce the cost applied to fatal crashes and the potential for 

scarce fatalities to have a large impact on safety BCA results and project prioritization, but 

weighted crash costs also increase the costs of lower severity crashes and overestimate the 

effects of those crashes. For example, a weighted K/A cost may reduce a fatal crash unit cost by 

five times, but also increase the value of an A-level crash by 2.5 times, which yields a potentially 

stronger bias when many A-level crashes occur (especially considering A-level crashes are five 

to ten times more common than fatal crashes). It is recommended that analysts strive to 

estimate the long-term average predicted or expected crash frequency and apply 

unweighted crash costs to these estimates, rather than continue to use observed 

crash frequency in BCA and attempt to fix the results with weighted crash costs. A 

mix of SPF-based and observed crash approaches is viable when SPFs are not available for all 

sites.

While not the preferred practice, if an agency is using observed crash frequency in safety BCA 

there are some opportunities to overcome some limitations of this practice with weighted 

crash costs. Using weighted crash costs in safety BCA is acceptable as an interim 

procedure until SPFs are available for the EB method, if the weighted crash costs 

are developed with an actual crash severity distribution from the jurisdiction to 

which they will be applied (i.e., objectively weighted average crash costs). There is potential 

merit in using weighted crash costs to reflect the objectives of a program, a specific analysis, or 

research project as described in the third bullet above. Objectively weighted crash costs will 

result in different valuations of safety benefits on a project-by-project basis than if unweighted 

crash costs by severity were used, but over time and across many projects, unweighted crash 

costs and objectively weighted crash costs should present essentially the same net results for a 

program. While there is flexibility, K/A, K/A/B/C, or K/A/B/C/O objectively weighted costs are 

preferred. Weighted crash costs should be developed using the equation in Figure 4. 

5.7 CONSERVATIVENESS IN CRASH COSTS

Conservativeness in crash costs implies the use of lower crash costs for sake of caution in their 

application. Lower crash costs will result in a lower monetized valuation of crashes in 

comparison to higher crash costs. When applying a low monetary value to crashes by using low 

crash costs (i.e., calculating the benefits of projects), a higher level of crash reduction is needed 

to achieve the same monetary benefits as if higher crash costs were used in the same analysis.

In this sense, using conservative crash costs should improve the chance that projects meeting a 

certain benefit-cost ratio (BCR) achieve desired results in reducing crashes. However, 

conservative crash costs will not account for the full benefits of projects. Some projects may 

not appear economically justified with conservative costs, when they would with actual crash 

costs. While it is important to fully account for the comprehensive cost of crashes, consider 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

46

that analysts using economic crash costs in BCA are essentially applying a very conservative 

estimate of comprehensive costs.

Based on the questionnaire responses discussed in Chapter 4 and listed in Appendix E: 

Questionnaire Responses to the Feasibility of Recommending National Crash Costs relating to State 

perspectives on national crash costs, some States prefer to use higher crash costs (or the 

highest estimates available nationally) to economically justify more potential projects (e.g., BCR 

greater than 1.0). Others prefer to use lower crash costs to be conservative and, therefore,

improve the likelihood of actual positive returns on investments (i.e., by using artificially lower 

calculated benefits as a threshold, the actual benefits should be higher than calculated). In 

general, it is important to use accurate estimations, rather than arbitrarily 

selecting high or low crash costs and disregarding the accuracy and completeness 

of the crash cost estimation methodology.

Additionally, some States ignore the costs of certain injury severities (i.e., C and sometimes B 

injuries) and PDOs in safety BCA (i.e., the crash cost is $0). This practice is another method of 

conservativeness, and can similarly focus the analysis toward the crash severities, or types, of 

interest in the analysis. It is best to consider crash costs of all severities and types in 

analysis. Hypothetically, some sites without severe crashes may experience so many minor 

injuries or PDO crashes that the total crash costs exceed those at a site with only some severe 

crashes. In addition, setting the crash cost for lower severity injuries to $0 ignores the increase 

that some countermeasures may cause in those severities (i.e., ignoring negative benefits).

5.8 CONVERTING BETWEEN CRASHES AND PERSON-INJURIES OR 

VEHICLES

When applying crash unit costs or person-injury unit costs, it is important that each is applied 

appropriately and the analysis accounts for the differences. In other words, crash unit costs 

should be applied to the number of crashes and person-injury unit costs should be 

applied to the number of injured- or involved-persons. If an agency has data for personinjury unit costs and numbers of crashes, some conversion is needed to get the data in the 

same terms before monetizing the benefits.

Crashes always include one or more vehicles and persons, each with injuries of various severity 

levels (including no injury). The crash is categorized by the maximum severity injury present in 

the crash, either by KABCO or MAIS, but each crash may involve other persons with equal or

lower severity injuries than the maximum injury. This fact also applies at the person-level, with 

each person classified by their maximum injury (e.g., by MAIS) but also often sustaining various 

other lower severity injury (e.g., various lower AIS injuries). 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

47

5.8.1 Converting Between Person-Injuries or Vehicles and Number of Crashes

The conversion between person-injuries or vehicles and crashes is dependent on the one-tomany crash to person-injury or vehicle relationship. Consider the hypothetical example 

statewide distributions of KABCO crashes by maximum severity and the person-injuries 

included in those crashes shown in Table 27. Statewide injury-to-crash ratios should be 

calculated as the average injuries of each severity occurring in one crash of the selected severity 

level. Following with the example data in Table 27, for one K crash there are 1.089 fatalities 

(i.e., 202/186), 0.177 A person-injuries (i.e., 33/186), and so on. Vehicle-to-crash ratios 

represent the average number of vehicles in a crash, although these are only used for PDO 

crashes in this guide. While rounded ratios are shown throughout this guide, 

practitioners should not use intermediate rounding prior to using the ratios in 

conversion calculations. Analysts should consider multiple years—at least three to 

five years—of data when calculating injury-to-crash and vehicle-to-crash ratios.

Table 27. Example State-specific KABCO crashes and person-injury distribution.

Severity Crashes K Injured 

Persons

A Injured 

Persons

B Injured 

Persons

C Injured 

Persons

O Uninjured 

Persons

K 186 202 33 50 30 162 

A 922 0 970 504 173 718 

B 9,718 0 0 10,927 889 8,758 

C 3,890 0 0 0 3,914 4,284 

O 48,882 0 0 0 0 99,696 

Statewide injury-to-crash ratios are used to convert between the number of 

crashes and person-injuries. Ideally, analysts should work in terms of crashes and 

crash unit costs.

Typically, States have, or have access to, a crash database as well as a person-injury database 

that are linked through crash and vehicle identifiers, which together represent the full 

information about crashes and those persons involved. These databases can be used to develop 

a table like the example shown in Table 27. 

To convert from person-injuries to crashes, divide the number of person-injuries by the injuryto-crash ratio for each severity. To convert from crashes to person-injuries, multiply the 

number of crashes by the injury-to-crash ratio.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

48

Similarly, vehicle-to-crash ratios are used to convert between number of vehicles and number 

of crashes for PDOs. Vehicle-to-crash ratios are calculated similarly by determining the average 

number of vehicles in a crash. To convert from vehicles to crashes, divide the number of 

vehicles by the vehicle-to-crash ratio. To convert from crashes to vehicles, multiply the number 

of crashes by the vehicle-to-crash ratio.

5.8.2 Converting Between Crash Unit Costs and Person-Injury Unit Costs

The conversion between crash unit costs and person-injury unit costs works in a similar way. 

However, rather than converting between the disaggregate numbers of person-injuries by 

severity within each crash, the person-injuries of multiple severities within a crash severity level

can be monetized and divided by the number of crashes to get a crash unit cost. Figure 6

displays the calculation to convert person-injury unit costs into crash unit costs for fatal 

crashes. At least three to five years of crash and person-injury data are 

recommended as a basis for these conversions. The equation is the same for other crash 

severities, although the crash unit cost and number of crashes would have to be substituted for

the crash severity level of interest. Similarly, the equation form is the same for MAIS, but with 

MAIS severity levels substituted for KABCO.

Figure 6. Equation. Converting person-injury unit costs into a fatal crash unit cost

using numbers of crashes and injuries. 

Where: CostK,crash = average fatal crash unit cost

Nα,person = number of injured persons involved in all fatal crashes for a 

given injury severity, α

Costα,person = person-injury unit cost for a given injury severity, α

NK,crash = total number of fatal crashes

An example calculation is presented later, in Figure 13 of this guide, using crash and personinjury counts from Table 27 as well as KABCO person-injury unit costs from Table 29. 

While it is possible to convert crash unit costs into person-injury unit costs using the same 

equation (assuming the crash unit costs of all severities, number of crashes of all severities, and 

number of injuries of all severities within each level of crash severity are all known), it is 

mathematically complicated and impractical to do so. With that said, the set of five equations 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

49

representing each of the five KABCO crash costs—collectively with five unknown variables (i.e., 

the KABCO person-injury unit costs)—is mathematically solvable given the available data.

MAIS costs are provided as person-injury unit costs in USDOT and NHTSA research.(11,12,19)

NHTSA provides KABCO person-injury unit costs as well.(11) However, to calculate KABCO 

person-injury unit costs, it is more practical to convert from MAIS person-injury unit costs (i.e., 

using the translation procedures discussed earlier in this chapter) than to convert from 

KABCO crash unit costs. 

5.9 DIFFERENCES IN CRASH COSTS AMONG JURISDICTIONS

Crash unit costs vary between States—and nationally—due to differences in cost of living, 

income, and medical costs as well as severity distributions and injury-to-crash ratios. Analysts 

should adjust for the State differences in crash unit costs when possible. The 

following sections demonstrate the procedures to account for these differences. 

5.9.1 Adjusting for Differences in Injury-to-Crash and Vehicle-to-Crash Ratios

Given person-injury unit costs, differences in injury-to-crash and vehicle-to-crash ratios

between jurisdictions affect the aggregated crash unit costs developed with the person-injury 

costs. For example, Figure 6 illustrates that with different proportions of injuries and crashes by 

severity, the same person-injury unit cost inputs will yield different crash costs. To account for 

State-specific ratios when converting person-injury unit costs from national sources or from 

one State to another State, the adjustment is to simply use the Figure 6 equation with the

State’s data for at least three to five years (like that in the example shown in Table 27) 

indicating the numbers of crashes and injuries to input into the Figure 6 equation. An example 

calculation is provided in Figure 13 of Chapter 6. 

This adjustment is relatively minor and should not substantially impact crash costs in most 

situations.

5.9.2 Adjusting for Differences in Cost of Living, Income, and Medical Costs

The primary difference in crash costs among States is based on differences in cost of living, 

income, and medical costs. Differences in PCI among States and the nation is the simplest 

approximation of all these factors since it impacts the costs of all crash-related services 

including wages, goods, and equipment.

To adjust crash costs to account for PCI, all crash costs (i.e., each separate cost by 

severity and type) should be multiplied by the ratio of a State’s PCI to the national 

PCI. This procedure is applicable to crash unit costs and person-injury unit costs. Figure 7
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

50

shows the equation to adjust national costs by severity and type to a State by PCI ratio. 

Appendix F: State Cost of Living Adjustment Factors includes adjustment factors (i.e., PCI ratios) for 

all States and District of Columbia for 2016. 

Figure 7. Equation. State-specific crash cost adjustment.

For example, Alabama had a PCI of $39,231 in 2016 and the United States average PCI was 

$49,571 in 2016. Therefore, Alabama’s PCI ratio is 0.79141 for 2016. To adjust a 2016 national 

fatal crash cost of $10,000,000 to Alabama, an analyst would multiply $10,000,000 by 0.79141. 

The resulting 2016 Alabama fatal crash cost would be $7,914,100.

PCI ratios should be updated every year. PCIs for this guide were obtained from the 

United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis “State Personal Income, 

2016” webpage under the “Tables Only” link in the Related Links section.(20) Similar PCI updates 

should be available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis for future years. 

This procedure can also be used to adjust crash costs from one State to another (i.e., replacing 

national PCI with the source State), and can be used for economic costs, QALY, and 

comprehensive crash unit costs.

5.10 UPDATING CRASH COSTS OVER TIME

Analysts should update crash costs over time to account for inflation and income growth. As 

noted in Chapter 3, current and past resources employ different economic indexes for annual 

updates to crash costs. The HSM and 2005 FHWA report Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum 

Police-Reported Injury Severity within Selected Crash Geometries use CPI to update economic cost 

components and ECI to update QALY costs. CPI closely tracks inflation and ECI tracks income 

and wage growth.

The 2016 USDOT guidance uses CPI to adjust for inflation, but notes the MUWE index is a 

better measure than ECI for updating QALY and VSL costs for the following reasons. A median 

value better accounts for average road users than the ECI, which is a mean value, and as such 

can be skewed by extremely high incomes. MUWE also does not account for non-wage income, 

which “is not likely to be significant for the average person affected by [USDOT] rules.”(12)

However, non-wage income and benefits do contribute to a person’s wealth and free up aftertax money for improved safety. The USDOT guidance uses a constant dollar value MUWE 

index, meaning it does not factor in inflation-related changes, which the USDOT accounts for 

using CPI separately. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

51

Given these considerations, practitioners should use CPI (i.e., current dollar CPI-U, for all 

items, annual average index, unadjusted)(8) to update economic costs and the current dollar 

MUWE index (i.e., current dollar usual weekly earnings of wage and salary workers, total/16 

years and older, not seasonally adjusted)(21) to update QALY costs. Previous texts consistently 

employ CPI to update economic costs, which is still the preferred index. The benefits of the 

MUWE over ECI are potentially significant, primarily mitigating the bias from very high wage 

earners. While the USDOT guidance uses constant dollar MUWE along with CPI, as shown in 

Figure 1, practitioners should use current dollar MUWE for simplicity.

Analysts should calculate CPI and MUWE update ratios based on the annual average indexes in 

the years of interest and multiply the older crash costs by these ratios to perform the update, 

as shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9 for updating crash costs from 2010 to 2016. 

Figure 8. Equation. CPI adjustment ratio calculation.

Figure 9. Equation. MUWE adjustment ratio calculation.

Annual average indexes are calculated by averaging monthly or quarterly index values over the 

calendar year (or the same 12-month period). Alternatively, it is acceptable to compare the 

index values in December of each year—rather than calculating an annual average—however, 

comparing single months is susceptible to short-term spikes that would not influence annual 

averages.(22)

5.11 IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENT CRASH COST VALUES IN ANALYSIS

Using consistent crash costs (i.e., for the same crash type, crash severity, facility type, 

jurisdiction, and other factors) is important to most applications of crash costs. In BCA for 

safety improvement programs, such as the HSIP, consistent crash costs promote fair and 

equitable stewardship of safety funding to projects that have the greatest ability to reduce 

crashes. If potential projects are analyzed with different average crash costs, it may lead to one 

project artificially favored over the other.

For example, if one project’s BCA uses economic crash unit costs, the result will look much 

less favorable than the same project analyzed with comprehensive crash unit costs. Similarly, if 

two different comprehensive crash unit cost sources are used, the higher of the two values will 

make a project artificially appear more beneficial when there is likely no analytical basis for the 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

52

difference in values. Agencies should consider adopting a standard set of crash unit 

costs for use across their agency or within each funding program under which 

projects are competitively prioritized.

Consistency in crash costs also has ramifications on research, specifically regarding the 

evaluation of implemented projects and countermeasure effectiveness. When comparing the 

efficacy of project decisions and safety treatments between jurisdictions and time periods

analyzed with different crash cost values, the results may be misleading unless the difference in 

crash cost values accurately reflects the difference in incurred crash costs. For example, if two 

reports evaluating the effectiveness of the same construction project with the same crash 

reductions used different crash costs, the reports would yield different economic results when 

intuitively the results should be the same. This effect is amplified when research is compared 

across jurisdictions where other factors affect the results as well.

However, unlike safety projects where crash costs are usually incorporated in policy, guidance, 

or a standard BCA spreadsheet, safety research is not standardized and crash costs used in 

analysis may not be reported at all. It is difficult or impossible to retroactively normalize crash 

costs in research for a fair comparison of results. Analysts should use and apply 

consistent crash costs for all projects and research to the extent possible.

5.12 NATIONAL CRASH COST VALUES

One objective of this guide is to present the feasibility of establishing recommended national 

crash cost values. Chapter 4 and Appendix E: Questionnaire Responses to the Feasibility of 

Recommending National Crash Costs present perspectives regarding whether recommended 

national crash costs would be advantageous or disadvantageous. However, the responses are 

not inclusive of all the potential considerations identified through the literature and by the 

authors of this guide. 

The following sections discusses the potential advantages and disadvantages, responsibility for, 

and structure of national crash cost values.

5.12.1 Advantages and Disadvantages

The following is a summary of the key factors identified in the questionnaire and through the 

synthesis of literature regarding the adoption of national crash costs for safety BCA. The 

advantages of recommending national crash costs revolve around increased consistency and a 

reduced burden on States as follows:

• National crash costs would promote consistency in analysis, decision-making, and 

research.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

53

• National crash costs would promote uniformity in outreach and public expectation.

• Some States are not confident with their current crash costs or method for establishing 

crash costs. National crash costs could provide more comfort and defensibility in States’

economic analysis.

• National crash costs could remove the burden from States to individually establish and 

update their own set of crash cost values.

• National crash costs may encourage more States to conduct safety BCA. 

• National crash costs could encourage more States to implement an advanced analysis 

capability in safety BCA (especially if the recommended values are accompanied by a 

reasoning of why observed crash frequency is less reliable than predictive methods such 

as EB). 

• National crash costs could reduce confusion between, or incorrect application of,

person-injury unit costs and crash unit costs.

The following disadvantages of recommending national crash costs focus on reducing States’ 

flexibility in analysis and a responsibility to maintain the costs: 

• National crash costs may not account for differences in economic analysis 

methodologies between States. 

• Some States try to use relatively higher crash costs to economically justify more

projects; others are more comfortable with conservative costs. National crash costs 

may reduce the appearance of flexibility in States’ preferences.

• National crash costs may require States to change how they currently conduct 

economic analysis, potentially requiring development and implementation of new tools

or revisions to existing tools. 

• National crash costs may not adequately improve current practice enough to justify the 

effort. Recommending national crash cost values does not guarantee a substantial step 

forward in accurately estimating comprehensive crash costs, understanding the full 

implications of the recommended estimates on analysis, or justification of safety projects 

(e.g., economic versus comprehensive and what study or method to recommend). It 

would need to be clear that the national crash costs would improve some States’ 

practices, but not necessarily those of all States, and primarily serve to standardize 

practices across States.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

54

• Recommending national crash costs for safety BCA may imply that other national crash 

costs (e.g., those presented throughout Chapter 3) are insufficient or inappropriate.

The following considerations could be considered advantages or disadvantages, depending on 

the final set of national crash costs (if recommended) and the circumstances of their 

recommendation: 

• National crash costs may not fully account for State-to-State differences (or States may 

not think adjusting is adequate). 

• National crash costs may provide consistency in consideration of injury scale, but may 

be inconsistent with the injury scales on some States’ crash reports. 

• National crash costs may discourage subjective weighting and adaptations States make 

to alter national crash costs to their needs. 

• Different costs may be appropriate for different applications (e.g., BCA for projects or 

impact on State budgets may prefer economic crash unit costs, while societal burden 

analysis may prefer comprehensive crash unit costs). Economic, QALY, and 

comprehensive crash unit costs must all be listed when recommending national crash 

costs so States can update the crash costs appropriately.

Of the five respondents that indicated national crash costs would be disadvantageous in their 

questionnaire responses, two indicated that there is a need to provide State-specific crash costs 

or an adjustment to local conditions, two raised concerns about not being able to create 

weighted fatal and injury costs to prevent fatal crashes from skewing BCA with observed 

frequency, and one indicated a need to weight crash costs for a program objective. National 

crash costs can account for these concerns with the ability to adjust the national crash costs to 

States and the flexibility to develop weighted average costs from the national values. 

5.12.2 Feasibility and Responsibility

Currently, there is no universally recommended set of national crash cost values to use for any 

specific purpose within highway safety analysis. States have several resources available to use at 

their discretion. Moving forward, there are at least three potential paths: 

1. States can continue to adopt and use their preferred crash costs and weighted costs.

2. Develop a national procedure or program to help States calculate crash costs with 

State-specific economic and injury data.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

55

3. Recommend or require national crash costs, preferably costs that can be adjusted to 

each State or jurisdiction.

Regarding the first option, the crash cost questionnaire responses indicate the status quo is not 

preferable given the variability among States, the lack of regular updates, and the variability in 

applying person-injury and crash unit costs. 

The second option would require a substantial amount of funding and place a resource burden 

on States. It is unlikely that most States have enough data or sufficient access to that data to 

develop accurate average crash costs independently. Most States use national crash costs for 

these reasons. 

The third option is the preferred path, but it is likely contingent on a national agency taking on 

the responsibility to update and publish the national crash costs. Option 3 is discussed in more 

detail in the following sections.

5.12.2.1 Feasibility of National Crash Costs

It is feasible to establish national crash cost values. Most States already use national values 

directly or adapt national values for their analyses, but only a few seem to have some analytical 

basis for which national crash costs they select over others (e.g., other than their preference 

for high or low costs and the source organization or publication). There is no single source of 

crash costs that the majority of States use, as shown in Figure 3. Only a handful of States 

establish their own costs or undertake such substantial modifications to national values that 

their costs no longer bear similarities to any of the national crash cost estimates. 

Officially adopting recommended national crash costs for use in the HSIP, safety research, and 

potentially other purposes would not stray far from current practice. The biggest impediments 

to adopting national crash costs in most States would be breaking with tradition or convention, 

performing national-to-State adjustment calculations, and changing the numerical values they 

use in BCA software tools. A nationally recommended, regularly updated set of crash costs 

could facilitate more accurate economic analysis than what some States’ are currently using, as

documented in the questionnaire and available literature. Several States appear to apply only 

economic costs, apply only QALY costs, apply person-injury unit costs to crashes, or use 

subjective severity weighting procedures that diminish the accuracy and completeness of their 

economic analyses. 

With adopting national crash cost values and formalizing their recommended use, there is an 

implication that those costs would be recommended for a reason: values should be accurate, 

complete, and suitable for analysis in all States.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

56

The questionnaire did not ask States if explicitly requiring the use of such crash costs was 

desired. However, due to the lack of legislative authority and the wide differences in States’ 

preferences and the availability of several national crash cost values, requiring States to 

universally apply only one set of crash costs is not feasible or reasonable. Separate crash costs 

may also be required for specific grant programs. Thus, requiring one set of national crash costs 

for all projects may not suit all States’ needs.

5.12.2.2 Responsibility for National Crash Costs

FHWA and AASHTO are two of the most appropriate organizations to take on the 

responsibilities of adopting, publishing, and updating national crash cost values. 

FHWA oversees the HSIP and publishes the HSIP Manual. USDOT publishes the VSL guidance.

The HSIP Manual, a new publication similar to the VSL guidance, a website, or updated technical 

advisory could potentially include recommended national crash costs for safety analysis. FHWA 

also has access to the staff and expertise (within FHWA or the USDOT) to maintain and 

update national crash costs, as is already done with the annual VSL updates. 

AASHTO publishes the HSM, and could replace the current recommended crash costs with 

new values. However, because the HSM is not published every year, the HSM would be best 

suited to national crash costs that are updated with economic indicators like the current HSM 

costs, as opposed to costs that require new analysis and publication every year. Additionally, 

the HSM is not free. Since recommended national crash costs should be available to all users, it 

would be preferable for those costs to be available for free (e.g., posted online with public 

access or through a supplemental free publication), separate from the published HSM that is 

available for purchase. 

There is no clear preference for which entity, or another not suggested here, should take on 

these responsibilities.

As discussed later, a minor effort would be required every year for annual adjustments. 

Revisions to the injury-to-crash and vehicle-to-crash ratios are more involved, but should be 

done less frequently, potentially every five years.

5.12.3 National Crash Cost Structure

The crash cost questionnaire and the literature review present a clear indication that just one 

average crash cost value or crash costs by severity are not sufficient for safety analyses among 

all States. National crash costs should be structured to account for at least the following 

aspects (the recommendations in Chapter 6 of this guide account for these aspects):

• Disaggregate crash costs by KABCO severity.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 

57

• Methodology to calibrate national crash costs to each State or jurisdiction. Analysts 

should adjust national crash costs to their severity distribution and cost of living indices 

if possible.

• Methodology to update national crash costs and recommended period for doing so, and 

establish a schedule and procedure for releasing newly published values. It would be 

beneficial if States do not have to conduct these updates themselves to lessen their 

burden on resources and prevent potential inconsistencies.

• National crash costs should recommend only the use of comprehensive costs. While the 

economic and QALY costs of crashes would have to be reported for necessary Statespecific adjustments, offering the choice between economic and comprehensive crash 

cost values would allow wide variation in State crash cost values to continue. Widely 

varying costs would stray too far from the purpose of establishing national values. The 

QALY costs of crashes comprise a large portion of the burden that the public endures.

It is important to account for all impacts when analyzing the benefits of publicly-funded 

projects that intend to reduce crashes.

Other recommended aspects of national crash costs are as follows: 

• Disaggregate crash costs by crash and collision type.

• Disaggregate crash costs by both severity and type.

However, this guide is unable to make specific recommendations on these two aspects.

This guide cannot make a recommendation on whether multiple sets of crash cost values are 

needed for different analytical purposes due to the limited scope of this effort. Yet, if multiple 

sets of crash cost values are eventually established for different purposes, the crash costs 

should be structured as such with corresponding explanation and examples.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

58

CHAPTER 6. FHWA SAFETY BCA TOOL CRASH COSTS

NHTSA’s The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised)(11)—referred 

to as “NHTSA’s report” throughout this chapter—is the most recent and comprehensive work 

on crash costs to date. Therefore, it is recommended that the crash cost data contained in 

NHTSA’s report serve as the basis of default national crash unit costs for FHWA’s Safety BCA

Guide and Tool. NHTSA’s report generated economic, QALY, and comprehensive costs for 

the MAIS injury scale using national crash database samples with AIS and KABCO designations 

for each crash record. The recommended methodology, presented in this chapter, draws upon 

the person-injury unit cost values and resources in NHTSA’s report to develop KABCO crash

unit costs for highway safety BCA.

6.1 DEVELOPING DEFAULT NATIONAL CRASH UNIT COSTS FOR THE 

FHWA SAFETY BCA GUIDE AND TOOL

Table 1-10 of NHTSA’s report lists MAIS person-injury unit costs for 2010, which includes 

economic, QALY, and comprehensive costs.

(11) These costs are synthesized in Table 28 below. 

Table 28. MAIS person-injury unit costs (2010 dollars).

(11)

 

Severity Economic PersonInjury Unit Costs

QALY PersonInjury Unit CostsComprehensive PersonInjury Unit Cost

Fatal (MAIS 6) $1,398,916 $7,747,082 $9,145,998 

MAIS 5 $1,001,089 $4,578,525 $5,579,614 

MAIS 4 $394,608 $2,037,483 $2,432,091 

MAIS 3 $187,128 $805,697 $992,825 

MAIS 2 $58,754 $340,872 $399,626 

MAIS 1 $20,701 $23,241 $43,942 

MAIS 0 $4,380 $0 $4,380 

PDO Vehicle $6,076 $0 $6,076 

Since most safety analysis methods and tools—including FHWA’s Safety BCA Tool—use 

KABCO crash frequency, the MAIS person-injury unit costs must first be converted into 

KABCO person-injury unit costs and then into KABCO crash unit costs for use in highway 

safety BCA. Figure 10 illustrates the process used in this chapter to develop national KABCO 

crash unit costs and the State-specific adjustment.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

59

Figure 10. Chart. Process for developing and adjusting national KABCO crash unit 

costs.

6.1.1 Step 1: Translate Person-Injury Unit Costs from MAIS to KABCO

The first step is to translate the MAIS person-injury unit costs from Table 28 to KABCO using 

the translator table in Table 23 and the procedure presented in the example shown in Table 26. 

The resulting KABCO person-injury unit costs are shown in Table 29 (the KABCO level O 

values represent the small portion of people reported as O that actually sustained injuries). The 

PDO cost per vehicle in Table 28 is not translated (i.e., PDO cost is per vehicle and 

independent of persons involved, as none were injured).

Table 29. National KABCO person-injury unit costs (2010 dollars).

Severity Economic PersonInjury Unit Costs

QALY PersonInjury Unit CostsComprehensive PersonInjury Unit Cost

K $1,398,916 $7,747,082 $9,145,998 

A $84,507 $363,324 $447,832 

B $32,105 $97,974 $130,079 

C $21,749 $49,926 $71,675 

O $5,717 $2,563 $8,280 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

60

6.1.2 Step 2: Calculate Injury-to-Crash and Vehicle-to-Crash Ratios for Each 

Severity

The next steps involve converting the KABCO person-injury unit costs from Table 29 to crash 

unit costs. The authors estimated injury-to-crash ratios for each crash severity and a vehicle-tocrash ratio for PDOs using GES data from 2011 to 2015.

(20) The injury-to-crash ratios are 

needed in the conversion of person-injury unit costs to crash unit costs on a national scale 

using the equation in Figure 6. The vehicle-to-crash ratio is needed to convert the cost per 

PDO vehicle to a cost per PDO crash. A five-year period provides a relatively long-term 

average for severity distributions. 2015 is the latest year available in the GES data, and there is

no reason to suspect that the ratios would change significantly in 2016.

Table 30 shows the summary of crashes and corresponding injuries in those crashes over the 

five-year span, and Table 31 contains the resulting GES injury-to-crash ratios for the same 

period. Table 31 shows rounded ratios; however, calculations do not include intermediate 

rounding. 

The GES data contained 115,451 PDO crashes with 205,541 vehicles from 2011 to 2015. The 

vehicle-to-crash ratio was calculated by dividing the number of vehicles by the number of PDO 

crashes, yielding a ratio of 1.78033. Again, intermediate rounding was not used in the 

calculations.

Table 30. 2010 MAIS to KABCO incidence translation (GES 2011-2015). 

Crash 

Severity

Crash 

Incidence

K PersonInjuriesA PersonInjuriesB PersonInjuriesC PersonInjuriesO PersonInjuries

K 4,502 4,901 1,353 1,284 1,027 2,357 

A 33,247 0 39,711 7,696 7,976 26,668 

B 62,474 0 0 74,811 12,247 66,451 

C 39,222 0 0 0 55,767 52,985 

O 115,451 0 0 0 0 261,971 

Total 254,896 4,901 41,064 83,791 77,017 410,432 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

61

Table 31. National injury-to-crash ratios (GES 2011-2015). 

Crash 

Severity

K Injury-toCrash RatioA Injury-toCrash RatioB Injury-toCrash RatioC Injury-toCrash RatioO Injury-toCrash Ratio

K 1.08863 0.30053 0.28521 0.22812 0.52355 

A 0.00000 1.19442 0.23148 0.23990 0.80212 

B 0.00000 0.00000 1.19747 0.19603 1.06366 

C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.42183 1.35090 

O 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.26911 

6.1.3 Step 3: Convert KABCO Person-Injury Unit Costs and Vehicle Unit Cost to 

KABCO Crash Unit Costs

The authors adapted the equation in Figure 6 to substitute the injury-to-crash ratio for the 

injury and crash counts, which is shown in Figure 11 for fatal crash costs.

Figure 11. Equation. Converting person-injury unit costs into a fatal crash unit cost

using injury-to-crash ratio. 

The authors used the equation in Figure 11 with injury-to-crash ratios from Table 31 to convert 

the 2010 national KABCO person-injury unit costs from Table 29 to national KABCO crash 

unit costs, shown in Table 32. The calculation of the 2010 comprehensive fatal crash unit cost is 

shown in Figure 12. Rounded ratios are shown in Figure 12, but intermediate rounding was not 

used in the calculations for the Table 32 costs. 

Figure 12. Equation. Calculation of comprehensive fatal crash unit cost from injuryto-crash ratios and person-injury unit costs.

The PDO (i.e., “O”) crash cost was calculated by multiplying the PDO cost per vehicle from 

Table 28 (i.e., $6,076) by the vehicle-to-crash ratio, without rounding, determined in Step 2 

(i.e., 1.78033). The resulting cost per PDO crash in 2010 dollars was $10,817. The PDO cost 

per vehicle is already accounted for in the economic costs in Table 28, so this vehicle-level cost

does not need to be added to costs for other injury levels.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

62

Table 32. National KABCO crash unit costs (2010 dollars). 

Severity Economic Crash 

Unit Costs

QALY Crash 

Unit Costs

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Cost

K $1,565,406 $8,583,550 $10,148,956 

A $118,172 $470,675 $588,847 

B $48,789 $129,835 $178,623 

C $38,645 $74,450 $113,095 

O $10,817 $0 $10,817 

6.1.4 Step 4: Update KABCO Crash Unit Costs to the Current Year

Finally, the 2010 KABCO crash unit costs were updated to 2016 dollars (i.e., the last full year of 

economic indexes) using the CPIs and MUWEs for 2010 and 2016. The CPI adjustment ratio, 

which is applied to the economic cost portion, is calculated using the equation in Figure 8. The 

CPIs selected for the update are the CPI-U for “all items,” annual average index, and 

unadjusted, which is consistent with the first edition of the HSM and other publications. The

annual average CPI for 2010 is 218.1 and 240.0 for 2016, yielding a CPI ratio of 1.101.(8)

The MUWE adjustment ratio, which is applied to the QALY cost portion, is calculated using the 

equation in Figure 9. The MUWEs selected for the updates are the current dollar MUWE 

index, not seasonally adjusted for total workers (i.e., 16 years and older), as explained in 

Chapter 5. The annual average MUWE for 2010 is 746.5 and 832.5 for 2016, yielding an MUWE

ratio of 1.115.(21)

The CPI and MUWE ratios were applied to the 2010 national KABCO crash unit costs in Table 

32 to calculate the 2016 national KABCO crash unit costs in Table 33. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

63

Table 33. National KABCO crash unit costs (2016 dollars).

Severity Economic Crash 

Unit Costs

QALY Crash 

Unit Costs

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Costs 

K $1,722,991 $9,572,411 $11,295,402 

A $130,068 $524,899 $654,967 

B $53,700 $144,792 $198,492 

C $42,536 $83,026 $125,562 

O $11,906 $0 $11,906 

The cost values in Table 33 were rounded to the nearest $100 and presented in Table 34, 

which represent the default national comprehensive crash unit costs for use in the FHWA BCA

Guide and Tool. These national crash unit costs could be considered for other uses, as well. 

Table 34. Recommended national KABCO comprehensive crash unit costs for the 

FHWA BCA Guide and Tool (2016 dollars).

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Costs 

K $11,295,400 

A $655,000 

B $198,500 

C $125,600 

O $11,900 

States using observed crash frequency in safety BCA—or States seeking to align crash costs 

with program objectives—could develop weighted average comprehensive crash unit costs 

from these values using their severity distribution. Chapter 5 provides more information on the 

disadvantages of using observed crash frequency in BCA. The suggested sets of weighted costs 

are either K/A, B, C, and O or K/A/B/C and O. 

6.1.5 Step 5: Adjust National Person-Injury Unit Costs to State Crash Unit Costs

The previous sections describe the process to establish national crash unit costs by applying 

national injury and crash incidence data to a set of KABCO person-injury unit costs. The same 

procedure used to develop the national crash unit costs can be used to develop State crash unit 

costs. The information needed to calculate injury-to-crash and vehicle-to-crash ratios is 

generally available in State crash and injury databases.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

64

To adjust the national costs to a State, the analysts can follow the same procedure outlined in 

this chapter, substituting their data in Table 30 and Table 31. Then, the resulting costs should 

be adjusted by multiplying the PCI ratio. The following section demonstrates an example Statespecific adjustment.

6.1.5.1 Example State-Specific Adjustment Calculations

Hypothetical example State-adjusted KABCO crash unit costs are presented in Table 35 using 

the data from the example shown in Table 27, the Figure 6 equation, KABCO person-injury 

unit costs from Table 29, and an assumed vehicle-to-crash ratio of 1.85. Table 35 is the result of 

the first three steps in this chapter for the example State. The equation in Figure 13

demonstrates the calculation of the comprehensive fatal crash unit cost in Table 35 (i.e., using 

the number of injuries directly rather than calculating average ratios, which provides the same 

result). 

Figure 13. Equation. Example calculation of State-specific comprehensive fatal 

crash unit cost using crash and person-injury data from Table 27 in 2010 dollars.

The same calculation was performed for A, B, and C crash severities. The assumed vehicle-tocrash ratio was applied to the cost per PDO vehicle to determine the O crash unit cost. This 

adjustment results in slightly different State-specific costs—shown in Table 35—than the 

national values shown in Table 32. 

Table 35. Example State-specific KABCO crash unit costs (2010 dollars).

Severity Economic Crash 

Unit Costs

QALY Crash 

Unit Costs

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Costs 

K $1,551,363 $8,514,581 $10,065,944 

A $114,989 $447,159 $562,149 

B $43,240 $117,040 $160,280 

C $28,178 $53,057 $81,236 

O $11,241 $0 $11,241 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

65

The 2010 costs from Table 35 were updated to 2016 costs using the national CPI ratio of 1.101 

and MUWE ratio of 1.115, calculated previously. The 2016 crash unit costs are shown in Table 

36. 

Table 36. Example State-specific KABCO crash unit costs (2016 dollars).

Severity Economic Crash 

Unit Costs

QALY Crash 

Unit Costs

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Costs 

K $1,707,534 $9,495,497 $11,203,031 

A $126,565 $498,674 $625,239 

B $47,593 $130,523 $178,117 

C $31,015 $59,170 $90,185 

O $12,372 $0 $12,372 

After the crash unit costs were adjusted to the State-specific injury-to-crash and vehicle-tocrash ratios and updated to current dollars, the State-specific cost of living PCI adjustment 

factors were applied (found in Appendix F: State Cost of Living Adjustment Factors). Each cost in 

Table 36 was multiplied by a hypothetical State’s PCI adjustment factor of 1.23456. The results 

are shown in Table 37. 

Table 37. Example KABCO crash unit costs (2016 dollars).

Severity Economic Crash 

Unit Costs

QALY Crash 

Unit Costs

Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Costs 

K $2,108,053 $11,722,761 $13,830,814 

A $156,252 $615,643 $771,895 

B $58,757 $161,139 $219,896 

C $38,290 $73,049 $111,339 

O $15,274 $0 $15,274 

6.1.5.2 Example State-Adjusted KABCO Comprehensive Crash Unit Costs

The final example State-adjusted KABCO comprehensive crash unit costs, in 2016 dollars, 

rounded to the nearest $100 dollars, are shown in Table 38. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 

66

Table 38. Example State-adjusted KABCO comprehensive crash unit costs (2016 

dollars).

Severity Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Costs 

K $13,830,800 

A $771,900 

B $219,900 

C $111,300 

O $15,300 

6.2 UPDATING NATIONAL CRASH UNIT COSTS

The procedures to update crash unit costs over time and adjust the national person-injury unit 

costs to States using the costs presented in this chapter are sufficient for regular updates in the 

future with CPI, MUWE, and PCI. National and State-specific crash unit costs should be 

updated annually, if possible, with these procedures. 

The base costs in Step 1 should be replaced as new crash costs are available from NHTSA or 

other comparable research. Additionally, the injury-to-crash and vehicle-to-crash ratios in Step 

2 may benefit from a revision roughly every five years with CRSS data or as new data are 

available that would improve the numbers (e.g., a larger, more comprehensive sample than is 

currently provided in GES). These ratios should remain fairly stable, and any annual changes 

would likely be due to random fluctuations rather than prevailing trends. Updating the ratios 

every five years, averaging over the five most recent years of data, should better account for 

new trends in vehicle fleet, ridership, and other travel characteristics that may affect injury-tocrash and vehicle-to-crash ratios.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 7 

67

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY

This guide presents a synthesis of various sources of crash costs, crash cost estimation 

methodologies, current practice in selecting and applying crash costs, considerations in 

establishing and using crash costs in safety BCA, and advantages and disadvantages of 

establishing national crash costs. The following is a summary of salient points based on current 

practice and considerations for applying and updating crash costs.

7.1 CURRENT STATE PRACTICE

There is no universal recommended set of national crash cost values for safety BCA. States 

primarily use crash costs from one or more of four national sources of crash costs: USDOT, 

AASHTO, NSC, and NHTSA. Each State either uses those costs directly or adapts those costs 

to their needs. Most States update their crash costs regularly with economic adjustment factors 

or as new crash costs are published. A few States use multiple sets of crash costs for different 

purposes. 

7.2 FEASIBILITY OF NATIONAL CRASH COSTS 

An opportunity to establish a recommended set of national crash costs for safety BCA has 

arisen given the revitalized national discussion on the topic. Most States already use national 

estimates, but there is a wide range in the values they use. National crash costs would provide 

consistency in project decisions and research, while lessening the burden on States to adopt 

and maintain their own crash costs.

This guide proposes a set of national crash costs with State adjustment factors—based on

NHTSA research that represents the most recent and comprehensive crash cost estimation—

for default crash unit costs in the FHWA Safety BCA Guide and Tool. The guide also proposes 

a procedure to further adjust these national crash costs to States based on State-specific injury 

and vehicle distributions in crashes and cost of living adjustment factors. 

7.3 CRASH COST CONSIDERATIONS

Actual crash costs differ in every crash due to the specific circumstances related to each crash 

event—the damage, injuries, response, and lasting effects. It is unlikely that future crashes, even 

at the same site, will bear the same economic or societal costs as previous crashes. Further, it 

is extremely difficult and costly to quantify the finite costs of each crash as it occurs. For these 

reasons, estimating average crash costs for certain circumstances provides a more practical, 

consistent, and reliable way to estimate the impact of past crashes and predict the impacts of 

future crashes (or the economic benefit of reducing crashes).
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 7 

68

There are several methodologies available to estimate the average cost of crashes and injuries. 

While there are differences, there is not necessarily a preferred method for all purposes. Each 

provides distinct advantages and disadvantages. For example, comprehensive costs, measured 

with as many economic cost impacts as possible plus the impacts of QALYs, are suited for 

estimating the real impact of crashes in safety BCA and when calculating the full burden of 

crashes on the public. The VSL, which represents the value in risk reduction, is suited for use in 

evaluating the benefits of legislation and programs that will reduce risk. Regarding crash unit 

costs and person-injury unit costs, it is important that analysts account for the differences in 

available data. 

Crash costs are most commonly developed and presented by severity for a specific injury scale, 

which can be a problem if the crash cost injury scale does not align with the severities reported 

by police officers in a State. A translator table is available to translate costs between MAIS and 

KABCO, although the conversion is not exact. Further, the use of two injury scales presents 

complications not only in comparing disaggregate crash costs, but also the total burden of 

certain injuries in projects or across a State, particularly when characterizing serious injuries. 

Consistency in injury scale between all State crash reports and crash costs, and more accurate 

injury assessment using hospital injury surveillance data, would alleviate the confusion and 

inconsistency created by two separate conventions. 

Some States develop weighted crash costs to help account for situations where even a small 

number of observed fatal or serious injury crashes can seem to bias BCA. While weighted crash 

costs are one method to mitigate the impact of high severity crashes in estimating benefits, the 

underlying issue is the use of short-term average observed crash history in safety BCA. The 

recommended method is to estimate the long-term average crash frequency (e.g., predicted 

crash frequency or expected crash frequency with EB method) and apply unweighted crash 

costs, rather than applying weighted crash costs to observed crash frequency.

Using consistent crash costs (i.e., for the same crash type, crash severity, facility type, 

jurisdiction, and other factors) is important in safety BCA. For safety improvement programs, 

such as the HSIP, consistent crash costs promote fair and equitable stewardship of safety 

funding. If potential projects are analyzed with different crash costs, it may lead to one project 

artificially favored over the other (i.e., assuming actual differences in crash costs between 

project locations are appropriately accounted for or are not known). Agencies should consider 

adopting a standard set of crash costs values for use across their agency or within each funding 

program in which projects are competitively prioritized. 

7.4 KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Gaps in knowledge and potential for future research exist in the area of crash costs. The crash 

unit costs recommended in this guide are based solely on the body of available literature; the 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS CHAPTER 7 

69

authors did not undertake new data analysis (e.g., to estimate crash cost components or VSL) in 

developing recommended crash costs for the FHWA Safety BCA Guide and Tool. Future 

research is needed to develop technical knowledge (i.e., fundamental and empirical) regarding a 

few of the crash cost considerations listed in Chapter 5: 

• Understand the actual effects of using severity-weighted crash costs on decision-making 

and resulting implemented project effectiveness.

• With many still relying on observed crash frequency in safety BCA, there is an 

opportunity in the future to study the impacts of various crash cost-related practices 

when applying predicted or expected crash frequency in BCA. 

• Reconcile the impact of injury scale on crash cost, including the unreliable nature of 

KABCO, for future crash unit cost estimates and for safety analysis in general.

• Determine the appropriate and recommended situations for applying crash unit costs by 

severity, by type, by severity and type, or neither.

Possibly the greatest limitation of the recommended procedure in Chapter 6 of this report is 

the translation from MAIS to KABCO. The translation table, based on well-sampled crash data 

and with accurate AIS representation of injuries, indicate that KABCO, as conveyed on police 

crash reports, generally does not reliably characterize true injury severities. While the 

recommended KABCO crash costs in this guide are averages and account for the differences

between MAIS and KABCO to the extent possible, relying on the translation limits the accuracy 

of the resulting crash costs. There are potential research opportunities to improve upon the 

KABCO characterization of injuries or implement State-specific translations. Developing more 

comprehensive databases of the State and national crash attributes, and integrating with hospital 

AIS data for each injury and crash incidence, will enhance the accuracy of the cost estimates. 

7.5 CONCLUSION

Crash costs are an essential consideration in highway safety analysis. This guide combines 

methodologies and procedures from over 10 years of research by various organizations and 

individuals regarding crash costs and their application. While there are currently no universally 

recommended national crash cost values, this guide presents new crash cost values and 

accompanying adjustment procedures for the FHWA Safety BCA Guide and Tool based on the 

comprehensive work documented in NHTSA’s 2015 report.(11) These values should be updated 

annually using the procedures described herein. Nationally recommended crash costs would 

provide consistency in project decisions and research while lessening the burden on States to 

each adopt and maintain their own crash costs. There are procedures States and researchers

can use to adjust the national crash cost values to better reflect State conditions. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX A

70

APPENDIX A: SELECTED CRASH GEOMETRIES

The 2005 FHWA Report, entitled Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Report Injury Severity 

Within Selected Crash Geometries and summarized in Chapter 3 of this guide, categorizes the 

costs of the following 22 crash geometries within six levels.

1. Single-vehicle struck human, at intersection (sv, ped, int).

2. Single-vehicle struck human, not at intersection (sv, ped, n-int).

3. Single-vehicle struck animal (sv, animal).

4. Single-vehicle struck object (sv, object).

5. Single-vehicle struck parked vehicle (sv, prkveh).

6. Single-vehicle rolled over (sv, rollover).

7. Multiple vehicles cross paths at signal (mcp, sig).

8. Multiple vehicles cross paths at sign (mcp, sign).

9. Multiple vehicles cross paths no signage (mcp, nosgn).

10. Multiple vehicles cross paths unspecified (mcp, unk).

11. Multiple vehicles rear-end at all locations (re-all locations).

12. Multiple vehicles rear-end at intersection with no/unknown signage (re-unk int).

13. Multiple vehicles rear-end at signed intersection (re-signed int).

14. Multiple vehicles, rear-end at signalized intersection (re-signl int).

15. Multiple vehicles rear-end, no intersection (re-no int).

16. Multiple vehicles sideswipe (ss).

17. Multiple vehicles, opposite direction not at intersection (ho, n-int).

18. Multiple vehicles, opposite direction at signalized intersection (ho, sig).

19. Multiple vehicles, opposite direction at signed intersection (ho, sign).

20. Multiple vehicles, opposite direction no/unknown signage (ho, unksgn).

21. Multiple vehicles backing (backing).

22. Undefined crash type (undefined).
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX B

71

APPENDIX B: STATE CRASH COST QUESTIONNAIRE

Objective

The FHWA Office of Safety launched a task to synthesize the state of the practice on States’ 

adopted crash cost values and related methodologies used to determine and apply these values. 

We are contacting each FHWA Safety Specialist for your help in providing this information for 

your State. The information needed is reflected in the few questions presented below. The 

results will be included as an appendix to [this guide] describing the various methods, and 

related strengths and limitations, for developing and applying crash costs.

Questionnaire

1. Crash Cost Values

a. Please list (or provide link(s) to) the most recent crash costs by type and 

severity used by your State. If your State uses different crash cost values for 

different purposes (e.g., different crash costs for HSIP vs. non-HSIP projects, 

engineering vs. behavioral projects, State vs. local projects, planning vs. 

evaluation), please provide the crash cost values for the different purposes and 

indicate the reasons for this differentiation.

Purpose (check all that 

apply)

Specific Crash Cost 

Values

(if different from HSIP 

crash costs)

Reasons for Different 

Values

☐ Crash costs for HSIP 

projects. 

☐ Crash costs for non-HSIP 

projects. 

☐ Crash costs for behavioral 

projects.

☐ Crash costs for local 

projects.

☐ Crash costs for evaluation.

☐ Other (please specify)
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX B

72

2. Methodology

a. How does your State develop their crash cost values? If there is documentation, 

please provide.

☐ Conduct internal research.

☐ Use values directly from national or other State’s manual, publication, or 

research (please list sources):

☐ Adapted/weighted values from external sources (please list sources):

☐ Other (please explain):

b. Does your State use crash cost values at the person level or crash level (i.e. 

fatalities and injuries or fatal crashes and injury crashes)? 

c. Does your State regularly update their crash cost values? If so, how often?

d. What economic indexes or growth factors are used for the updates?
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX B

73

e. Which of the following crash cost components are included in your crash cost 

values? (check all that apply and indicate source)

Crash Cost Components

(check all that apply)

Source

Your 

State Data

Other 

State’s Data

National 

Data

☐ Public assistance and social services 

(vocational rehab and State welfare / 

safety net)

☐ Direct government crash costs as an 

employer (employee medical, taxes, legal, 

at-fault liability, employer costs, insurance 

administration, wage loss, and property 

damage)

☐ Public revenue (State tax loss)

☐ Property damage (roadside hardware)

☐ Judicial (court operation-related)

☐ Emergency services (EMS, police, fire, 

emergency incident management)

☐ Medical (Medicaid and coroner)

☐ Other (please specify)

3. Current Applications of Crash Cost Values

a. Please explain or provide documentation on the methodology to apply crash 

costs in your economic analysis.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX B

74

b. Which of the following crash cost measures are used in your State for economic 

analysis?

☐ Human capital crash costs (i.e., estimates of direct and indirect 

economic crash costs to individuals and society).

☐ Comprehensive crash costs (i.e., the human capital costs plus the 

monetized quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)).

c. Are there any special considerations or variations regarding the application of 

crash costs in your State? If yes, please explain.

☐ Weighted fatal and injury costs (e.g., K+A, K+A+B, etc.):

☐ Counting some fatal crashes as injury crashes: 

☐ Counting some injury crashes as fatal crashes: 

☐ Estimating type and severity of unknown crashes:

☐ Other: 

d. Has your State looked at the impact of crash costs on your State’s operating 

budgets to justify projects or maintenance activities?

e. Does your State use a software tool or standard spreadsheet to apply crash 

costs in economic analysis? If yes, please identify.

4. Future Applications of Crash Cost Values

a. Would adopting a set of national crash costs be advantageous or 

disadvantageous to your State? Please explain why.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX C

75

APPENDIX C: STATE CRASH COSTS BY SEVERITY

Table 39 presents the crash costs by severity used in safety BCA, including HSIP, from the

questionnaire. 

When responses did not list specific values, the authors used or calculated the latest values 

from the State’s preferred source. In the case that the State did not respond to the 

questionnaire, the synthesis was supplemented with an online search for relevant reports and 

documentation. The authors of this guide converted costs per person or MAIS costs to 

KABCO crash costs, if possible, for a simpler comparison of values in a synthesized table. The 

authors did not similarly update costs to current year dollars. Therefore, the costs in Table 39

may not reflect the exact values that States apply in BCA.

The dollar year column represents the year in which the costs are expressed in, as reported in 

the questionnaire or literature, or as best determined by the authors otherwise. A value of 

“N/A” indicates that the State does not use crash costs, and a value of “UNK” indicates the 

authors were not able to discern the values’ dollar year.

Table 39. State crash costs. 

State K A/Major* B/Minor* C O Source Dollar 

Year

AL $190,200 $190,200 $190,200 $54,000 $8,900 Questionnaire 2015 

AK $2,003,000 $1,001,000 $200,000 N/A $20,000 Questionnaire 2016 

AZ $5,800,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 Literature 2008 

AR $5,666,000 $302,000 $110,000 $63,000 $10,000 Questionnaire 2016 

CA $9,600,000 $459,120 $125,050 $63,854 $3,235 Questionnaire 2016 

CO $1,500,000 $80,700 $80,700 $80,700 $9,300 Questionnaire 2013 

CT $5,740,100 $304,400 $111,200 $62,700 $10,100 Questionnaire 2016 

DE $651,000 $651,000 $651,000 $651,000 $2,920 Questionnaire UNK

DC $1,542,000 $90,000 $26,000 $21,400 $11,400 Questionnaire 2015 

FL $10,100,000 $818,636 $163,254 $99,645 $6,500 Literature 2013 

GA $9,100,000 $955,500 $955,500 $955,500 $27,300 Questionnaire 2013 

HI Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown N/A UNK
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX C

76

State K A/Major* B/Minor* C O Source Dollar 

Year

ID $6,391,502 $318,302 $89,155 $59,097 $6,842 Literature 2013 

IL $6,245,736 $336,521 $123,079 $0 $0 Questionnaire 2016 

IN $373,000 $373,000 $35,200 $35,200 $6,300 Questionnaire 2009 

IA $4,500,000 $325,000 $65,000 $35,000 $7,400 Questionnaire 2014 

KS $4,733,650 $402,550 $80,500 $42,500 $3,250 Questionnaire 2016 

KY $257,890 $257,890 $257,890 $6,793 $6,793 Questionnaire 2015 

LA $1,712,721 $488,947 $173,599 $58,640 $24,982 Questionnaire 2015 

ME $5,740,100 $304,400 $111,200 $62,700 $10,100 Questionnaire 2016 

MD $9,200,000 $505,000 $121,400 $68,700 $12,480 Questionnaire 2014 

MA $5,740,100 $304,400 $111,200 $62,700 $10,100 Questionnaire 2016 

MI $1,512,000 $88,500 $25,600 $11,300 $11,300 Questionnaire 2014 

MN $1,140,000 $570,000 $170,000 $84,000 $7,600 Questionnaire 2015 

MS $9,145,998 $1,001,206 $276,010 $127,768 $42,298 Questionnaire 2010 

MO $9,200,000 $313,869 $81,606 N/A $4,565 Questionnaire 2014 

MT $5,628,500 $298,700 $109,100 $61,600 $10,000 Questionnaire UNK

NE $1,500,000 $88,500 $25,600 $21,000 $4,200 Literature 2013 

NV $5,665,555 $301,035 $109,990 $62,076 $10,067 Questionnaire 2016 

NH $5,740,100 $304,400 $111,200 $62,700 $10,100 Literature 2016 

NJ $5,740,100 $304,400 $111,200 $62,700 $10,100 Questionnaire 2016 

NM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Questionnaire N/A

NY $3,686,232 $91,316 $91,316 $91,316 $4,443 Literature 2015 

NC $10,133,000 $564,000 $176,000 $96,000 $6,700 Questionnaire 2013 

ND $10,082,000 $1,103,000 $304,000 $141,000 $46,600 Questionnaire 2014 

OH $336,145 $336,145 $56,146 $38,056 $8,576 Questionnaire 2014 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX C

77

State K A/Major* B/Minor* C O Source Dollar 

Year

OK $9,600,000 $2,553,600 $451,200 $28,800 $4,200 Questionnaire 2016 

OR $870,000 $870,000 $72,400 $72,400 $19,400 Questionnaire 2012 

PA $6,568,966 $1,429,846 $95,699 $7,620 $3,048 Literature 2008 

PR $4,002,800 $89,200 $89,200 $89,200 $0 Literature UNK

RI $1,322,600 $1,322,600 $112,600 $63,400 $10,200 Questionnaire 2016 

SC $9,600,000 $459,120 $125,050 $63,854 $3,235 Questionnaire 2016 

SD $374,724 $374,724 $374,724 $374,724 $17,528 Questionnaire 2013 

TN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Questionnaire N/A

TX $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $475,000 $0 $0 Questionnaire 2014 

UT $2,064,800 $2,064,800 $128,900 $65,800 $3,300 Questionnaire 2015 

VT $338,272 $291,200 $106,400 $60,000 $9,700 Questionnaire 2016 

VA $4,008,885 $216,059 $56,272 $56,272 $7,428 Literature 2001 

WA $2,900,000 $2,900,000 $155,000 $60,000 $10,000 Questionnaire 2010 

WV $5,289,928 $285,022 $104,244 $59,248 $9,765 Questionnaire 2012 

WI $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 $60,000 $10,000 Questionnaire UNK

WY $2,237,000 $2,237,000 $98,000 $98,000 $39,000 Questionnaire 2013 

* Two States, AK and MO, use Major Injury and Minor Injury classifications rather than A, B, 

and C in KABCO. For those States, the Major cost is listed in italics in the A cost column, the 

Minor cost is listed in italics in the B cost column, and N/A is listed in the C cost column. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

78

APPENDIX D: PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING AND UPDATING 

CRASH COSTS 

The following sections illustrate some of the different methods that States use to develop their 

crash costs. These sections list notable State practices from the crash cost questionnaire 

responses and online research to demonstrate some ways that States have established their 

own methods for developing and updating crash cost values. 

Alaska Method

Alaska DOT’s HSIP Handbook presents their method for developing crash unit costs, which are 

based on the 2014 USDOT guidance.(24,12) The USDOT crash cost values are first converted 

into the KABCO scale and then into Alaska’s injury scale categories—Fatality, Major Injury, 

Minor Injury, and PDO—before inflating to current year by gross domestic product (GDP) 

implicit price deflator measure, as an annual four-quarter average. These costs, shown in Table 

40 as the base 2016 costs, present a fatality as 1,300 times the cost of a PDO, which Alaska 

indicates will result in a “misallocation of highway safety funds” when using crash history as the 

basis for economic analysis.

Table 40. Alaska DOT base crash costs.

Severity Base 2016 

Crash Costs

Base EPDO 

Weights

Average 

Annual Crashes

Fatality $10,635,263 1300 56 

Major Injury $715,846 90 351 

Minor Injury $109,365 13.75 3,231 

PDO $7,954 1 9,000 

Based on the five-year average number crashes by severity, indicated as Average Annual 

Crashes in Table 40 and Table 41, Alaska DOT determines the total cost of all crashes by 

multiplying the crash costs by severity by the number of crashes of each severity. This annual 

average cost of crashes in Alaska (i.e., $1,291,090,265) is then redistributed using subjective 

EPDO weights of 100, 50, 10, and 1 to determine new costs by severity as listed in Table 41 as 

HSIP Crash Costs. The result is the same annual average cost of crashes in the State (i.e., in 

both cases the crash costs multiplied by the number crashes of each severity equals the same 

total cost) with less disparate crash costs by severity.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

79

Table 41. Alaska DOT HSIP crash costs and EPDO weights for BCA (2016 dollars). 

Severity Average Annual 

Crashes

New EPDO 

Weights

HSIP Crash 

Unit Costs

Fatality 56 100 $2,003,000 

Major Injury 351 50 $1,001,000 

Minor Injury 3,231 10 $200,000 

PDO 9,000 1 $20,000 

Arizona Method

Arizona DOT uses the original default crash unit costs in AASHTOWare Safety Analyst from 

2010, which are based on the FHWA crash unit costs from 2008. Arizona ignores B, C, and O 

crashes in their BCA spreadsheet, with their crash costs shown in Table 42. 

Table 42. Arizona DOT crash unit costs for BCA (2008 dollars). 

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost

K $5,800,000 

A $400,000 

B $0 

C $0 

O $0

Colorado Method

Colorado uses economic person-injury unit costs from NSC 2013 for injury crashes and an 

economic crash unit cost for PDOs. For all A, B, and C crashes, they apply a consistent value 

that represents a nonfatal disabling injury, which is roughly the economic cost of an A injury. 

Colorado noted they will be updating to NSC’s 2015 crash costs soon. Table 43 lists 

Colorado’s crash costs.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

80

Table 43. Colorado DOT economic crash unit costs for BCA (2013 dollars). 

Severity Economic Crash Unit Cost

K $1,500,000 

A $80,700 

B $80,700 

C $80,700 

O $9,300 

Florida Method

Florida uses two sets of crash unit costs when calculating BCRs per a Florida DOT memo in 

2014.(25) Both sets are based on 1994 and 2013 USDOT guidance with State-specific 

adaptations.(17,1) When quantifying expected crash frequency with SPFs for BCA, Florida uses 

one set of crash unit costs in which they convert USDOT MAIS person-injury unit costs into 

comprehensive KABCO crash unit costs. Table 44 lists Florida’s crash costs for predictive BCA.

Table 44. Florida DOT crash unit costs for predictive BCA (2013 dollars). 

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost

K $10,100,000 

A $818,636 

B $163,254 

C $99,645 

O $6,500 

For sites where Florida uses observed crash frequency in BCA (e.g., when no SPF is available 

for the facility type), they use a weighted average K/A/B/C/O crash unit cost (i.e., not further 

categorized by injury level). The Florida DOT memo provides one average crash unit cost for 

all State roads (i.e., $195,791) as well as several average crash unit costs by facility type, which 

is disaggregated by number of lanes, median type, and area type. Florida DOT uses five-year 

crash and injury severity data to develop weighted averages.(25)
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

81

Georgia Method

Georgia uses the person-injury unit costs from the USDOT VSL guidance in safety BCA. Rather 

than converting from MAIS to KABCO, Georgia uses the AIS 3 person-injury unit cost (i.e., 

severe injury) from the 2013 USDOT guidance as a weighted crash unit cost for all KABCO A, 

B, and C crash unit costs.(1) Table 45 lists Georgia’s crash costs.

Table 45. Georgia DOT comprehensive crash unit costs for BCA (2013 dollars). 

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost

K $9,100,000 

A/B/C $955,500 

O $27,300 

Illinois Method

Illinois uses comprehensive costs from the HSM updated with a three-percent annual 

adjustment factor, rather than using the CPI and ECI adjustments. The three-percent annual 

adjustment is consistent with Illinois’s practice for estimating construction costs and other lifecycle analysis.

Illinois counts KABCO level C crashes (i.e., possible injury) as PDO, and assigns a unit cost of 

$0 to C crashes and PDO crashes in HSIP BCA analysis. Table 46 lists Illinois’s crash unit costs.

Table 46. Illinois DOT comprehensive crash unit costs for BCA (2016 dollars). 

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost

K $6,245,736 

A $336,521 

B $123,079 

C $0

O $0

Iowa Method

Iowa DOT uses crash costs in analyzing safety improvements under their State-funded Traffic 

Safety Improvement Program. During BCA, Iowa considers the first fatality in the analysis at 

each site as a major injury (and applies crash costs as such) to reduce the emphasis on single 

fatal crash events.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

82

Minnesota Method

Minnesota DOT adapts the 2015 USDOT VSL guidance costs for BCA.(12) After converting the 

VSL costs into comprehensive crash unit costs, based on three-year crash history and USDOT 

conversion procedures, Minnesota sets their fatal crash cost equal to two times the A-level

crash cost to reduce the impact of fatal crash cost on BCA when using observed crash 

frequency. Table 47 lists Minnesota’s HSIP crash costs.

Table 47. Minnesota DOT comprehensive crash unit costs for HSIP BCA (2015 

dollars). 

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost

K $1,140,000 

A $570,000 

B $170,000 

C $84,000 

O $7,600 

Nevada Method

Nevada DOT uses crash costs from the HSM, updated as recommended in the HSM with CPI 

and ECI indexes. Nevada noted that in some analyses, they consider the first fatal crash as an 

injury crash in BCA.(26)

North Carolina Method

Based on an internal memo dated 2014, North Carolina DOT calculates comprehensive crash 

unit costs based on the USDOT VSL guidance.(27) North Carolina first develops an average 

number of injuries per crash by crash severity category, as shown in Table 48. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

83

Table 48. North Carolina DOT injury-to-crash ratios. 

Crash 

Severity

K Injury-toCrash RatioA Injury-toCrash RatioB Injury-toCrash RatioC Injury-toCrash RatioO Injury-toCrash Ratio

K 1.09 0.13 0.34 0.29 0.40 

A 0.00 1.15 0.34 0.30 0.57 

B 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.42 0.75 

C 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.37 

Then, North Carolina translates the VSL costs, using disutility MAIS factors for injury costs, into 

KABCO person-injury unit costs. This translation is done using a translator table, as discussed 

in Chapter 5. The person-injury unit costs are multiplied by the respective injury-to-crash ratios 

and then summed for all injury severities to determine the crash unit cost for the given crash 

severity.

Table 49 provides an example computation for average fatal crash cost. The values in the 

second and third column for each row are multiplied to calculate the fourth column. The values 

in the fourth column are summed to determine the average fatal crash unit cost of

approximately $10,133,000. 

Table 49. North Carolina DOT computation of fatal crash unit cost (2013 dollars). 

Severity Injury-toCrash Ratio

Comprehensive PersonInjury Unit CostComprehensive Crash 

Unit Cost Portion

K 1.09 $9,200,000 $10,016,380 

A 0.13 $439,990 $56,313 

B 0.34 $119,839 $40,901 

C 0.29 $61,194 $17,857 

O 0.40 $3,100 $1,254 

Oklahoma Method

Oklahoma develops crash unit costs based on the USDOT guidance. However, rather than 

using a translator table, Oklahoma sets various MAIS severity levels directly equal to KABCO 

severities and uses the MAIS person-injury unit costs as KABCO crash unit costs, as shown in 

Table 50. 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

84

Table 50. Oklahoma DOT MAIS to KABCO direct conversion and comprehensive 

crash unit costs (2016 dollars). 

MAIS KABCO Comprehensive 

Crash Unit Cost

MAIS 6 K $9,600,000 

MAIS 4 A $2,553,600 

MAIS 2 B $451,200 

MAIS 1 C $28,800 

MAIS 0 O $4,200 

Puerto Rico Method

Based on the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works’ High Crash 

Location Report Summary, Puerto Rico uses comprehensive crash unit costs adapted from the 

HSM comprehensive crash unit costs.(28) They use a comprehensive fatal crash unit cost and a 

weighted injury crash unit cost, as shown in Table 51. Puerto Rico ignores PDOs in their 

economic analysis.

Table 51. Puerto Rico comprehensive crash unit costs.

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost

K $4,002,800 

A/B/C $89,200 

O $0

Texas Method

Texas DOT uses the NSC comprehensive injury cost values to develop a weighted K/A crash 

unit cost value and B crash unit cost value, as shown in Table 52. These are based on 2014 NSC 

data. Texas DOT does not consider C and O crashes in economic analysis, so these crash unit 

costs are considered $0. These values are updated annually as new NSC data are published.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

85

Table 52. Texas DOT comprehensive crash unit costs (2014 dollars). 

Severity Crash Cost

K/A $3,300,000 

B $475,000 

C/O $0 

Texas DOT’s weighted crash unit cost values are calculated as outlined below.

1. Determine the total number of fatal crashes in the most recent three years.

2. Determine the total number of injuries of all severities (i.e., including non-injured) in 

those fatal crashes.

3. Multiply the comprehensive person-injury unit cost for each injury type by the total 

number of each corresponding injury in fatal crashes.

4. Sum the costs of all injuries and non-injured persons in fatal crashes and divide by the 

total number of fatalities to determine the average fatal crash unit cost.

5. Repeat steps 1-4 for incapacitating injury crashes to determine the average 

incapacitating injury crash unit cost.

6. Calculate the weighted average fatal and incapacitating injury crash unit cost value by 

multiplying each average crash unit cost by the ratio of fatal crashes among all fatal and 

incapacitating injury crashes, and the same for incapacitating injury crashes, and summing 

the result.

7. Repeat steps 1-4 for non-incapacitating injury crashes to determine the average nonincapacitating injury crash unit cost.

Wyoming Method

Wyoming DOT uses the USDOT VSL fatal injury cost as a base value, and then applies

weighting factors to create severity-weighted K/A, B/C, and O/U crash unit cost values, as 

shown in Table 53. These are based on 2012 USDOT costs.(1) These values are updated as new 

VSL numbers are published, or updated (from the 2012 VSL) annually based on a 1.0107% 

growth factor.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D

86

Table 53. Wyoming DOT comprehensive crash unit costs (2013 dollars). 

Severity Comprehensive Crash Unit Cost

K/A $2,237,000 

B/C $98,000 

O $39,000 

Wyoming DOT’s weighted crash unit cost values are calculated as outlined below.

1. Convert VSL AIS person-injury unit costs to KABCO crash unit costs using the 

translator table from TIGER BCA Resource Guide, as shown in Table 15. 

2. Combine KABCO crash unit costs into severity-weighted Critical (i.e., fatal and 

incapacitating injury), Serious (i.e., non-incapacitating injury and possible injury), and 

Damage (i.e., no injury and unknown) crash unit cost values.

3. Adjust the severity-weighted crash unit costs for inflation by multiplying the values by a 

factor of 1.0107N, where N is the number of years after 2012 (or since the newest VSL 

values used in the calculations).
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX E

87

APPENDIX E: QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO THE FEASIBILITY 

OF RECOMMENDING NATIONAL CRASH COSTS

The following are quotes from the questionnaire responses regarding question 4: “Would 

adopting a set of national crash costs be advantageous or disadvantageous to your 

State? Please explain why.” When a State was named in the responses, they have been 

scrubbed for anonymity.

• Indicated “advantageous” or answer appears advantageous (19 responses):

o Yes, a national crash cost would be advantageous so we wouldn’t have to 

develop one ourselves. In the past, we have used Federal crash costs.

o Yes, if it could be adjusted based on state or region.

o Yes, it would be advantageous if the injury severity levels were more consistent 

with KABCO (i.e., better distinguish between minor and serious injuries and 

other levels of severity). 

o May be advantageous, but have NSC that is adequate for use today.

o Advantageous. [Jurisdiction] has no preference as we refer to national guidance.

o It will be advantageous, as long as it considers different socio-economical costs 

and provides an average value for the nation. This will make all the States' 

analyses consistent with each other and project prioritization will be consistent.

o This would be advantageous because the process [to update crash costs] is 

tedious and ideally should be updated each month when the CPI is updated 

monthly and the ECI is updated quarterly.

o It would be advantageous as a starting point if [Jurisdiction] were to consider 

modifying their current methodology regarding using crash costs.

o Better quantifies the message to the public if everyone uses similar costs. 

o We do not feel real comfortable with the way we are determining our crash 

costs now, but it is the best method we have. Since BCRs are a big part of 

prioritizing our safety projects, the more accurate we can be the better our 

decisions will be.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX E

88

o Adopting a set of national crash costs would be very advantageous for all States 

using the same methodology to estimate crash costs (with adjustments being 

made annually).

o Would be advantageous, but must have flexibility of adjustment to reflect local 

conditions. 

o A common crash cost may be helpful to standardize, especially if this is updated 

every year. However, the way [Jurisdiction] is [adapting the crash costs], they 

would likely still do that to make the data more [Jurisdiction]-specific.

o I don't know. I assume so. It is important that we are using the same values that 

other aspects of project evaluation are using (pollution costs, delays, etc.) so that 

safety is compared at the same level as the other analysis.

o [Jurisdiction] likes the two options included in the Highway Safety Manual 

(Human Capital Cost and Comprehensive Crash Cost). [Jurisdiction] thinks a 

national standard is needed and will be able to adjust [Jurisdiction]’s program 

accordingly.

o I consider the values provided in the HSM once updated using the HSM 

methodology to be kind of national crash costs. Having national crash costs at 

the crash-level would be useful. It would be the official source.

o Depends on the business area. [Traffic and safety engineering staff] would like to 

see consistency, not only across the nation, but amongst the various programs 

within the [Jurisdiction]. The managers of the various programs may not agree 

with that assessment.

o We are already using national VSL/QALY numbers. We do not have the 

expertise to calculate the economic impact costs nor the knowledge to keep 

them up to date.

o It would be acceptable if the crash costs were updated annually. If values were 

given with no ability to account for inflation, it would be less advantageous to us.

• Response indicated “no preference” or answer did not indicate a preference (11 

responses):

o Already adopted national numbers.

o We are currently using the provided crash costs per the memo – 9.1M for fatal, 

etc.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX E

89

o Neutral, [Jurisdiction] already uses HSM to help us develop crash costs. 

o Depends on if the National crash costs are higher than what we have developed 

for [Jurisdiction]. If the national crash costs are higher, it may improve our ability 

to show increased value in safety improvements.

o Since [Jurisdiction] uses the NSC numbers for our [economic analysis], adopting 

national crash cost would be neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. The 

national crash costs would be entered in our form and the [economic analysis 

threshold] would be reevaluated depending on how the national crash costs 

were developed, human capital or comprehensive.

o [Jurisdiction] already uses NSC average comprehensive crash costs as the main 

source of setting costs for economic analysis. A change to another source would 

not be necessarily advantageous or disadvantageous.

o Since [Jurisdiction] already uses national published crash costs, I’m not sure, 

under the current funding construct there is any advantage of one value across 

all States. If States begin to have to compete for a single pot of infrastructure 

dollars, it would be a benefit to operate from the same starting spot, but it 

would be disadvantageous in locations where certain inputs are much greater 

than others – i.e., EMS costs in rural [Jurisdictions] would well outpace EMS 

costs in highly urban States, like in the Northeast corridor.

o The Blincoe study already provides some guideline, but they must be adjusted in 

any case for State-specific situations. The most difficult part is to translate MAISspecific costs to KABCO costs. Unfortunately, each State may have different 

distributions of KABCO depending on how police officers assess injury.

o Advantage would be level comparisons of countermeasure effectiveness. This will 

provide a standard in which countermeasures can be assessed by at a nationwide 

level instead State by State. A disadvantage would be a decreased flexibility in 

how each State would be able to evaluate the effectiveness of their own projects

on a scale of their choosing. [Jurisdiction]’s crash costs tend to be more on the 

conservative side which yields lower [BCRs] than some other states.

o Not sure that it would matter. [Jurisdiction] likes [an older FHWA advisory] and 

the breakdown into Fatality, A, B, C, & PDO crashes. Previously, just the cost of 

fatality has been updated but not the [advisory]. [Many years later they evaluated 

an updated fatality cost.] I believe at the time they were evaluating [a 

countermeasure] and felt the much higher cost per fatality would skew analysis.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX E

90

o More beneficial would be an internal assessment of use of benefit-cost analysis 

more widely on all Department projects; though safety projects, by benefit of 

their exclusive funding, do not compete against other projects. That said, the use 

of non-safety funds often supports safety projects or safety improvements and 

the inclusion of more direct means to tally costs and benefits over the project 

would be beneficial to a more complete reckoning of investment choices. The 

use of national crash statistics has some advantages but the greater questions are 

separating severities or combining them (to not “overweigh”), and use of crashes 

as the counting unit or individuals.

• Response indicated “disadvantageous” or answer appears disadvantageous (5 

responses):

o We use the same [weighted] value for fatal and serious injury crashes to align 

our project outcomes with [our SHSP, which aims to reduce fatal and serious 

injury crashes]. The national values have always had a very different value for 

fatal and serious injury crashes – application of these values is more likely not 

prioritize projects that are also driving down serious injuries per our plan. 

o No, one size does not fit all. [Jurisdiction] has a few random fatalities that are 

spread across a wide range. We would not want to be in a position of chasing 

random fatalities.

o I believe it would be disadvantageous for our State. Costs are only used when 

evaluating an alternative versus the expected crash reduction and using our 

approach we are assuming that a fatal crash (and costs) could be saved over the 

life cycle of the proposed solution. It is my belief that this is an incorrect 

assumption (so if you have a fatal crash in a 5-year period you will get credit for 

reducing 4 fatal crashes over a 20-year life period) and this is further multiplied 

by a large fiscal number. A recommended methodology for using crash data to 

develop a per crash cost (similar to [Jurisdiction]’s methodology) might be useful 

to other States.

o It is perceived that a lot of things cost higher in [Jurisdiction] compared to the 

national averages. Perhaps a calibration factor can be used (just like in the SPF 

[safety performance function] calibration) to this set of national crash costs to 

reflect the differing costs between national and local settings.

o Adopting national crash costs may not necessarily reflect local costs and thereby 

the true cost of crashes in the [Jurisdiction]. A study, using the methodology by 

NSC will need to be conducted to obtain the crash costs for the [Jurisdiction].
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX F

91

APPENDIX F: STATE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Table 54 lists the PCI ratio adjustment factors that adapt national mean crash costs to Statespecific crash unit costs. To adjust the costs, multiply all crash unit costs (i.e., by severity and 

type) by the PCI ratio value. This procedure is also applicable to person-injury unit costs. The 

United States average is shown at the top of Table 54. 

Table 54. State crash cost PCI ratio adjustment factors.(20)

State PCI (2016 dollars) PCI Ratio

United States (average) $49,571 1.00000 

Alabama $39,231 0.79141 

Alaska $55,307 1.11571 

Arizona $40,243 0.81183 

Arkansas $39,345 0.79371 

California $55,987 1.12943 

Colorado $52,059 1.05019 

Connecticut $71,033 1.43295 

Delaware $48,697 0.98237 

District of Columbia $75,596 1.52500 

Florida $45,819 0.92431 

Georgia $41,835 0.84394 

Hawaii $50,551 1.01977 

Idaho $39,107 0.78891 

Illinois $52,098 1.05098 

Indiana $43,492 0.87737 

Iowa $46,794 0.94398 

Kansas $48,537 0.97914 

Kentucky $39,499 0.79682 

Louisiana $43,487 0.87727 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX F

92

Maine $44,316 0.89399 

Maryland $57,936 1.16875 

Massachusetts $65,137 1.31401 

Michigan $44,347 0.89462 

Minnesota $52,117 1.05136 

Mississippi $35,936 0.72494 

Missouri $43,723 0.88203 

Montana $42,386 0.85506 

Nebraska $49,636 1.00131 

Nevada $43,637 0.88029 

New Hampshire $58,322 1.17653 

New Jersey $61,968 1.25009 

New Mexico $38,807 0.78286 

New York $60,534 1.22116 

North Carolina $42,002 0.84731 

North Dakota $55,038 1.11029 

Ohio $44,876 0.90529 

Oklahoma $45,682 0.92155 

Oregon $45,049 0.90878 

Pennsylvania $51,275 1.03437 

Rhode Island $51,576 1.04045 

South Carolina $39,465 0.79613 

South Dakota $48,049 0.96930 

Tennessee $43,380 0.87511 

Texas $47,636 0.96097 

Utah $40,744 0.82193 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS APPENDIX F

93

Vermont $50,321 1.01513 

Virginia $53,723 1.08376 

Washington $53,493 1.07912 

West Virginia $37,386 0.75419 

Wisconsin $47,275 0.95368 

Wyoming $55,212 1.11380 
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

94

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The development of this guide greatly benefited from the contributions of researchers and 

practitioners from various Federal and State agencies. FHWA and the authors acknowledge the 

following individuals who provided input through surveys, interviews, and multiple rounds of 

review:

• Larry Blincoe, NHTSA. 

• FHWA Division Office Safety Engineers.

• Highway Safety Manual Implementation Pooled Fund States.

• Transportation Research Board Highway Safety Performance Committee.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS REFERENCES

95

REFERENCES

1. “Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department 

of Transportation Analyses.” Transportation.gov. USDOT, 2013.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf. 

Accessed May 2017.

2. “KABCO Injury Classification Scale and Definitions.” Safety.fhwa.gov. FHWA, January 

2017, 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/conversion_tbl/pdfs/kabco_ctable_by_state.pdf. 

Accessed May 2017. 

3. “Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 5th Edition.” USDOT, DOT HS 812 433, July 

2017. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812433 

4. “Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 4th Edition.” Transportation.gov. USDOT, July 

2012, https://www.transportation.gov/government/traffic-records/model-minimumuniform-crash-criteria-4th-edition. Accessed May 2017.

5. “Abbreviated Injury Scale.” Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 

2015, https://www.aaam.org/abbreviated-injury-scale-ais/. Accessed May 2017.

6. Council, F., E. Zaloshnja, T. Miller, and B. Persaud. Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum 

Police-Reported Injury within Selected Crash Geometries, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), October 2005, Washington, DC.

7. “Highway Safety Manual.” American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials. Joint Task Force on the Highway Safety Manual, National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program, 1st edition, vol. I, AASHTO, 2010.

8. “Archived Consumer Price Index Detailed Reports.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 

2017. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/detailed-report.htm. Accessed May 2017.

9. “Employment Cost Index Historical Listing – Volume III.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor, April 2017, http://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf. Accessed 

May 2017. 

10. Bahar, G. “Estimating the Costs to State Governments Due to Highway-Related Fatal 

and Non-Fatal Injury Crashes.” NAVIGATS Inc, 2011.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS REFERENCES

96

11. Blincoe, L., T. Miller, E. Zaloshnja, and B. Lawrence. “The Economic and Societal Impact 

of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised).” NHTSA, DOT-HS-812-013, May 2015, 

Washington, DC.

12. “Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. 

Department of Transportation Analyses – 2016 Adjustment.” Transportation.gov, 

USDOT, 8 August 2016, 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of

%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed May 2017.

13. Kolosh, K., K. Fearn, and K. Porretta. “Injury Facts®, 2017 Edition.” National Safety 

Council. 2017, Itasca, IL. 

14. “Estimating Costs of Unintentional Injuries, 2015.” National Safety Council. Itasca, IL, 

2017. http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/estimating-costs.pdf. Accessed 

May 2017. Accessed May 2017.

15. Harwood, D. “Updated Default Crash Cost Estimates for Use in Safety Analyst.” 

AASHTOWare Safety Analyst Tools, 2016.

16. “AASHTOWare Safety.” AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2017. 

http://www.aashtoware.org/Safety/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed June 2017.

17. “Motor Vehicle Accident Costs.” Safety.fhwa.gov. FHWA, 31 October 1994,

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts_stats/t75702.cfm. Accessed May 2017. 

18. “Benefit-Cost Analyses Guidance for TIGER Grant Applicants.” Transportation.gov. 

USDOT, 28 April 2015, http://www.dot.gov/tiger/guidance. Accessed May 2017.

19. “Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Resource Guide.” Transportation.gov. USDOT, November 

2016, https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/benefit-costanalysis-bca-resource-guide. Accessed May 2017. 

20. “State Personal Income, 2016—Tables Only.” Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, March 2017. 

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2017/spi0317.htm. Accessed September 

2017. 

21. “Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers Archived News Releases.” Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, October 2017, https://www.bls.gov/bls/newsrelease/wkyeng.htm. Accessed January 2018.
CRASH COSTS FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY ANALYSIS REFERENCES

97

22. “Consumer Price Index: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).” Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Labor, July 2017, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm. 

Accessed January 2018.

23. “GES FTP Site.” NHTSA. ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/GES/. Accessed September 2017.

24. “Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program Handbook.” Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities, January 2017, 

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/assets/pdf/hsip/hsip_hdbk_010117.pdf. 

Accessed May 2017.

25. Shepard, M., and J. Santos. “Design Safety Analysis Updates: Benefit/Cost Analysis and 

Highway Safety Manual Use.” Memorandum to various District Directors, Engineers, and 

Administrators, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. 

http://www.fdot.gov/roadway/bulletin/rdb14-12.pdf. Accessed May 2017.

26. “2016 Performance Management Report.” Performance Analysis Division, Nevada 

Department of Transportation, December 2016, 

http://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=6450. Accessed May 2017.

27. Robinson, B. “2013 Standardized Crash Cost Estimates for North Carolina.” 

Memorandum to Regional and Division Traffic Engineers, North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, Garner, NC. 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Documents/Crash%20Data%20and%20Inform

ation/2013%20Crash%20Costs.pdf. Accessed May 2017.

28. “High Crash Location Report Summary.” Highway and Transport Authority, 

Department of Transportation and Public Works, Government of Puerto Rico. 

http://www.carreterasegurapr.com/Content/docs/HCL_Report-EN.aspx. Accessed May 

2017. 
For More Information:

Visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

FHWA, Office of Safety

Karen Scurry

karen.scurry@dot.gov

609-637-4207 

FHWA-SA-17-071