Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or use thereof. 

The U.S. Government is not endorsing any manufacturers, 

products, or services cited herein and any trade name that may 

appear in the work has been included only because it is essential to 

the contents of the work.

Quality Assurance Statement

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

in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and 

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

utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews 

quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes for 

continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-16-002

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Synthesis of Local Road Safety Noteworthy Practices

5. Report Date

November 2015

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Danena Gaines, Ph.D., Amy Cavaretta

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00020-T-14003

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Technical Report

April 2012 to October 2015

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

This synthesis report summarizes noteworthy practices and lessons learned from pertinent local road safety 

meetings and reports. Material is drawn from the Local Roads Safety Peer Exchanges held by FHWA in 2012 and 

2013, follow-up virtual peer exchanges conducted in 2014 and 2015, and two reports prepared from 2010 to 2013. 

The reports include Assessment of Local Road Safety, Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance and 

Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally Owned and Maintained Roads—A Domestic Scan. To better 

understand the strategies States use to advance local road safety, this report synthesizes the information from 

these sources in a single document. The target audiences for this report include State Departments of 

Transportation (DOT), metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), county and city planners, engineers, and public 

works officials.

17. Key Words

Local road safety, off-system safety, local 

technical assistance program (LTAP), local safety 

peer exchange

18. Distribution Statement 

No Restrictions

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

36

19. Security 

Classif. (of this 

report)

Unclassified

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

 

i 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction and Overview ................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Challenges ....................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Report Organization ...................................................................................... 2

2.0 Data and Analysis .................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................. 3

2.3 Noteworthy Practices .................................................................................... 4

3.0 Strategic Highway Safety Plan Involvement.................................................... 9

3.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................... 10

3.3 Noteworthy Practices .................................................................................. 11

4.0 Highway Safety Improvement Program .......................................................... 17

4.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................... 18

4.3 Noteworthy Practices .................................................................................. 18

5.0 Partnerships and Collaboration ........................................................................ 23

5.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 23

5.2 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................... 23

5.3 Noteworthy Practices .................................................................................. 24

6.0 Summary ............................................................................................................... 25

6.1 Data and Analysis ........................................................................................ 25

6.2 SHSP Involvement ....................................................................................... 25

6.3 Highway Safety Improvement Program .................................................. 26

6.4 Partnerships and Collaboration ................................................................. 26

 

iii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Summary of Data and Analysis Noteworthy Practices ......................... 3

Table 2.2 Previously Documented Data and Analysis Practices ........................... 8

Table 3.1 Summary of SHSP Involvement Noteworthy Practices ...................... 10

Table 4.1 Summary of HSIP Noteworthy Practices .............................................. 17

Table 4.2 Previously Documented HSIP Practices ................................................ 21

Table 5.1 Summary of Partnerships and Collaboration Noteworthy 

Practices ...................................................................................................... 23

1 

1.0 Introduction and Overview

1.1 PURPOSE

This synthesis report summarizes noteworthy practices and lessons learned from

pertinent local road safety meetings and reports. Material is drawn from the Local 

Roads Safety Peer Exchanges held by FHWA in 2012 and 2013, follow-up virtual 

peer exchanges conducted in 2014 and 2015, and two reports prepared from 2010 

to 2013. The reports include Assessment of Local Road Safety, Funding, Training, and 

Technical Assistance and Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally Owned and 

Maintained Roads—A Domestic Scan. 

To better understand the strategies States use 

to advance local road safety, this report 

synthesizes the information from these sources 

in a single document. The target audiences for 

this report include State Departments of 

Transportation (DOT), metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO), county and city 

planners, engineers, and public works officials.

A local roadway is defined as a 

road off the State system, and 

owned and maintained by an 

agency other than a State DOT 

(i.e., city or county road).

State DOTs, MPOs, and local agencies are looking for new strategies to address 

local traffic safety issues. These agencies also are looking for innovative ways to 

streamline the process to identify and implement local road safety improvements.

1.2 CHALLENGES

Even when the importance of local road safety is recognized, State DOTs and local 

agencies face many challenges identifying, prioritizing, administering, and 

implementing safety improvement projects on local roadways. The Local Road 

Safety Peer Exchanges and recent reports have documented these challenges in 

detail. Typical challenges include:

• Limited State funds and resources to provide training, technical assistance,

and administrative support;

• Competing interests and priorities for State-maintained roadways and other

local transportation and planning issues;

• Lack of data or data analysis skills to meet crash data analysis requirements;

• Low crash rates and fatalities distributed over a vast local road network;

• Difficulty securing matching funds required to participate in Federal-aid

programs; and

• Lack of staff or expertise needed to apply for safety funds.
2

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report focuses on summarizing lessons learned and highlighting noteworthy 

practices in local road safety in four categories:

• Data and Analysis;

• Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Involvement; 

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); and

• Partnerships and Collaboration.

Practices were deemed noteworthy if they improved collaboration, created new 

partnerships, reduced project costs or staff time, or increased project 

implementation efficiencies. Relevant noteworthy practices or case studies 

summarized in previous reports are referenced at the end of each section. 
 

3 

2.0 Data and Analysis

2.1 OVERVIEW

Data and analysis are essential parts of the local road safety process, and are used 

for identifying locations with potential for safety improvement or crash types to 

address with systemic improvements. However, the collection and analysis of 

appropriate safety data can pose challenges for localities, who may lack the 

necessary data infrastructure, analytical skills, and/or staff resources or agency 

relationships with which to analyze the information. This section highlights 

lessons learned and noteworthy practices in the categories of local road safety data 

collection, access, and analysis. Many States have developed user-friendly online 

tools, mapping systems, and systemic procedures for collaboration with other 

agencies. Table 2.1 summarizes noteworthy practices addressed in this section.

Table 2.1 Summary of Data and Analysis Noteworthy Practices

Category Noteworthy Practice

Data Collection • Coordinate data collection and format across all State and localities.

• Promote the use of electronic applications for crash reporting.

Data Access • Provide statewide crash databases, with Web-based viewing and specific 

report access for local agencies.

Data Analysis and Tools • Combine crash data with other roadway characteristic databases, such as 

bridge or asset management databases.

• Provide training to localities and guidance on the best processes, tools, and 

analysis methods for the State.

• Promote the use of Roadway Safety Audits (RSA) in addition to crash data 

collection and analyses.

2.2 LESSONS LEARNED

States are making significant changes to safety data management systems as 

Federal transportation legislation requires safety performance to be managed on 

all public roads. In any given State, a number of law enforcement agencies are 

responsible for collecting information on crashes occurring on local roadways.

Most States have implemented electronic crash reporting processes in the last five 

to eight years; therefore, more local crashes are being included in statewide crash 

databases. However, until the crash report is submitted to the State agency 

responsible for the data repository, the information is not readily available to 

planners and engineers.
4

Due to a number of factors, agencies can encounter challenges with the 

completeness and accuracy of their crash data. In the 2012 Assessment of Local 

Road Safety Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance report, around 

29 percent of the participating agencies (11 States) cited completeness and 

accuracy of crash data as a challenge, and 15 percent (6 States) were challenged by 

a lack of proven data analysis techniques. 

Practices and specific activities of State DOTs across the country may differ 

significantly when it comes to data management for local road safety, but several 

lessons can be learned from State experiences shared at the peer exchanges:

• State DOTs, MPOs, and localities should clearly define their role and 

responsibilities in the local road safety data process; 

• Consistently agreed upon data formats are crucial to partnerships between

agencies for the purposes of data collaboration; 

• Agencies can take steps to streamline their data collection and presentation 

through partnerships with private technology vendors or tools;

• State DOTs with statewide crash databases often have the most streamlined 

and accessible systems of data access for their localities; 

• States should consider combining their local road safety data with other 

statewide data management systems for ease of access; and 

• If not done so already, State DOTs should incorporate geographic mapping 

tools in their data analysis process to further analyze crash data, spatial 

locations, and roadway characteristics. 

2.3 NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

Data collection and analysis practices are continually evolving as States identify 

opportunities to streamline data collection and develop comprehensive analysis 

tools. This section summarizes the practices identified during the peer exchanges. 

Data Collection 

Strategies to improve data collection include coordinating data collection and 

consistency across a State and promoting the use of electronic applications for 

crash reporting. To promote consistency and timeliness of reporting, several DOTs 

and local agencies have streamlined their data reporting by developing or using 

their own mobile applications for phones, tablets, or computers that allow officers 

to record field data electronically—reducing the time burden of data collection and 

improving data consistency. Strategies in this area include: 

• Washington State DOT (WSDOT) is working to resolve crash data 

inconsistencies on local roads by collecting latitude and longitude coordinate 

data, which eliminates data challenges caused by nonstandard naming 

conventions. WSDOT manages all data collection and reporting for the State 
 

5 

through the MOBILITY database that imports crash data, traffic volumes, 

functional classification, and other roadway attributes. 

• Iowa DOT implemented a program to collect roadway features, structures, and 

crash data on all public roads. Data collected includes roadway features 

(horizontal/vertical curves, intersection data, pavement conditions, traffic 

control devices, drainage structures, right-of-way limits) on State and local 

roads, and large structures (bridges). Crash data for all local roads is available

to the public. Local agencies have access to the crash and roadway feature data 

for use in the project identification process. 

• The Alabama State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) 

recently developed an agreement with the University of Alabama’s Center for 

Advanced Public Safety (CAPS) to implement the eCrash electronic crash form 

to improve the accessibility and ease of use for crash reporting on local roads. 

The project involved first converting the location of all crashes on local roads 

from the link/node location format to latitude and longitude coordinates. This 

change permits the introduction of a mapping platform within the 

investigating officer’s vehicle that works in unison with the eCrash platform

(http://care.cs.ua.edu/eCrash.aspx). 

• Colorado DOT (CDOT) has worked with the Statewide Traffic Records 

Advisory Committee in Colorado to identify strategies, such as creating an 

online reporting or data exchange tool, to streamline data collection processes 

and make data more accessible. In the past several years, CDOT has improved 

crash data availability lags from four years to four months. CDOT has an effort 

underway to geolocate crashes on all public roads going back five years. 

• In Montana, crash reports on the State system are filed electronically, but local 

agencies submit paper copies. The Montana Highway Patrol is rolling out a 

Web-based reporting system, called SmartCop, to allow for greater ease of data 

access. The State will require that the eight largest cities and seven Tribes in 

Montana use this new crash reporting system for consistency and access. 

• New Hampshire’s Nashua Regional Planning Council has taken steps to 

reduce the time delay for crash data collection using Google alerts to manually 

input crash information into their databases (Google alerts allow you to receive 

email notifications any time Google finds new results on a topic that interests 

you). This process allows the agency to use news stories on fatal or serious 

crashes to identify crashes in the area, and follow up with local agencies for 

additional information.

Data Access 

Crash data collected by State and local law enforcement agencies are typically 

submitted to a statewide crash database maintained by the State DOT or another 

agency designated as the data repository. Agency partners and stakeholders may 

be allowed varying degrees of access to the data based on State legislation and 

agency policies and procedures.
6

In States where all crash data is housed in a statewide agency database, local 

agencies may have to submit official requests to access specific records for their 

purposes. To address the time and labor involved in selective requests, more State 

agencies now provide Web-based access to State crash databases. A majority of the 

databases have query tools, which have been successful in improving data access 

for local agencies.

• Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) operates the WisTransPortal System, providing a 

complete database of reported Wisconsin traffic crash data from 1994 to the 

current year. WisDOT maintains the database, allowing crash data access to 

the database to local agencies and the general public, and access to crash 

reports for government agencies and consultants working on WisDOT projects 

through online inquiries.

• Iowa DOT has a suite of crash data analysis tools available for cities and 

counties. The Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (CMAT) is an easy to use crash 

data software package that includes crash maps, summary reports, and details 

for individual crashes. The Safety Analysis, Visualization, and Exploration 

Resource (SAVER) is a fully functional geographic information system (GIS) 

crash data resource that includes crash maps, collision diagrams, summary 

reports, and individual crash details. 

• Plan4Safety is a decision-support tool created for the New Jersey DOT 

(NJDOT) and is a multilayered decision-support program for transportation 

engineers, planners, enforcement, and decision-makers in New Jersey's 

transportation and safety agencies to analyze crash data in geospatial and 

tabular forms. Plan4Safety integrates statewide crash data and roadway 

characteristic data, calculates statistical analyses, incorporates network 

screening layers and models, and includes visual analytical tools (GIS). 

Data Analysis and Tools 

State DOTs use a variety of strategies to leverage their data to analyze safety trends 

and identify potential locations for improvement. The programs, tools, and 

analysis methods used to support local road safety are similar to the efforts for all 

public roads; however, many of these tools have been available for use on Statemaintained roadways for many years. States have made access to and tools for 

local road safety data analysis available in more recent years. Common strategies 

used include software data tools, Web-based tools, GIS or geographic mapping 

tools, and training. 

Geographic Mapping Tools 

With the advent of relatively simple geographic mapping tools, new analysis 

methods and tools have been developed for safety and crash data. As a result, most 

agencies now incorporate geographic mapping tools in their data analysis process. 

In efforts to provide increased data access to local agencies and the general public, 

a handful of States have had success in providing access to local crash data using 
 

7 

online map-based GIS platforms, rather than providing data only by direct contact 

such as email inquiries. 

• As a result of the University of California’s Transportation Injury Mapping 

System (TIMS) Web tool, California has seen increased accuracy of average 

HSIP benefit/cost ratios, increased HSIP funding for bicycle and pedestrian 

projects, and increased HSIP funding for projects. TIMS has several Web-based 

tools, including a California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System 

(SWITRS) query and map, an SWITRS GIS map, an SHSP data viewer, a Safe 

Routes to School Collision map viewer, Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) visualizations, a Benefit/Cost calculator, and a Motorcycle Collision 

Map viewer.

Data Analysis Tools that Incorporate Other Roadway Characteristics 

In addition to using mapping tools, several tools not only map crash locations, but 

also evaluate the crash in combination with other factors or databases, such as 

roadway characteristic databases. 

• Michigan DOT (MDOT) developed a Web-based tool called RoadSoft, an asset 

management system for collecting, storing, and analyzing transportation data, 

particularly for crash data. Since that time, RoadSoft has expanded its 

capabilities to include a wide range of data in addition to crash data, including 

bridges, intersections, pavement markings, signs, and traffic counts. RoadSoft 

is available to localities at no cost. More than 400 road agencies and consultants 

use RoadSoft. 

• WSDOT manages all data collection and reporting for the State through the 

MOBILITY database that imports crash data, traffic volumes, functional 

classification, and other roadways attributes. 

• The Rutgers Transportation Safety Resource Center uses Web-based-only 

crash data tool that gives users the ability to filter by roadway elements. The 

Plan4Safety Tool is tied to the New Jersey DOT road inventory database; and 

within the tool, some of the MPOs also have provided mobile applications. For 

instance, the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO), 

developed the “Mapper Mobile,” a mobile application that allows for users to 

map crash locations.

Staff Training and Technical Assistance 

To avoid inconsistencies, many State agencies have taken the lead on providing 

specific crash data analysis training and/or technical assistance to their regional 

and local agencies. States are promoting the use of tools and analysis of crash data 

by providing staff training to local agencies. 
8

• A goal of the Local Roads Safety section of the Kansas SHSP is to provide 

increased training and technical assistance for localities. Kansas Local 

Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) is developing a course for local agencies 

on accessing and using crash and roadway data. A focus of the course is on 

how to use data analysis to apply for funding for improvements.

Other Documented Practices 

Table 2.2 shows additional local roads safety data and analysis noteworthy 

practices documented in recent publications.

Table 2.2 Previously Documented Data and Analysis Practices

Agency Noteworthy Practice Publication

Ohio DOT Crash Mapping Tool (GCAT)—Crash 

data and analysis portal providing global 

access to local agencies

Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 

University of California Transportation Injury Mapping System—

Benefit/cost analysis tool for proposed 

projects

Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 

Ohio LTAP GCAT and CAM Tool Training—Data 

and analysis tools training for local 

agencies

Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 

Louisiana DOT and 

Development and 

LTAP

Louisiana Local Road Safety Program—

Comprehensive assistance to help local 

agencies solve local road safety issues

Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 

Tennessee DOT Road Safety Audit (RSA) Training—

Local road safety program trains local 

agencies and counties on RSAs

Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 

California DOT 

(Caltrans)

Local Roadway Safety Manual—

Comprehensive guide for local agencies 

to develop HSIP project applications

Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 
 

9 

3.0 Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

Involvement

3.1 OVERVIEW

A Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a major component and requirement 

of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) (23 U.S.C. § 148). It is a 

statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for 

reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. An SHSP 

identifies a State’s key safety needs and guides investment decisions towards 

strategies and countermeasure with the most potential to save lives and prevent 

injuries.

An SHSP is developed by the State Department of Transportation in a cooperative 

process with local, State, Federal, Tribal, and private-sector safety stakeholders. It 

is a data-driven, multiyear comprehensive plan that establishes statewide goals, 

objectives, and key emphasis areas and integrates the 4 Es of highway safety—

engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services (EMS). 

Since the inception of SHSPs, many States have seen decreases in fatalities on the 

State system, but a disproportionate number of fatalities and serious injuries 

continue to occur on locally owned and maintained roadways. As many States 

adopt a “Towards Zero Death” or zero-based fatality goals, engaging local 

agencies in the SHSP has become a critical component of the SHSP implementation 

process. 

When local agencies are involved and engaged in the SHSP, safety strategies can 

be coordinated and implemented across jurisdictions and on roadways off the 

State system. Getting and keeping local agency representatives engaged in the 

process may be challenging due to travel restrictions, location and proximity of 

locals to statewide meetings, and staff availability. 

Table 3.1 summarizes the noteworthy practices States use to involve locals in the 

SHSP.
10

Table 3.1 Summary of SHSP Involvement Noteworthy Practices

Category Noteworthy Practice

Local Agency Participation • Encourage locals to participate in the planning process

• Find ways to accommodate local participation because of the large 

number of local agencies

• Recognize locals may have different priorities than Statewide priorities

• Engage emergency services personnel

• Engage MPOs and LTAP/TTAPs

SHSP Strategies to 

encourage the development 

of local road safety plans and 

incorporate local road safety 

issues 

• Incorporate local road safety strategies in SHSP

• Develop regional safety action plans and action planning committees

• Open meetings up to other partnering agencies

• Keep SHSP language deliberately broad to facilitate local participation

3.2 LESSONS LEARNED

States participating in the local road safety peer exchanges agreed that to engage 

locals in the SHSP planning process, incentives must be provided, benefits of 

participation must be highlighted, local safety priorities must be on the table for 

discussion, and local safety strategies must be incorporated into the SHSP to 

encourage participation. 

The vast number of local agencies in any given State makes it a challenge to 

accommodate local participation from every jurisdiction in the SHSP. Many States 

have found it more manageable to engage the association of county engineers or a 

municipal association, which allows multiple local agencies to be represented by 

a single person. Another option is to engage MPOs and rural planning 

organizations (RPO), which have close working relationships with many local 

agencies within their boundaries. LTAP also can represent local concerns and 

provide contacts at local agencies.

Addressing local road safety issues in an SHSP requires paying close attention to 

the safety priorities of local agencies and finding opportunities to pair local 

priorities with the statewide initiatives or emphasis areas. This can be achieved 

through the development of local road safety plans. States have identified 

strategies to encourage local agency participation in SHSP committees and 

meetings, and many have developed specific opportunities for locals to identify 

safety priorities and suggest solutions. 
11

3.3 NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

SHSPs bring a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders together to address traffic 

safety using a comprehensive approach. The following practices were identified 

as methods to engage local agencies in the SHSP and incorporate local road safety 

strategies. 

Local Agency Participation 

During the peer exchanges, States discussed various strategies used to encourage 

local agency participation in SHSP committee, emphasis area, and planning 

meetings.

The SHSP provides a framework for safety 

programs and projects, but the committees 

responsible for implementing the plan provide 

the conduit for improvements at the State and 

local levels. States are able to implement more local safety improvements when 

local practitioners are involved and active in the SHSP process. 

Conduct local agency outreach 

to identify priority issues.

• In Idaho, three-quarters of the emphasis area committees is chaired by local

agency practitioners. Of those from a local agency, one-third is law

enforcement officers and one-quarter is from various special interest groups,

such as the motorcycle rider training group, one local highway agency, and a

local EMS representative.

• The Washington State SHSP update and implementation process includes both

local agencies and Tribes by including local representatives on the Steering

Committee and project team, and by convening local safety task forces.

• The Nevada SHSP is led by the Nevada Executive Committee on Traffic Safety

(NECTS). This committee comprises directors of the State agencies, federal

agencies, and the regional transportation commissions (RTC). Local agencies

also are heavily involved at all levels of the SHSP as members of the Critical

Emphasis Area (CEA) Teams and the Technical Working Group, which reports

to the NECTS. There has been major involvement from local agencies at all

levels and from the conception of the State’s SHSP. Each CEA team discusses

issues relevant to the team, so local issues are brought to the table for

discussion and proposed mitigations.

States are taking the SHSP process on the road 

instead of expecting local agency practitioners 

to come to meetings held at or near the DOT. 

Local practitioners are more likely to become 

involved in the SHSP if the process includes 

meetings in or near their jurisdictions.

Recruit local agency 

practitioners for positions on 

SHSP committees or as 

leaders for emphasis 

area teams.
12

• A primary goal of the Wisconsin SHSP is to fully incorporate local involvement 

throughout the process. For the 2011 SHSP update, an open survey targeting 

the safety community (i.e., county, city, regional agencies, and advocacy 

groups) formed the foundation to identify 10 priority issue areas for emphasis 

in the final SHSP. This foundation was strengthened through an invitationonly peer exchange consisting of a variety of leaders in the safety community. 

Local agencies participated in the peer exchange and provided perspective on 

local safety priorities. The survey and peer exchange ultimately informed the 

WisDOT Traffic Safety Council, an interdepartmental committee of safetyoriented WisDOT staff and management, about what priority issue areas to 

include in the final SHSP. Locally focused emphasis areas and strategies within 

the SHSP include the improvement of HSIP effectiveness through outreach, 

education, and training; the encouragement of high-visibility enforcement 

initiatives; the continuous improvement of data efforts; and the 

implementation of a robust High-Risk Rural Roads process. 

• Colorado DOT recently completed a 10-month SHSP update process. A goal of 

the update was to increase local participation in SHSP, specifically from 

jurisdictions represented by MPOs and nonurban transportation planning 

regions (TPR). To achieve this, CDOT held six outreach meetings across the 

State and an All-State webinar. Approximately 250 people attended the 

meetings.

• In Virginia, the recent SHSP revision process was successful in incorporating 

participation from MPOs, local traffic safety staff, police and fire departments, 

and nonprofit groups. During the update, Virginia DOT solicited local 

agencies for ideas, many which were incorporated into regional and statewide 

plans. This degree of local participation was largely the result of five regional 

SHSP meetings hosted by VDOT. VDOT has worked to increase local 

involvement in its SHSP by having district traffic staff contact local 

counterparts to invite them to attend meetings, and advertising SHSP meetings 

in VDOT Planning email and newsletters to MPOs. Local stakeholders also 

were recruited to join emphasis area (EA) teams crafting strategies and actions 

for each EA.

• Nevada DOT uses Road Show meetings to connect with local jurisdictions 

every other year. At the meetings, the NDOT and Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) 

discuss the current SHSP, current issues, and changes they would like to see 

in the future. A statewide Safety Summit is held in the years NDOT is not 

conducting road shows to discuss future safety topics with State and local 

practitioners. 

• The Washington DOT SHSP Steering Committee, which is the main decision

making body in their SHSP update process, takes in feedback from local 

partners through a bottom-up approach. Staff visits different geographic areas 

of Washington to prioritize SHSP emphasis areas according to local needs. For 

example, in Walla Walla County, commercial motor vehicles are a Priority One 
 

13

emphasis area, even though they constitute a Priority Three emphasis in the 

SHSP.

• Alaska DOT and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) has strong local participation in 

the development and implementation of their SHSP, including 13 government 

entities and more than 100 local agencies and Tribal communities. However, 

many remote communities are not able to be involved in any portion of the 

SHSP process. To address this problem, Alaska has set up meetings in different 

areas of the State, which allows more participants to be involved in SHSP 

development and gives others in the State an opportunity to be heard. 

• Kansas formed a Local Road Safety Support Team, including representatives 

from the 4 Es to develop and implement an updated SHSP. The Local Road 

Safety Support Team is working to form local safety coalitions modeled after 

the Destination Safe Coalition, a partnership between local agencies involved 

in improving transportation system safety. Kansas’ updated SHSP includes 

local roadway safety statistics and specific activities and tools to address 

crashes on the local system. KDOT revamped its High-Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) to expand the types of improvements eligible for funding. 

The Data Support Team to the SHSP is working to improve the accessibility, 

accuracy, and completeness of local roads data. 

Often times a representative from a local 

agency association or organization can serve as 

a committee or emphasis area team member 

for the SHSP and provide perspective on their 

membership’s priorities and challenges. 

Engage associations or 

organizations representing 

multiple local agencies.

• Upon completion of the Connecticut SHSP, the LTAP became involved in the 

implementation workgroups for different focus areas. Connecticut LTAP is 

working with the DOT to find ways to assist local jurisdictions with RSAs, data 

analysis, and local outreach. The DOT and LTAP also have implemented a 

Safety Circuit Rider (SCR) program designed to provide safety-related 

information, training, and support to the many agencies responsible for local 

road safety in Connecticut. Since the inception of the program, the DOT has 

conducted more than 60 no-cost training sessions at local agencies. The LTAP 

also is working with the Connecticut Safety Research Center to develop Webbased tools for mapping and crash data analysis on local roads. 

• The Virginia SHSP Steering Committee included an MPO, the Police 

Association, and State agencies who work with first responders and healthcare 

providers. These agencies were able to represent statewide, regional, and local 

priorities. The SHSP update process also included several outreach workshops 

around the State. Nearly 130 safety stakeholders attended the five regional 

events and offered their views on State and local traffic safety issues in 

Virginia.
14

• Ohio DOT leverages its strong relationship with the County Engineers 

Association of Ohio (CEAO) and invites CEAO to its quarterly committee 

meetings to discuss crash trends and possible strategies. ODOT’s top emphasis 

area in the SHSP—improving data access and quality—intentionally applies to 

all public roads in Ohio rather than just the State-owned roadway system.

SHSP Strategies to Address Local Road Safety 

Some States see improving local road safety as 

a key strategy to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries. States can address this priority by 

including specific local road goals and 

strategies in the SHSP, or by developing a 

regional SHSP implementation process. 

Develop local road safety 

SHSP emphasis areas 

and/or strategies.

Local road safety can be addressed as an emphasis area in the SHSP or emphasis 

areas may include relevant local roads strategies. 

• The Kansas SHSP includes a Local Roads Safety emphasis area. The six goals 

for the emphasis area include: 1) make access to Federal and State safety 

dollars for roads and streets less cumbersome for local agencies by identifying 

and acting on opportunities to improve efficiencies; 2) maximize benefit from 

available funds by tying funding to the greatest needs, as indicated by crash 

data and crash research; 3) improve local public authority (LPA) access to 

crash data; 4) promote multidisciplinary collaboration and cooperation on 

safety at local and regional levels to reduce crashes on the local system; 5) train 

and otherwise assist LPAs in developing safety programs and identifying lowcost strategies; and 6) emphasize to the law enforcement community the 

important role of law enforcement to improve safety on local roads.

• Two-thirds of fatal and serious injury crashes in Washington State occurs on 

local roads. Therefore, local issues significantly drive the State’s priorities. 

Local data was analyzed to identify priority emphasis areas for key local 

jurisdictions versus the statewide plan’s emphasis areas. The Target Zero 

SHSP Program also has designated Target Zero Managers in each county. The 

Target Zero Managers guide a local task force represented ideally by 

engineering, enforcement, education, and EMS, as well as other community 

agencies and organizations with an interest in traffic safety. The task forces 

coordinate traffic safety local efforts and resources at the local level by tracking 

data, trends, and issues in their area. They provide a variety of programs, 

services, and public outreach throughout their communities by working with 

local partners. 
 

15

Regionally focused implementation plans 

and/or committees provide the 

opportunity for local stakeholders to 

customize the State’s safety priorities to 

meet their region’s needs and priorities. The regional implementation 

approach also ensures the statewide SHSP is implemented across the State. 

Develop regional safety action 

plans and regional committees.

• Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) develops Community 

Transportation Safety Plans (CTSP) in collaboration with local and Tribal

governments and outlines a program to provide technical and financial 

assistance to local communities. The goal of the CTSP is to identify 

partnerships, prioritize projects, and develop educational and programmatic 

strategies to implement and monitor safety assistance to local communities.

• Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) staffs the Regional 

Safety Task Force (RSTF), which meets quarterly and guides the development 

of the Transportation Safety Action Plan. The Transportation Safety Action 

Plan began with an analysis of the 22 emphasis areas identified in the National 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan. For each emphasis area, the plan explains the 

national and regional context, identifies existing programs in the region, 

recommends strategies and actions, and lists resources available on the topic. 

Each meeting of the RSTF is focused on one emphasis area and includes 

refining a set of actions and reporting back on progress.

• Missouri started a county SHSP process in 2013. To implement the county road 

safety planning process, MDOT worked with the Mid-America Regional 

Council (MARC) to organize the planning meetings. Since approximately twothirds of the costs associated with crashes is associated with behavioral factors, 

the local safety plans identify enforcement strategies on local corridors and 

target National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) funds for 

implementation. 

 

17

4.0 Highway Safety Improvement 

Program

4.1 OVERVIEW

Local road safety projects may receive funding and support through the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The goal of the 

program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries 

on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on Tribal

lands. HSIP, by legislation, requires “a data-driven, strategic approach to 

improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance” 

(FHWA. 2015. HSIP Factsheet. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/

hsip.cfm). Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) allows HSIP 

funds to be used on projects that are consistent with the SHSP and correct or 

improve a “hazardous road location and feature, or addresses a highway safety 

problem.” There are many ways that HSIP funds can be used to benefit local road 

safety, both by State DOTs and local agencies. This section highlights noteworthy 

practices agencies use to support their local road safety projects and safety 

initiatives using HSIP. Table 4.1 summarizes noteworthy practices addressed in 

this section. 

Table 4.1 Summary of HSIP Noteworthy Practices

Category Noteworthy Practice

HSIP Administration • Involve local agencies in the program process and develop new 

ways to distribute HSIP information

• Encourage MPOs and council of governments (COG) to apply for 

State HSIP funds

• Develop locally focused guidance documents

• Improve local safety assistance

• Cross reference HSIP project list with STIP

Allocation of HSIP Funds to 

Localities

• Provide local program staff for HSIP fund delegation

• Use RSAs as a basis for project applications

• Encourage the use of systemic treatments for HSIP funds

Project Identification • Provide project identification processes or guidance

• Use RSAs to determine site specific safety issues

• Develop RSA guidance documents

• Use systemic analysis to identify/prioritize projects
18

4.2 LESSONS LEARNED

The following are a few themes and lessons learned emerged from the peer 

exchanges and reports in terms of how States apply for, administer, and allocate 

their HSIP funding for local road safety projects: 

• Many local agencies need information and assistance to apply for HSIP 

projects; 

• HSIP funds may be used to provide local road safety support and technical 

assistance; 

• RSAs provide an opportunity for the State DOT and/or LTAP to partner with 

local agencies to identify potential safety improvement projects; and 

• Low-cost systemic improvements serve as a good source for HSIP problem 

applications for local agencies. 

4.3 NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

The HSIP noteworthy practices shared in recent local road safety documents and 

the peer exchanges focus on administration strategies to encourage local 

participation, methods to allocate HSIP funds to local safety improvements, and 

techniques to identify safety improvements on local roadways. Noteworthy 

practices on these topics are included in this section. 

HSIP Administration 

States may use HSIP funds for infrastructure improvements and noninfrastructure projects, such as safety planning, data collection, enforcement, and 

emergency services. Once a State receives HSIP funding, it programs and allocates 

the funding based on the priorities established in its SHSP. Because States have 

different goals, initiatives, and challenges on their local road system, it can be 

difficult to prescribe a one-size-fits-all practice for State DOTs to allocate their local 

road HSIP funding. States have used the following strategies to work with their 

regional and local entities to allocate and administer HSIP funding for local roads: 

• To facilitate the development of HSIP 

projects on local roads, the Vermont 

Agency of Transportation (VTrans) assists 

local governments in administering grants 

and implementing the projects. Safety 

stakeholders in Vermont have formed the Vermont Highway Safety Alliance 

to improve the flow of information to the local level. 

States are providing various 

levels of information and 

assistance to local agencies.

• Virginia DOT attempts to foster local involvement in project administration, 

selection, and implementation by conducting outreach on SHSP and MAP-21 

HSIP eligible improvements, improving local project proposal and 
 

19

administration requirements, and conducting local training through an annual 

Local Workshop. 

• Iowa DOT is in the process of developing local county safety plans for 

12 counties as a pilot, and 33 additional counties have expressed interest in 

participating in this program. The county safety plans are funded through the 

HSIP and coordinated by LTAP. 

• To increase local participation in the HSIP, Colorado DOT (CDOT) sent more 

than 500 letters to local agencies regarding funding availability and eligibility 

requirements. CDOT is working with the Colorado LTAP to increase local 

participation in the HSIP program. The Department also created a local agency 

liaison position at its central office to improve outreach to local agencies. 

• The Local Safety Initiative is a free and voluntary effort where Michigan DOT 

safety engineers work with local agencies to identify areas of concern, conduct 

field reviews at the locations, provide suggestions for countermeasures, and 

assist with identifying funding options. Historical trend information based on 

the SHSP is provided to every participating agency and the intersections and 

segments/corridors identified focus on the emphasis areas contained in the 

SHSP. 

• Connecticut DOT (CDOT) helps local agencies access HSIP funding through a 

streamlined application process that uses a one-page application form. Local 

agencies provide CDOT with the location’s accident history, a description of 

the proposed project, and the estimated timing and cost of the proposed 

project. CDOT then analyzes the crash data for the local agency. They use the 

safety performance function methodology to determine high-crash locations 

and perform benefit/cost analysis to determine which projects should be 

funded.

Allocation of HSIP Funds to Locals 

States use different methods to allocate and distribute HSIP funding to districts, 

regions, or local agencies for safety projects. The following are examples of States 

that use percentages or proportions to allocate HSIP funds to their localities: 

• In North Dakota, the Local Road Safety Program (LRSP) was established to 

perform risk assessments on local paved systems in all 53 counties and 

12 urban areas within the State. North Dakota DOT provides approximately 

50 percent of their HSIP funds for systemic safety improvements on these local 

roadways.

• In Arizona, 80 percent of HSIP funds are set aside for statewide safety projects, 

and 20 percent of funds are allocated for local roads. Locals also can apply for 

the 80 percent of HSIP funds set aside for State projects; these applications 

must be submitted through Arizona DOT Traffic Safety Section. 

• In Washington State, the State portion of HSIP program is managed by a safety 

executive committee. Local projects are managed by the Local Programs staff, 
20

and close to 70 percent of funds are allocated for local projects (proportionate 

to the percentage of crashes on local roads). 

• In Minnesota, the DOT distributes HSIP funding to each district based on the 

proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring in the district. District 

funds are then allocated to local roads and State highways based on the 

proportion of crashes occurring on the corresponding roadways. Typically, 

this funding allocation has ranged from 28 percent State highway/72 percent 

local roadway in the metropolitan area to a 50-percent/50-percent split in 

another district (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa1102/

id_mn.cfm). 

• Wyoming LTAP has worked with the Wyoming DOT (WYDOT) to develop 

and implement a methodology to identify, fund, and administer local safety 

projects. The methodology uses 10 years of crash data and the results of 

windshield surveys to develop weighting factors for the roadway 

environment. The factors are combined into crash and geometric ratings, 

which are then used to prioritize high-risk sites.

Another way that States have allocated HSIP funds to localities is through the use 

of incentive programs, or partnerships on specific initiatives. Some States use 

systemic safety programs to target systemwide improvements. 

• Nevada DOT (NDOT) allocates $2 million to the High-Crash Location 

program (both State and local locations), and partners on systemic safety 

improvements with localities, such as flashing yellow arrows, pedestrian 

countdown timers, or traffic bumps. NDOT also has been instrumental in 

rolling out the Highway Safety Manual to local agencies, as well as consultant 

staff. 

Other Project Identification Methods 

While crash data analysis (i.e., hot spot analysis or systemic analysis) is the 

primary source of information used to identify projects, Roadway Safety Audits 

(RSA) provide an opportunity to partner with local agencies to identify potential 

safety improvements, especially when limited data is available. RSAs are used to 

determine the site-specific safety issues and potential countermeasures. While 

crash data analysis may or may not suggest there is a potential safety issue along 

a particular roadway, intersection, or corridor, agencies often will conduct an RSA 

at the site to gather additional data for further analysis. 

• In Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Strategically Affordable Roadway Solutions 

(RI STARS) program evaluates crash data accompanied by congestion data for 

the purposes of eventually programming short-term improvements. Crash 

data is overlaid with congestion data and ranked for safety/operations. The 

top 10 locations are identified for RSAs, and then programmed for short-term 

improvements.
 

21

• Alabama DOT is developing Guidance for Road Safety Assessments and Road 

Safety Reviews. The purpose of the guide is to document a standard procedure 

for conducting Road Safety Assessments (RSA) and Road Safety Reviews 

(RSR) as a strategy to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes in support of 

Alabama’s vision of zero fatalities from highway crashes. The guide provides 

a resource for local agency practitioners (county and local transportation 

agencies, law enforcement, etc.), who perform safety assessments, describes 

their use within various project stages, and outlines a process for incorporating 

RSAs into ALDOT’s routine activities. 

• Wyoming LTAP has worked with the Wyoming DOT (WYDOT) to identify 

low-cost and high-impact projects like signs, striping, rumble strips, and 

delineation projects for their selected local safety projects. For example, 

Wyoming has used HRRRP funding to implement a statewide sign program 

to fund new safety signs for local agencies.

Other Documented Practices 

Table 4.2 shows additional local roads safety HSIP administration and funding 

practices documented in recent publications.

Table 4.2 Previously Documented HSIP Practices

Agency Noteworthy Practice Publication

Florida DOT Local Agency Safety Summit—Annual 

summit to provide key information on traffic 

safety issues and resources

Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 

Caltrans Local Safety Assistance Program Training 

Support and Local Road Safety Manual—

Benefit/cost and HSIP application resources

Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical 

Assistance 

Georgia DOT/

Douglas County, 

Georgia

Douglas County Safety Action Plan—

County curve action plan as part of GDOT’s 

Transportation Safety Action Plan Program

Noteworthy Practices Addressing 

Safety on Locally Owned and 

Maintained Roads—A Domestic Scan

Minnesota 

Association of 

Townships

Township Sign Inventory and Replacement 

Pilot—Develop and refine the requirements 

for sign reduction and removal

Noteworthy Practices Addressing 

Safety on Locally Owned and 

Maintained Roads—A Domestic Scan

Washington DOT/

Pierce County

Pierce County Safety Program—adopted a 

systemic approach for local safety project 

prioritization

Noteworthy Practices Addressing 

Safety on Locally Owned and 

Maintained Roads—A Domestic Scan

 

23

5.0 Partnerships and 

Collaboration

5.1 OVERVIEW

A common theme throughout the peer exchanges and recent reports is the widereaching benefits of local road safety partnerships and collaboration between State 

and local agencies. It is imperative that States and local agencies work together to 

partner towards solutions to their most pressing local road safety issues. This 

section highlights noteworthy methods that agencies use to develop partnerships 

and collaborate on various local road safety issues. Table 5.1 summarizes 

noteworthy practices addressed in this section.

Table 5.1 Summary of Partnerships and Collaboration Noteworthy 

Practices

Category Noteworthy Practice

Local Agency Participation Partner with local agencies and county traffic safety boards

Regional Planning Organization 

Partnerships

Leverage regional planning contacts to engage local agencies

LTAP/TTAP Partnerships Leverage LTAP contacts to engage local agencies

5.2 LESSONS LEARNED

Traffic safety improvements require a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach at 

all levels of planning and development. Whether conducting data and analysis, 

involving locals in SHSP processes, or implementing local safety programs 

through the HSIP, State DOTs will develop and maintain partnerships with the 

local agencies and other stakeholders with a vested interest in traffic safety. The 

peer exchange participants noted the following takeaways related to partnerships 

and collaboration:

• Local traffic safety boards or coalitions are a great resource to tap into 

enthusiasm and information needed to identify and address local traffic safety 

challenges; 

• Regional planning partners such as MPOs and rural planning organizations 

(RPO) provide an opportunity to collaborate with larger groups of local 

agencies; and
24

• LTAPs work closely with local agencies to provide training and technical 

assistance and can promote partnerships with local agencies. 

5.3 NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

Partnerships and collaboration are key components of traffic safety strategies. The 

following noteworthy practices were identified.

Regional Planning Organizations, LTAP/TTAP, and 

Local Partnerships 

MPOs, LTAPs, Tribal Technical Assistance Programs (TTAP), other regional 

planning organizations, and other local-focused organizations (e.g., National 

Association of County Engineers (NACE), American Public Works Association 

(APWA)) provide insight into local road safety issues and challenges. Regional 

planning organizations can play critical roles in collecting comprehensive safety 

data from all localities in a region, promoting data collaboration, and identifying 

regional safety issues that might not be apparent otherwise. It is essential that State 

DOTs partner with regional organizations, both as a liaison to their local agencies, 

but also to encourage participation in local road safety initiatives or funding 

opportunities. 

• The Montana LTAP/TTAP assists local agencies with road safety by helping 

locals conduct road safety audits and collect and analyze safety data. The 

LTAP/TTAP hosts annual conferences to bring together local safety 

stakeholders and helps local governments access Federal resources and learn 

about national campaigns such as Towards Zero Deaths. 

• In Wyoming, the Wind River Indian Reservation Safety Improvement Plan 

was developed in conjunction with Wyoming T2 LTAP. The Reservation 

developed a methodology to identify high-risk locations on Indian Reservation 

roads and worked with the Tribes to develop a practical safety program that 

respects Nation sovereignty. 

• The Louisiana Local Roads Safety Program provides crash data analysis to 

locals, MPOs, and Regional Safety Coalitions, upon request. The LRSP also 

provides training in Low-Cost Safety, RSAs, and other topics in support of 

SHSP and Regional Safety Coalitions. LRSP safety experts participate in RSAs 

upon request, and assist with reports and incorporation of recommendations 

into LRSP projects. 

• In Michigan, local agencies are represented on the Governor’s Traffic Safety 

Advisory Commission, which is the body that develops the SHSP and is 

supported by the action teams. The State is broken up into planning areas, each 

with its own Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) that allows for easier access to 

develop and publicize safety strategies. The TSCs vary in makeup from area to 

area, but typically are multidisciplinary audiences and topics presented at 

them come from a variety of backgrounds.
 

25

6.0 Summary

State DOTs are finding new strategies to improve local road safety. Local agencies 

vary widely in staff size and expertise, requiring flexibility in local road safety 

strategies. Some States have a vast local road system, while others maintain the 

large majority of the system’s roadways. The Local Road Safety Peer Exchanges 

allowed State DOTs; LTAPs; and Tribal, regional, and local practitioners the 

opportunity to share ideas and discuss local safety challenges. The following 

sections summarize the major takeaways for each topic area. 

6.1 DATA AND ANALYSIS

• State DOTs, MPOs, and local agencies should clearly define their role and 

responsibilities in the local road safety data process. 

• Consistently agreed-upon data formats are crucial to partnerships between 

agencies for the purposes of data collaboration. 

• Agencies can take steps to streamline their data collection and presentation 

through partnerships with private technology vendors or tools. 

• State DOTs with statewide crash databases often have the most streamlined 

and accessible systems of data access for their localities. 

• States should consider combining their local road safety data other statewide 

data management systems for ease of access. 

• State DOTs should incorporate geographic mapping tools in their data analysis 

process, to further analyze crash data, spatial locations, and roadway 

characteristics. 

6.2 SHSP INVOLVEMENT

• To engage locals in the SHSP planning process, incentives must be provided 

and benefits of participation must be highlighted. 

• Local safety priorities must be on the table for discussion, and local safety 

strategies must be incorporated into the SHSP to encourage participation. 

• States should engage various associations and organizations representing 

county engineers, municipalities, etc., and partner with LTAPs. 
26

6.3 HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

• Many local agencies need information and assistance to apply for HSIP 

projects. 

• HSIP funds may be used to provide local road safety support and technical 

assistance. 

• RSAs provide an opportunity for the State DOT and/or LTAP to partner with 

local agencies to identify potential safety improvement projects. 

• Low-cost systemic improvements serve as a good source for HSIP problem 

applications for local agencies. 

6.4 PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION

• Local traffic safety boards or coalitions are a great resource to tap into 

enthusiasm and information needed to identify and address local traffic safety 

challenges.

• Regional planning partners, such as MPOs and rural planning organizations 

(RPO), provide an opportunity to collaborate with larger groups of local 

agencies. 

• LTAPs work closely with local agencies to provide training and technical 

assistance and can encourage partnerships with local agencies.