1

Local Road Safety

A FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL SAFETY PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

EXAMPLES OF STAKEHOLDERS

Analysis of statewide crash data often shows a significant 

portion of fatalities and serious injuries occurring on 

locally owned roadways. To achieve the long-term goal 

and vision of zero fatalities on our nation’s roadways, 

States should consider safety improvements on the 

local system. States use local road safety programs to 

supplement State roadway safety program initiatives 

and provide safety funding opportunities and technical 

expertise for local agencies. These programs can be 

effective in developing projects, as well as building 

capacity at the local level and demonstrating an agency’s 

commitment to local roadway safety to the public.

The purpose of this guide is to establish a framework for 

States developing local road safety programs or policies 

and to provide examples of how peers administer local 

road safety programs. This document is not intended to 

suggest the best strategy. Rather it presents an array of 

approaches States have taken to incorporate local road 

safety in an overall State safety program.

DEFINING THE LOCAL SYSTEM

The local road system includes all non-State owned 

roads and is owned by a mix of cities, counties, 

and local entities. Local road safety stakeholders 

span engineering, enforcement, education, and 

emergency response, collectively known as the “4Es” 

and include the state and local level departments 

and initiatives that carry out those efforts. Local 

technical assistance programs (LTAPs), metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs), regional planning 

organizations (RPOs), and regional coalitions (RCs) 

play a role in implementing statewide transportation 

programs and can act as a conduit to reaching local 

agencies as well. Understanding stakeholder needs, 

building relationships, and identifying opportunities 

for collaboration are building blocks to starting a local 

road safety program.

• Law Enforcement Agencies

• Emergency Services

• Departments of Public Health

• Public education organizations

• State Departments of Transportation

• State Highway Safety Offices

• Local Agency Public Works

• Local Technical Assistance Programs

• Regional Planning Organizations and Coalitions

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590
2

Program Administration 

the DOT are managed and if a local road safety 

program may be able to leverage those already existing 

structures. Another approach is for a State to establish 

program requirements in coordination with local 

stakeholders. A number of agencies have had success 

using this approach, then piloting the program, seeing 

what works and what doesn’t, and making adjustments 

as needed. Once an approach is decided upon, it is 

important to document the program organization and 

processes as a means to communicate the program to 

local and State stakeholders, and garner support 

and buy-in.

Guidance for local road safety programs may be 

described in legal mandates for the program, policy 

documents, or procedure manuals. This guidance may 

include the process of distributing funding to local 

projects, the structure of programs providing services to 

local entities through technical assistance and outreach, 

and information about program requirements (e.g., 

eligibility criteria, application requirements). For 

example, California has a law that requires them to 

spend transportation funds including Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) on local roads. Creating a 

central resource specifically for all local safety services, 

programs, and funding is an emerging best practice 

within the field because it creates transparency and 

promotes program longevity.

Regardless of the program organization or 

management approach, all local road safety programs 

benefit from strong leadership support. Engaging 

a champion can greatly improve visibility of the 

program throughout the organization, and particularly 

within the executive level leadership. Champions can 

provide a unifying vision to prioritize the many options 

available in building a sustainable local road safety 

program. Safety champions can be found at all levels 

of an organization from leadership to agency staff. A 

champion is typically a person who is passionate about 

safety, understands the value of communication, and is 

dedicated to implementing the program.

GETTING STARTED

As shown in Figure 1, local road safety programs are 

usually administered through one of four ways: 1) 

centrally managed by a local aid division or safety 

program office, 2) managed by a district of a State 

Department of Transportation (DOT), 3) by leveraging 

existing MPOs, RPOs, or other regional structures, 

or 4) some hybrid of these organizational structures. 

The method of program administration depends on 

the State DOT’s culture, the technical capacity and 

autonomy of local agencies, and geography. A State 

may want to consider how similar programs within 

Figure 1: Program Organization: Cambridge Systematics Inc. Assessment of Local Road Safety Funding, Training, and 

Technical Assistance.

CENTRALIZED DECENTRALIZED

PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

SCOPE/RESPONSIBILITIES

Local-Aid 

Division

Safety 

projects

handled with 

all other local 

projects.

Hybrid of Local 

RoadSafety Program and 

District/Region-Level 

Project Coordination

Special unit/

department 

identifies, prioritizes 

safety projects, 

district-level staff 

administer projects.

Centralized 

Local

Road Safety

Program/Unit

Special unit/

department 

handles

local safety 

projects.

District/RegionLevel Project 

Coordination

All local projects 

identified, prioritized, 

developed, and 

administered at 

district level by 

district engineers.

Hybrid of Local-Aid

Division and Local

Road Safety 

Program

Special unit/

department 

identifies, prioritizes 

safety projects, 

local-aid division 

administers projects.

District/RegionLevel Local Project

Coordinators

All local safety 

projects identified, 

prioritized, developed 

and administered at 

district level by local 

project coordinator.
3

EXAMPLES OF LOCAL SAFETY PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION

OHIO

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) 

describes its efforts in working with local organizations 

to improve safety on all public roads in its Other 

Highway Safety Programs document. Ohio DOT 

recently created a position focused on creating a 

comprehensive Local Road Safety Program. 

Designating dedicated personnel to create a set of 

program guidance and policies can help create a 

cohesive program.

NEW JERSEY

New Jersey’s Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) 

conducted a pilot program in conjunction with the New 

Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) to gather 

information on using funds for local safety projects. 

After two pilot projects, they created a formal Local 

Safety Program, demonstrating that pilot projects can 

help a State in its program development process.

NJTPA’s Local Safety Program is federally funded. NJTPA 

works with NJDOT to advance safety initiatives on 

county and local roadways throughout northern New 

Jersey. The program focuses on easily implemented, 

high-impact projects.

TENNESSEE

Tennessee DOT’s documentation for its local road 

safety program is outlined in the Procedures Manual 

for Safety Projects Developed Under the Local Roads 

Safety Initiative Program (developed by TDOT’s Strategic 

Transportation Investments Division’s Project Safety 

Office: January 2017). The Local Roads Safety Initiative 

Program was developed in 2010 to provide assistance 

to County governments by allocating HSIP funds to 

each county in Tennessee to address safety issues on 

their roadways.

CALIFORNIA

The California Local Road Safety Manual was 

developed by Caltrans for local agencies. It describes 

a framework for identifying safety problems on 

local roads, matching them to solutions, identifying 

funding, and implementing projects. Caltrans’ role in 

local road safety is described and a listing of common 

countermeasures and their crash reduction factors is 

provided. The manual emphasizes:

• Proactive problem identification

• Providing a set of tools for effective safety analysis 

for beginners

• Preparation for the Caltrans statewide call-for-safetyprojects process

• Using an incremental and/or systemic approach

LOUISIANA

Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development (LADOTD) developed guidance for local 

agencies: Louisiana’s Local Road Safety Program 

Guidelines and Policies. This document describes 

the full extent of Louisiana’s Local Road Safety 

Program, including:

• Program is managed by the Local Technical 

Assistance Program (LTAP) which also provides 

training and capacity building

• Local Road Safety Improvement Plan requirements

• Local safety project funding

• Eligibility and guidelines

• Application process

• Requirements for problem identification/

project selection

• Project implementation guidance
4

Project Identification & Selection

Local road safety projects can be identified through a 

competitive application process, State or local-led data 

analysis or a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). A datadriven process should be used to identify and select 

projects. Safety programs need both crash and 

roadway data to be effective, so improving data 

accessibility and quality should be a priority for all 

agencies. Working closely with partners to identify 

safety issues through a data-driven process and choose 

countermeasures will result in the greatest reduction in 

fatalities and serious injuries.

States providing funding for local road safety projects 

must use a selection process to identify eligible 

projects and select projects that are consistent with 

their Strategic Highway Strategic Plan (SHSP). Selection 

processes can be administered at the State, regional, 

or local level. Models vary significantly in the State 

and local agency involvement, as well as the level of 

oversight provided by States for local projects.

EXAMPLES OF PROJECT IDENTIFICATION & SELECTION APPROACHES BY MODEL

BY DISTRICT

KENTUCKY

Kentucky’s Localized Risk Mitigation Projects involve 

both local agencies and District Offices. The Districts 

coordinate Road Safety Audits utilizing a multidisciplinary team on potential projects. Projects are 

submitted throughout the year; project selection is 

coordinated with the State Highway Engineer Office.

BY LTAP

LOUISIANA

Louisiana’s program guidelines describe a streamlined 

evaluation process for local project selection as

compared to the longer process for State 

initiated projects.

BY STATEWIDE COMMITTEE

NEBRASKA

Nebraska’s HSIP program solicits proposals for HSIP 

funding developed by local public agencies (LPAs). 

The request must be submitted through the Nebraska 

Department of Roads (NDOR) Local Projects Section. 

COLORADO

Colorado DOT solicits local agencies to apply for 

HSIP funding for local projects. Recipients include 

Transportation Planning Regions, MPOs, municipalities, 

and counties. CDOT Regions act as the contact for local 

agencies. A 10 percent match for both off-system and 

on-system projects is required. Local agencies may 

partner with CDOT for use of FASTER Safety Mitigation

funds by submitting an application to the appropriate 

CDOT Regional contact. CDOT Regional planners 

and engineering staff work local partners to analyze 

available data and determine effective safety projects 

for each Region.

FLORIDA

Florida DOT uses a district based approach, with 

DOT Districts handling the majority of the application 

process and even certifying that local agencies are 

eligible to receive funding (Local Agency Program 

Certifications). In Florida, the Districts may also 

participate in implementation for approved projects 

through construction or other support.
5

Proposals are reviewed by the NDOR Safety Committee 

which screens and prioritizes projects. Although NDOR 

retains the rights to select projects and administer all 

funding, they do not conduct safety analysis for local 

road owners and do not identify projects on a 

statewide basis.

BY STATE DOT CENTRAL OFFICE

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) works with the LTAP 

and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township 

Supervisors to conduct technical reviews and identify 

low cost safety projects on local roads. PennDOT 

prepares a Directed Technical Assistance Report which 

identifies safety projects ready for a construction 

contract or force account work. Pennsylvania’s model 

uses a strongly centralized process of administering 

local safety funds that requires less involvement by 

local agencies for project identification and selection. 

It should be noted that many of the local roads in 

Pennsylvania are the State DOT’s responsibility. 

(Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program 

2018 Annual Report)

TENNESSEE

Tennessee DOT’s Local Road Safety Initiative (LRSI) 

program identifies and addresses safety issues on local 

non-state route segments that are outside of an urban 

boundary and not represented by an MPO including: 

rural major collectors, rural minor collectors, or rural 

local routes. All candidate locations for this program 

are selected using a data driven process with set 

qualification criteria. All projects are identified by the 

TDOT Project Safety Office and are presented to local 

stakeholders based on severity. (Tennessee Highway 

Safety Improvement Program 2019 Annual Report)

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS

VERMONT

Vermont’s Agency of Transportation (VTrans) created 

a Systemic Local Roads Safety (SLRS) Program to 

implement low-cost safety solutions on low volume 

locally maintained roadways. The program guidelines 

and workflow are outlined in The Orange Book, a 

guide covering VTrans offerings and policies on a wide 

range of programs for local officials. The SLRS Program 

involves local agencies, Regional Planning Commissions 

(RPCs), outside contractors to implement projects, and 

VTrans. The program focuses on risk factors as opposed 

to crash history to evaluate proposed project sites.

Within the framework, VTrans creates an analysis 

of risks factors for all potential locations, which the 

Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) then integrate 

in their project selection process with feedback from 

local stakeholders. Proposed sites are narrowed down, 

and then submitted to VTrans with a participation 

agreement from the municipality. A second round 

of coordination between the three entities results 

in site specific interventions approved by all parties. 

Finally, VTrans contracts a vendor to implement the 

project, with 100 percent of costs covered by VTrans. 

The program is administered by VTrans, but involves 

coordination between three sets of stakeholders.

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLANS

Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs) are a tool used to 

identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety issues 

and projects on local roads. In some states, LRSPs are a 

requirement for receiving roadway safety funds. LRSPs 

can be created with a bottoms-up approach (locals 

create their own plans) or top-down initiated process 

(plans are initiated and managed at DOT headquarters). 

The approach is chosen based on State and local 

government culture, or where champions and technical 

capacity exist. LRSPs require data analysis, input, and 

commitment by all safety partners. The assistance 

offered by State DOTs may include funding for creating 

the plan, providing raw data or pre-made analyses of 

the region, active stakeholder or technical assistance 

through a Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). 

Providing these resources is crucial to having a wellbuilt plan for some localities where safety planning 

is a new activity or data is not available through local 

collection efforts.
6

EXAMPLES OF STATES USING LRSPS

IOWA

Iowa has sought to create LRSPs for each county. The 

county level safety plan provides local agencies with a 

prioritized listing of safety projects to focus efforts on 

applications to spend local safety funding. The funding 

for these plans comes from Iowa’s HSIP program; 

the State has reduced costs by contracting with one 

consultant to complete all of the plans with a request 

for proposal.

LOUISIANA

Louisiana DOTD encourages its regional coalitions to 

create regional transportation safety plans to address 

local safety. Details regarding assistance provided by 

Louisiana LTAP to create these plans are provided on 

its website. The Louisiana LTAP works with the top 20 

parishes and municipalities that are overrepresented 

in serious and fatal injuries as a result of roadway 

departure and intersection crashes. Assistance includes 

helping the local agencies analyze crash data, identify 

issues, and recommend solutions.

MINNESOTA

Minnesota DOT has worked to develop County 

Road Safety Plans for all 87 counties. The projects 

identified in these plans are given priority in the HSIP 

project selection process. (Minnesota Highway Safety 

Improvement Program 2018 Annual Report)

NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota DOT hired a consultant to create LRSPs 

for all counties, cities, and tribes. Their plan creation 

spanned four phases, and resulted in the complete 

coverage of the State with local safety plans. These 

plans include both jurisdiction-specific and regional 

plans. High priority projects with project sheets are 

included in the plans with cost estimates and priority 

rankings. Local agencies can use this information to 

apply for funding. Selection of local road projects uses 

the same methodology as State roads; priority projects 

are aligned with the state’s SHSP emphasis areas. 

(North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

2018 Annual Report)

WASHINGTON

Washington State DOT requires the completion of an 

LRSP to qualify for HSIP funding. Crash data summaries 

are provided to agencies with fatal/serious injury 

crashes including all 39 counties and 155 of 281 cities/

towns (33 of the 30 counties have an LRSP). Workshops 

on local road safety plan development with the crash 

data summaries are held and followed up with technical 

assistance on LRSPs, countermeasure selection, and 

project development. Online guidance on the steps 

to creating an LRSP is also available. LRSPs include a 

list of prioritized projects with a cost estimate. Details 

on project selection and funding are available on 

WSDOT’s website: 2020 City Safety Program: Call for 

Projects. Projects require a 10 percent local match 

per phase (preliminary engineering/design, right-ofway, and construction) for all for all eligible federal 

expenditures. If the construction phase is authorized by 

the documented deadline, then the construction phase 

is eligible for 100 percent funding with no local match 

required. Federal funds cannot be used as match for 

any phase.

Washington selects projects for HSIP funding for both 

local and State roads using a data-driven process. 

Washington’s SHSP includes priority levels for crash 

types. The top two infrastructure priorities are lane 

departure and intersection crashes. WSDOT evaluates 

the total number of fatal and injury crashes for 

those two crash types for a five-year period and then 

calculates the ratio of crashes on locally owned roads to 

state road; HSIP funding is allocated based on 

the result.
7

Local Safety Program & Project Funding

Local road safety programs can be funded in a variety 

of ways including the HSIP; a portion of taxes (i.e. State 

Aid (gas tax), property taxes, and local transportation 

sales tax option); and local funds. States that allocate 

funds for local safety programs may set aside a specific 

amount (i.e. $ or % threshold). In some cases, this split 

is data driven based on the percent of fatalities and 

serious injuries on State versus local roads. In other 

cases, State and local projects compete against one 

another for the same funding. Another way to lessen 

the burden of accessing Federal funds by local agencies 

is to do a “funding swap” where State funds are used 

for local projects and the Federal funds are used for 

projects administered by the State.

EXAMPLES OF LOCAL SAFETY PROGRAM FUNDING APPROACHES

CALIFORNIA

California’s Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program

(SSARP) is funded with HSIP funds. HSIP funds are set 

aside and exchanged for State funds. The program 

works to help local agencies gather data, analyze and 

identify problems, and create a list of systemic low-cost 

proven safety countermeasures to use for 

HSIP applications.

INDIANA

Indiana’s Fiscal Policy states that one-third of Indiana’s 

HSIP funding is available to local public agencies for 

safety projects on local system roads. (Indiana Highway 

Safety Improvement Program 2018 Annual Report)

MINNESOTA

In Minnesota, 60 percent of HSIP funds are set aside for 

local safety projects as detailed on MnDOT’s 

HSIP webpage.

NEW YORK

New York State provides approximately half of its 

HSIP funds regionally; funds are distributed based on 

a formula involving crashes, population, and center 

lane miles. The regions work with the MPOs to select 

projects to include in the capital program, including 

both State and local roads. (New York Highway Safety 

Improvement Program 2018 Annual Report)

OHIO

ODOT allocates $12 million annually to the County 

Engineers Association of Ohio to make safety 

improvements on the county road network. Funds may 

be used for spot safety improvements and systematic 

safety improvements. 

TENNESSEE

Tennessee DOT’s Local Road Safety Initiative 

(LRSI) program distributes up to $300,000 in HSIP 

funds to each of its 83 counties for construction 

cost improvements. (Tennessee Highway Safety 

Improvement Program 2018 Annual Report)

WASHINGTON

70 percent of fatal and serious injury crashes occur on 

local roads, therefore WSDOT distributes 70 percent of 

its HSIP funding to local safety projects (Washington 

State DOT Highway Safety Improvement Program 

2017 Annual Report)
8

DISTRIBUTION OF 

PROGRAM FUNDS

Local road safety program funds are used to carry out 

safety projects on local roads. The funds are distributed 

in a number of ways, usually through some type of 

competitive application process. Several States (e.g., 

Alaska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont, 

EXAMPLES OF STATE APPROACHES FOR DISTRIBUTING LOCAL SAFETY FUNDS

ARIZONA

Arizona DOT determined that they would like to provide 

more local road safety funding than their 80/20 split 

between State/local projects. To address this issue, a 

mixed call for projects between State and local projects 

was conducted instead of its usual parallel but separate 

application process. After implementing this change, 

the project breakdown shifted to 30/60 State/local, 

increasing the amount of local road safety funding 

significantly. The remaining 10 percent is set aside for 

Emergency Statewide funds.

IDAHO

Idaho’s Local Highway Technical Assistance Council 

(LHTAC) works with the Idaho Transportation 

Department (ITD) to address HSIP funding for local 

safety projects. LHTAC provides a recommended list 

of projects to ITD. The funding split between ITD and 

LHTAC is based on the percentage of fatal/serious injury 

crashes on local roads. The current approved funding 

split for FY21 and FY22 is 50 percent. (2018 Idaho 

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Annual Report)

IOWA

Iowa DOT worked with the Iowa County Engineers 

Association to develop a county-focused highway safety 

program, HSIP-Secondary which awards $2 million in 

HSIP-SWAP funds (State funds) for safety projects on 

the county road system. The program encourages low 

cost, systemic improvements. The program is managed 

by the Safety Programs Engineer.

KANSAS

Kansas DOT’s Bureau of Local Projects created the 

Federal Fund Exchange to assist local agencies 

streamline the project development process on local 

roadways, including safety projects. The program 

provides local agencies the ability to exchange Federal 

funds to KDOT for State dollars. If the local agency 

chooses this option, KDOT agrees to accept the Federal 

funds and exchanges State funds at a rate determined 

by the Kansas Secretary of Transportation on an annual 

basis for every dollar of federal funds available to the 

local agency which saves time and money. Typically, the 

rate is 90 cents State funds for every dollar of 

Federal funds.

If a local agency participates in KDOT’s Federal Fund 

Exchange, they must meet one of the acceptable 

project scopes from a list of acceptable activities, follow 

their own procedures, and then submit a request for 

reimbursement as costs are incurred. The local agency 

is reimbursed for 100 percent of the billings up until the 

maximum amount of the exchange.

MICHIGAN

Michigan DOT distributes approximately $15,000,000 

each year to local roadway safety projects:

$1.5M for the streamlined systemic safety program 

described below, $6M for High Risk Rural Road projects, 

and $7.5M for HSIP projects. MDOT works with the 

County Road Association of Michigan and the Michigan 

Municipal League to distribute information regarding 

Michigan DOT’s Streamlined Systemic Safety Program

to their member agencies. The solicitation states: “Local 

Agencies may submit no more than three streamlined 

Virginia) distribute safety funding to locals by including 

local planning agencies (LPAs) in the State safety 

funding application processes using the same criteria 

as State-initiated projects. Other States (e.g., California, 

Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon) 

use a single application process with slightly different 

eligibility criteria for local applicants.
9

HSIP project applications for consideration including no 

more than two project applications for the same work 

type. Federal safety funds shall not exceed $200,000 

per streamlined HSIP project or a maximum amount of 

$2,000,000 per Local Agency (HSIP and HRRR combined) 

for the fiscal year.”

RHODE ISLAND

Rhode Island DOT created a pilot Local Safety Program 

to provide funds for locally initiated projects. The 

Rhode Island pilot includes $1,000,000 to be distributed 

annually to provide five municipalities with funding 

for local projects on a competitive basis. (2017 Rhode 

Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Annual Report)

LOCAL MATCH

In general, HSIP funds require a ten percent match for 

Federal funds used, except for certain safety projects 

covered under Title 23, Section 120 (c) (1) which are 

eligible at 100 percent. Local match requirement is 

sometimes provided by the local entities receiving 

funding, but in some cases it is waived and provided by 

the State to ease funding burdens on locals. 

Examples of States assisting with the funding the local 

match include:

• Louisiana: LTAP administers the Local Road Safety 

Program; Louisiana DOTD sets aside Section 154 and 

164 Penalty Transfer funds and HSIP funds to fully 

fund local safety projects.

• Virginia: Local safety projects received up to 20 

percent of Virginia’s HSIP funds; VDOT has been 

providing the State match to these safety projects for 

the past several years.(2018 Virginia Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Annual Report)

LOCAL SAFETY PROJECT 

FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligibility criteria for a local entity applying for safety 

funds may be identical to the requirements for State 

safety projects, or include special requirements. These 

requirements vary by State and can be derived from 

the existing safety funding policies, legal requirements 

for State distribution of funding to other entities, and 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE LIST 

OF CERTAIN SAFETY PROJECTS 

ELIGIBLE FOR 100% FEDERAL 

SHARE AS PER TITLE 23, SECTION 

120 (C) (1):

• Traffic control signalization

• Maintaining minimum levels of 

retroreflectivity of highway signs or 

pavement markings

• Traffic circles/roundabouts

• Safety rest areas

• Pavement marking

• Shoulder and centerline rumble strips 

and stripes

• Commuter carpooling and vanpooling

• Rail-highway crossing closure,

• Installation of traffic signs, traffic lights, 

guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete 

barrier end treatments, breakaway 

utility poles

• Priority control systems for emergency 

vehicles or transit vehicles at signalized 

intersections

other sources of guidance. The most basic criteria is to 

determine which entities are eligible to submit projects 

(e.g. MPOs, local governments, State DOT officials, 

regional DOT offices).

After making a decision on who may apply to the 

program, additional eligibility criteria may include any 

of the following stipulations:

• Locality must conduct financial analysis (benefit-cost 

analyses, custom tool per State) (e.g., Minnesota 

DOT, Caltrans, Michigan DOT, and New Jersey DOT)

• Regional coalition/MPO must approve project (e.g., 

Massachusetts DOT, New Jersey DOT, New York DOT)

• Project must not Include more than 10 percent of 

costs for acquisition of right-of-way; project must not 

require extensive environmental review 

(e.g., Caltrans)
10

• Locality must have a local road safety plan 

(e.g., Connecticut DOT and Washington State DOT)

• Entity can only apply three years in a row 

(e.g., Florida DOT)

• Project location must have high risk for safety issues 

(e.g., Massachusetts DOT)

• Locality must cover maintenance costs 

(e.g., Minnesota DOT)

• Agency must complete technical training course or 

complete analysis work with safety experts to submit 

application (e.g., Nebraska DOT)

• Project must align with priorities of State SHSP 

(e.g., Michigan DOT, Virginia DOT)

• The location’s calculated severe crash rate must 

equal or exceed the statewide average severe crash 

rate for similar facilities (e.g., Tennessee DOT)

• Application must estimate crash reduction potential 

of proposed improvement (e.g., Michigan DOT, 

Wisconsin DOT)

• Project must include/conduct a post-implementation 

evaluation (e.g., Utah DOT)
11

Project Delivery

Delivery of local road projects varies based on a 

number of factors including who is leading the effort 

(e.g., State versus local), the complexity and scope 

of the project, funding source, and if the project is 

being carried out by local, State, or contractor forces. 

Depending on the expertise, staffing, and resources 

of the local entity, and the structure of the local road 

safety program, projects may be implemented by the 

State, with help from the State, or entirely by the local 

agency. Local agencies seeking to complete a safety 

project are often subject to State-level requirements 

for delivering the project. These requirements can be 

simply aligned with State contracting requirements, 

or could contain additional stipulations on who may 

perform work. Local agencies that are able to choose 

their own contractor shift more responsibility to the 

local agency, and may require greater oversight by the 

State to monitor sub-contracting. States may require 

performance tracking or project evaluation, which can 

help to improve the selection of future projects and 

program administration.

EXAMPLES OF STATE APPROACHES TO PROJECT DELIVERY

ARIZONA

Arizona DOT’s Local Public Agency Projects 

Manual describes ADOT’s role in administering the 

construction of federally funded transportation 

projects, except in cases where LPAs are authorized 

to manage the construction phase or when projects 

are being administered by an LPA under an approved 

Certification Acceptance agreement.

ADOT is responsible for ensuring that LPAs are in 

compliance with all federal procurement requirements, 

for providing adequate inspection and supervision 

during, and for meeting FHWA closeout requirements.

KANSAS

If a local agency participates in KDOT’s Federal Fund 

Exchange, they must follow the State’s procedures to 

develop and administer the project, and then submit 

a request for reimbursement as costs are incurred. 

The local agency is reimbursed for 100 percent of the 

billings up until the maximum amount of the exchange.

KENTUCKY

Kentucky specifies additional requirements for 

construction through the standard State procurement 

process. All approved projects must be let through the 

KY Division of Construction Procurement, must address 

road safety audit findings, and conform to the State 

policies and guidelines.

OHIO

Ohio DOT’s Township Safety Sign Grant Program

provides up to $50,000 per township in safety sign 

materials (signs, posts and hardware) for townships 

meeting specific criteria. Townships then install the 

signs using local forces.

MINNESOTA

Minnesota has been successful with local agencies 

partnering together to bundle projects across multiple 

jurisdictions. This process involves counties working 

with the MnDOT District Office to combine similar 

projects (e.g. 6-inch wide edge stripes). An intercountry 

agreement is developed which identifies all counties 

involved; the lead agency works directly with MnDOT, 

the sub agencies, and the contractor. The sub agencies 

contact MnDOT Finance directly to apply for eligible 

State Aid matching funds. MnDOT has developed 

a project memo for local HSIP projects with minor 

impacts: Environmental Documentation for Federal 

Projects with Minor Impacts.
12

As detailed in Minnesota DOT Local Solicitation for 

HSIP Funds, the State requires that a municipality 

issue a contract for the completion of a project, 

sometimes requiring that they use only State 

pre-approved contractors.

An emerging approach to deliver low cost local safety 

projects is to use force accounts. FHWA Policy on 

Agency Force Account Use details the requirements 

for local project delivery by force account using HSIP 

funds. The benefits of the program include time and 

cost savings. This approach adds to the workload of 

the division or State DOT engineering and construction 

staff, but avoids the administrative burden of providing 

funds directly to municipalities.

PROJECT EVALUATION

Some States conduct project evaluations after 

implementation is complete. These evaluations may 

involve financial analysis, physical inspection of the 

site, or review of any other project aspect. Evaluation 

may also be conducted through examining safety data 

before and after an intervention.

EXAMPLES OF STATE APPROACHES TO EVALUATION

NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina DOT conducts before and after studies 

for every project. A package is sent to every division 

and/or local government 3 to 4 years post construction 

to determine the crash modification factor and if the 

crash pattern that was intended to reduce occurred. 

This information is used to show the benefits of and 

promote future projects for countermeasures that 

demonstrate success.

UTAH

Local projects funded by Utah DOT require project 

evaluation at three years post-construction. This period 

mirrors their application review of three years of crash 

data history, and allows for a systematic comparison 

of pre- and post-implementation incidents. Utah’s 

HSIP Manual describes a comprehensive approach 

to project evaluation that distinguishes between 

interventions achieved in a single spot or systemic 

safety improvements. For systemic improvements, the 

manual suggests evaluating progress using an entire 

stretch of roadway that was addressed in a project, 

or even evaluating on a statewide basis for broadly 

applied systemic improvements. Utah DOT then uses 

these metrics on project effectiveness in their reporting 

on the entire HSIP funding program.
13

EXAMPLES OF TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT

• Data analysis

• Training on maintenance and operations

• Local safety planning

• Funding applications

Outreach & Technical Support

Successful local road safety programs provide safety 

related outreach and technical support for local 

agencies. Proactively pursuing these activities helps 

to build relationships between State, regional, and 

local safety personnel, as well as create networks for 

information and training. The opportunities provided 

to locals through these efforts can make safety work 

more accessible, and build long-term capacity within 

local agencies. FHWA Office of Safety has developed 

specific outreach materials for communicating with 

local officials: Local Elected Officials: Leading the Way 

in Local Road Safety.

States often have programs or offices to accomplish 

outreach and technical support objectives, including 

Safety Circuit Rider (SCR) programs and Local 

Technical Assistance Programs (LTAPs). The programs 

or offices are often a first point of contact for locals 

reaching out to ask for funding or analysis assistance.

Some States have a dedicated outreach program 

coordinator, either within the State DOT office or at the 

division or regional level. These outreach positions help 

connect the DOT itself to local agencies, and can be 

particularly suited for long term relationship building. 

Outreach can be funded through a mixture of Federal 

and State funding.

EXAMPLES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS

CALIFORNIA

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance, in conjunction 

with the FHWA California Division Office, presented two 

webinars hosted by the California LTAP center to assist 

local agencies in preparing applications for HSIP funds. 

The website includes a number of valuable resources 

including examples of successful applications.

CONNECTICUT

Connecticut’s SCR program was established with 

a memorandum of understanding between the 

University of Connecticut, which houses the LTAP 

Center, and the Connecticut DOT. The SCR contacts 

local agencies throughout the State to promote safety 

solutions, coordinate and offer training to support 

their safety efforts, loan out equipment (such as retroreflective measuring tools, safety edge boots, and 

ball bank indicators) and provide support on how to 

use them, and provide technical assistance on safety 

issues. As a part of the SCR program, Connecticut has 

a Safety Advisory Committee consisting of local and 

State stakeholders and the safety circuit rider. The 

DOT encourages participation in the SCR program by 

drafting a letter to each municipality addressed to the 

Town’s Chief Elected Official and the designated Legal 

Traffic Authority that outlines the process and 

provides the safety circuit rider as the point of contact 

for assistance.

KENTUCKY

Kentucky’s SCR Program, housed in the University of 

Kentucky, works to identify and implement projects 

on local roads. Its overall focus is to provide technical 

assistance to all communities in Kentucky, however it 

also selects six counties annually with high crash rates 

for focused training on low-cost safety improvements. 

The counties are also provided with funds for signage 

upgrades. In addition, Kentucky’s SCR program provides 

a one day training course at selected areas throughout 

the Commonwealth. The course is designed to provide 

communities with effective approaches to mainstream 

safety into daily maintenance activities and project 

development process.
14

IDAHO

Idaho’s Local Highway Technical Assistance Council

(LHTAC) is a DOT partner responsible for outreach, 

technical assistance, project development, and 

funding. Often, States task partners (such as third 

party LTAP providers, MPOs or regional councils) with 

some of the same responsibilities discussed for DOT 

districts, including proposal development, review and 

implementation support.

ILLINOIS

Illinois DOT hosts in-person training and a webinar to 

provide local agencies with technical assistance on 

how to fill out the safety project funding application. 

The webinar provides direction on the application 

process and the timeline, as well as contact information 

for assistance.

LOUISIANA

Louisiana’s LTAP program operates in conjunction 

with Louisiana State University. The LTAP program 

puts emphasis on innovative solutions, training, and 

funding opportunities for locals. In addition, it produces 

a quarterly newsletter to provide local agencies with 

current training opportunities and other educational 

opportunities. The Louisiana LTAP program also 

completes data analysis in tandem with the local 

agencies to help them identify hot spots and systemic 

issues within their parish. Louisiana uses HSIP funding 

for a safety coordinator position at each of the regional 

safety coalitions, providing specialized support in 

safety analysis, funding application and safety planning 

for local roads and an LRSP manager. LA DOTD also 

employs an LRSP manager.

MICHIGAN

Michigan DOT’s Local Safety Initiative provides local 

agencies directly with a crash analysis of the entire local 

system, works jointly in the field with local officials to 

assess potential risks, and provides recommendations 

for improvements.

OHIO

Ohio’s Highway Safety Improvement Program works 

with MPOs, the County Engineers Association, and the 

LTAP to offer free technical and funding assistance 

for a variety of initiatives including upgrading signal 

timing at high crash intersections and systemic safety 

improvements such as curve sign upgrades, cable 

median barriers, and reflective back plates on traffic 

signals. In addition, ODOT works with the LTAP and 

Ohio county engineers to conduct roadway safety 

audits; recommendations for improvements are funded 

through ODOT’s HSIP. ODOT’s local safety program 

added a dedicated manager in 2018 - Local Safety and 

Active Transportation Manager.
15

More Information

Addressing local road safety is critical to achieving our 

vision of zero fatalities on the nation’s roads. More 

States are partnering with local agencies to improve 

safety on all public roads. This guide presents a 

framework for States looking to develop or update their 

local road safety programs or policies.

In addition to the references and examples provided 

throughout this guide, there are a number of other 

resources available to support local road safety efforts:

RESOURCE TITLE URL DESCRIPTION

Roadway Safety 

Noteworthy Practices 

Database

https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.

dot.gov/noteworthy/

default.aspx

A database of data- driven practices to address 

roadway safety planning, implementation, and 

evaluation challenges.

Local and Rural Road 

Safety Program

https://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/local_rural/

List of resources designed to provide information 

to agencies to assist in preventing and reducing the 

severity of crashes on local and rural roads.

Proven Safety 

Countermeasures

https://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/

provencountermeasures/

Treatments and strategies to address roadway 

departure, intersection, pedestrian and bicycle crashes.

National LTAP and TTAP 

Association

http://www.nltapa.org/ Contact information and resources for addressing local 

road safety.

The Roadway Safety 

Foundation: Roadway 

Safety Guide – A Primer 

for Community Leaders

https://www.edigitaleditions.com/

i/418038-roadway- safetyguide/0?m4=

The Guide to provide elected officials, community 

leaders, and citizens with the tools to engage with 

engineers, law enforcement, and safety professionals 

to address roadway safety.

Technical Assistance is also available through the FHWA 

Office of Safety at: https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

technical.aspx. Assistance is free for State and local 

agencies and is delivered according to an agency’s 

needs, including:

• Referral to an experienced peer or technical expert.

• Onsite assistance from an experienced peer or 

technical expert.

• Training workshop led by an experienced peer or 

technical expert.

• Facilitated peer exchange conducted onsite or by 

web conference.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, 

PLEASE CONTACT

Karen Surry, 

FHWA Office of Safety HSIP Program Manager 

Karen.Scurry@dot.gov

202-897-7168

Rosemarie Anderson, 

FHWA Office of Safety Local and Rural Roads 

Program Manager 

Rosemarie.Anderson@dot.gov

202-366-5007

FHWA-SA-20-003