FHWA Safety Program

Selecting Projects and Strategies 

to Maximize Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Performance 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 

Foreword 

The safety performance management framework is a strategic approach that relies on datadriven safety analysis methods to inform investment and policy decisions that will result in the 

greatest possible reduction in fatalities and serious injuries. States set annual safety performance 

targets to monitor and track progress towards the long-term goal of zero fatalities on our

Nation’s roads, and select projects and strategies to meet their safety performance goals and 

targets using various approaches. 

The Selecting Projects and Strategies to Maximize Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Performance Guide explains how State departments of transportation, metropolitan planning 

organizations, and other agencies can use economic analysis methods and safety management 

approaches to have the greatest potential to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. The Guide

discusses how projects affect safety performance, presents current approaches for highway 

safety management, and provides considerations for new economic methods and strategies that 

may improve upon current methods. While this Guide focuses on the HSIP and the State 

agencies that administer HSIP funds, it is applicable to other public agencies and infrastructure 

programs addressing highway safety. The framework and concepts may also be applicable to 

non-infrastructure safety programs. 

Every phase of the HSIP and project development process has potential impacts on the 

resulting projects’ safety performance. Ensuring that agencies are selecting projects and 

strategies to maximize HSIP performance will help us reduce fatalities and serious injuries

across the country. 

The methods and considerations presented in this Guide will be updated as we work to 

integrate Safe System principles into our existing safety programs and safety project 

identification and prioritization processes. Zero is our goal. A Safe System is how we get there.

Dana Gigliotti, Director 

Office of Safety Programs

Cover Photos: FHWA
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 

 

Notice

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

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

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

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

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

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

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

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

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

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

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Non-Binding Contents

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to 

bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public 

regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. While this is non-binding 

guidance, you must comply with the applicable statutes or regulations. 

Source of Tables and Figures

All tables and figures in the document were created by FHWA, unless otherwise noted.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-20-001

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

 

4. Title and Subtitle

Selecting Projects and Strategies to Maximize Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Performance 

5. Report Date

March 5, 2021

6. Performing Organization Code

7.Author(s) 

Gross, F., Harmon, T., Cynecki, M., Dittberner, R., and Chestnutt, C.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

VHB

Venture I

940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500

Raleigh, NC 27606

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-16-D-00005 (VHB)

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

Final Report; Sept. 2018 – May 2021

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

The contract manager for this report was Karen Scurry. 

16. Abstract

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid highway program with the purpose to achieve significant 

reductions in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. States implement the HSIP using various safety management 

approaches to identify, develop, prioritize, and select HSIP projects. State Departments of Transportation and metropolitan 

planning organizations set annual targets for safety performance using five Federally-required measures in terms of fatalities and 

serious injuries (23 CFR Part 409.209). Meeting or exceeding safety performance targets is not a certainty, but a potential based 

on the predicted performance and potential range of effectiveness of the HSIP as well as external factors. Agencies can help

improve safety performance by increasing funding for highway safety projects and by choosing locations with high potential for 

safety improvement along with countermeasures that offer the greatest reductions in fatalities and serious injuries per dollar 

invested. Employing sound safety management approaches (i.e., site-specific, systemic, and systematic), economic measures 

(benefit-cost ratio for fatal and serious-injury crashes), implementation strategies, and professional judgment to increase the

predicted safety performance of the HSIP increases the potential that a State maximizes its HSIP performance. While this guide 

focuses on the HSIP, the methods are applicable to other infrastructure and non-infrastructure programs.

17. Key Words: 

HSIP, safety, performance, targets, benefit-cost 

analysis, prioritization, selection, data-driven 

safety analysis, program, project, management

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 92 

22. Price

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

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

iii

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2. MAXIMIZING HSIP PERFORMANCE AND MEETING 

SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGETS ....................................................... 9

CHAPTER 3. HSIP IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ....................... 15

CHAPTER 4. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS AND PROJECT 

SELECTION ................................................................................................ 19

CHAPTER 5. METHODS TO MAXIMIZE HSIP PERFORMANCE ...... 31

CHAPTER 6. PLANNING HIGH-PERFORMING SAFETY PROJECTS

51

CHAPTER 7. CASE STUDIES .................................................................. 63

CHAPTER 8. SUMMARY........................................................................... 73

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH MATERIALS................................................ 77

REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 81

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Impacts of strategic planning and project development decisions on safety 

performance.....................................................................................................................13

Table 2. Comparison of safety-related economic prioritization criteria. .................22

Table 3. Example projects to compare NPV and BCR. ..............................................24

Table 4. Present value economic data for 10 hypothetical safety projects...............25

Table 5. BCR ranking and selection of hypothetical projects within an $800,000 

budget. ..............................................................................................................................26

Table 6. Estimated outcomes of example projects ranked by BCR. .........................26

Table 7. Summary of CMF Clearinghouse entries by severity as of January 2021.(22)

...........................................................................................................................................38

Table 8. BCRKA calculations for three hypothetical projects using benefits and costs.

...........................................................................................................................................41

Table 9. Example Countermeasure Score calculations with CMF Clearinghouse IDs 

and hypothetical costs.(22)................................................................................................46

Table 10. BCRKA calculations for three hypothetical projects using PSI$,KA and CM 

ScoreKA. .............................................................................................................................47

Table 11. Comparison of safety management approaches.........................................52

Table 12. Comparison of actual and potential ODOT HSIP Program......................65

Table 13. Comparison of actual and potential UDOT HSIP Program......................66

Table 14. Countermeasure score calculations for PSIP countermeasures using 

ODOT data.......................................................................................................................70

Table 15. Countermeasure score calculations for intersection countermeasures 

using UDOT data.............................................................................................................71

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Graphic. HSIP process.(3) ................................................................................10

Figure 2. Graphic. HSIP and project development processes....................................12

Figure 3. Equation. Application of CMF to estimate crashes with treatment..........21

Figure 4. Equation. Calculating a CMF confidence interval........................................21

Figure 5. Equation. Benefit-cost ratio calculation........................................................22

Figure 6. Equation. Net present value calculation.......................................................23

Figure 7. Equation. Estimating reduction in fatal and serious-injury crashes from 

DDSA and safety workforce development projects. ...................................................28

Figure 8. Equation. HSIP project cost-effectiveness measured by BCRKA. ...............32

Figure 9. Equation. Overall HSIP cost-effectiveness measured by BCRKA. ...............32

Figure 10. Equation. HSIP performance is dependent on average HSIP project 

cost-effectiveness and the total funding spent on HSIP projects...............................33

Figure 11. Equation. General equation to determine the monetary value of a 

project’s safety benefits in terms of reduced fatal and serious-injury crashes. ........34

Figure 12. Equation. General equation for BCRKA, which indicates a project’s 

relative cost effectiveness, priority, and performance. ...............................................35

Figure 13. Equation. Determining BCRKA with project-level predictive methods. ..35

Figure 14. Equation. Disaggregate equation for BCRKA and HSIP project priority. 35

Figure 15. Equation. Expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency as a 

proportion of expected fatal and all injury crash frequency.......................................36

Figure 16. Equation. Estimating a project’s CMFKA using expected fatal and seriousinjury crash frequency under proposed and existing conditions. ...............................38

Figure 17. Equation. Weighted average comprehensive fatal and suspected 

serious-injury crash cost.................................................................................................. 39

Figure 18. Equation. Annualized project costs.............................................................40
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

x 

Figure 19. Equation. Capital recovery factor for equivalent annual costs. ...............40

Figure 20. Equation. Rearranged equation for BCRKA showing site- and 

countermeasure-dependent inputs. ..............................................................................42

Figure 21. Equation. Maximum monetary potential for safety improvement. ........42

Figure 22. Equation. BCRKA equation based on PSI$,KA, CRFKA, and project costs. ..42

Figure 23. Equation. Various ways to calculate CM ScoreKA. .....................................43

Figure 24. Equation. Simplified BCRKA equation based on PSI and countermeasure 

cost-effectiveness.............................................................................................................43
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

xi 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A suspected serious injury crash

A/P capital recovery factor

AADT annual average daily traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

BCR benefit-cost ratio

CC crash cost

CEI cost-effectiveness index

CM Score Countermeasure Score

CMF crash modification factor

CONSTR initial construction costs for a project

COTS commercial-off-the-shelf (as in software products)

CRF crash reduction factor

DDSA data-driven safety analysis

DOT Department of Transportation

EB Empirical Bayes

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

IBCA incremental benefit-cost analysis

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

INDOT Indiana Department of Transportation

K fatal injury crash

KABCO injury scale used by law enforcement to report crash severity

KYTC Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

LRSP local road safety plan

MAP-21 Act Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation

MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation

NPV net present value

ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation 

O&M operations and maintenance 

PDO property-damage-only

PE preliminary engineering 

PHB pedestrian hybrid beacon 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

xii 

PSI potential for safety improvement

PSIP Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program 

ROW right-of-way 

SaFID Safest Feasible Intersection Design

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SPF safety performance function

SSPST Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation 

VMT vehicle-miles traveled

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a State-administered, core Federal-aid 

Highway Program with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads. State Departments of Transportation and other highway 

agencies are responsible for the safety performance of their roadway networks, and they 

implement HSIP projects to reduce fatalities and serious injuries resulting from traffic crashes.

Agencies can measure the performance of the HSIP in terms of various performance measures, 

including the following five Federally-mandated performance measures:

1. Number of fatalities.

2. Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). 

3. Number of serious injuries.

4. Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT. 

5. Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries.

HSIP managers can maximize the program’s expected safety performance by identifying and 

selecting a set of projects that has the highest overall potential to reduce future fatalities and 

serious injuries within the available program budget and eligibility criteria. Agencies can use 

data-driven safety analysis techniques to predict how well infrastructure projects are expected 

to perform and refine those predictions based on experience and evaluation. However, 

agencies cannot know a specific project’s actual effectiveness until after it is implemented. HSIP

performance is based on the predicted performance and range of potential effectiveness of the 

HSIP (along with external factors). Quantifying the predicted safety performance of potential 

HSIP projects and selecting and implementing those that maximize the estimated lives saved and 

injuries prevented improve the probability that a State maximizes its HSIP performance. 

This guide presents fundamental analytical methods and a conceptual framework for maximizing 

the effectiveness of the HSIP by increasing the individual performance of its projects. The bestperforming, most-cost-effective, highest-priority HSIP projects deliver the greatest reductions in 

fatalities and serious injuries at the lowest costs. To address fatal and serious-injury crashes, 

agencies should focus on the change in fatal and serious-injury crashes, rather than all crashes 

or all injuries, when selecting projects.

Agencies should prioritize and select HSIP projects using quantitative methods such as the 

benefit-cost ratio (BCR) when possible. When using the BCR to prioritize projects, agencies 

can consider estimating the benefitsin terms of the dollar value of fatal and serious-injury 

crashes prevented. This approach focuses on the potential for projects to reduce fatal and 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

2 

serious-injury crashes. While the more reliable data-driven safety analysis methods are 

preferred for estimating the benefits, there are several alternative methods that analysts can use 

depending on the availability and quality of data. Estimating the benefitsin terms of the dollar 

value of fatal and serious-injury crashes prevented helps to rank projects that are expected to 

deliver the greatest reductions in fatalities and serious injuries per dollar spent; however, it is 

recognized that decision makers may consider other factors not reflected in such predictions 

when selecting projects (e.g., distribution of projects across district offices, environmental 

impacts, public inputs, and opportunity to combine safety improvement with other capital 

improvements such as resurfacing), if appropriate. 

Developing high-performing projects starts during planning. A State’s Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP) includes high-priority strategies aimed at reducing fatalities and serious injuries and 

guides the implementation of a State’s HSIP. Optimizing the implementation of highly costeffective countermeasures at sites with high potential for safety improvement maximizes the 

predicted performance of the HSIP. 

FHWA’s key findings from this research are as follows.

• Measure the performance of proposed programs or project selection scenarios in terms 

of expected lives saved and serious injuries prevented to help focus the HSIP on fatal 

and serious-injury crashes.

• Rank proposed projects by BCR based on the potential for reducing fatal and seriousinjury crashes and select the highest ranked projects to offer the maximum predicted 

safety performance of the HSIP. 

• Express the BCR in terms of potential monetary safety benefits and costs. Monetary 

potential for safety improvement measures a location’s estimated contribution to the 

safety performance of a project independent of countermeasures. The countermeasure 

score measures a countermeasure’s ability to impact the safety performance of a project 

independent of where it is implemented.

• Develop more planning-level safety performance functions (SPFs) and crash modification 

factors (CMFs) in terms of fatal and serious-injury crashes, average project costs (or 

range of costs), and other data that support the BCRKA prioritization method.

• Use a combination of site-specific, systemic, and systematic approaches to develop highperforming projects to fit agency needs. 

Agencies can use these findings and the HSIP to potentially help save more lives and prevent 

more serious injuries. While more complete and higher-quality data can help identify locations 

and projects with the greatest potential to improve safety, States can implement the concepts 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

3 

and methods of BCR prioritization with almost any level of data. Researchers can assist 

practitioners by developing new tools that apply these methods, as well as expanding the library 

of available SPFs and CMFs by severity level, and implemented countermeasure data.

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIME HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1

5 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Over 30,000 people have died annually on the nation’s roadways since 1946.

(1) States have been 

developing and administering Federally-funded highway safety programs since 1966 to 

implement highway safety engineering countermeasures.(2,3) The Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) was then established in 2005 as core Federal-aid highway program with the 

purpose of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public 

roads. The HSIP is a State-administered program, and requires a data-driven, strategic approach 

to improving safety (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)). In addition to HSIP funding, States can use other 

highway funding programs as well as education, enforcement, emergency medical services, 

legislation, and other initiatives to improve highway safety performance beyond the HSIP.(3)

The last three major Federal transportation authorizationsa increased HSIP funding and 

expanded requirements for States to plan and implement the HSIP with an emphasis on 

performance. In response to Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) 

requirements that were continued in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established the following five Federally-required 

performance measures for States to use to carry out the HSIP as well as assess and report on 

program performance.(4)

1. Number of fatalities.

2. Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT).

3. Number of serious injuries.

4. Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT.

5. Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries.

State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) 

set targets for each performance measure annually and implement projects that have the 

greatest potential to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries (23 CFR Part 924.5(b)). State 

and local agencies plan, design, and implement infrastructure projects to reduce the number of 

fatalities and serious injuries; however, there may be opportunities to enhance current HSIP 

project planning and selection practices to further maximize program performance. 

a

 The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users in 2005, the MAP-21 in 

2012, and the FAST Act in 2015.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIME HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1

6 

1.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The objective of this guide is to explain how State DOTs, MPOs, and other agencies can use 

economic analysis methods and safety management approaches to have the greatest potential

to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. The guide discusses how projects affect safety 

performance, presents current approaches for highway safety management, and describes new 

economic methods and strategies that may improve upon current methods. While this guide 

focuses on the HSIP and the State agencies that administer HSIP funds, it is applicable to other

public agencies and infrastructure programs addressing highway safety. The framework and 

concepts may also be applicable to non-infrastructure safety programs. 

As part of the research efforts to develop this guide, the project team conducted interviews 

with HSIP managers from eight States and facilitated a focus group meeting with representatives 

from seven States. The project team followed up with select States after the initial discussions.

Appendix A: Research Materials includes the questions asked during the interviews and focus 

group meeting as well as the list of participating States. The outcomes from these discussions

supplemented a literature review and developmental research into new methods. This guide 

presents noteworthy practices from the interviews, focus group meeting, and literature review 

throughout.

1.2 AUDIENCE

The target audience for this guide is primarily program managers and analysts for the HSIP and 

similar programs. The guide is also applicable to highway agency executives that oversee, 

administer, and implement the HSIP and similar programs as well as researchers supporting 

safety management decision making. 

1.3 GUIDE ORGANIZATION

This guide begins by discussing background information about the HSIP and its objectives. The 

following chapters present approaches and strategies that can help agencies select highway 

safety improvement projects to increase the number of lives saved and serious injuries 

prevented. 

Chapter 2 discusses the HSIP and project development processes. Additionally, the chapter 

describes opportunities to improve economic analysis and project prioritization methods that 

States use to quantify how an HSIP project could cost-effectively improve safety performance. 

The chapter also discusses other opportunities to improve safety throughout project 

development.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIME HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1

7 

Chapter 3 presents strategies relating to program management, safety planning, and project 

implementation that could improve or maintain HSIP performance. 

Chapter 4 outlines fundamental benefit-cost analysis and project selection concepts that can 

help agencies develop programs with the greatest potential to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries. 

Chapter 5 further explains the concepts and analytical methods agencies could use to 

maximize the expected safety performance outcomes of the HSIP. 

Chapter 6 compares the site-specific, systemic, and systematic approaches to safety 

management. 

Chapter 7 presents two case studies that illustrate how agencies can apply the methods 

presented in this guide to prioritize projects. 

Chapter 8 concludes by summarizing FHWA’s findings and suggesting opportunities for 

improvement in future research and practice.

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 2

9 

CHAPTER 2. MAXIMIZING HSIP PERFORMANCE AND MEETING

SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGETS

The States implement infrastructure countermeasures via the HSIP to reduce the frequency and 

severity of crashes. The HSIP also supports strategic safety planning, safety data and analysis 

improvements, and workforce development to better steward HSIP funding. The HSIP is a 

performance-based program, and the HSIP’s performance is measured in terms of fatalities and 

serious injuries. HSIP projects can improve safety performance by directly (e.g., changes to 

physical infrastructure) or indirectly (e.g., data and analysis improvements) saving lives and 

preventing serious injuries.

Agencies can use data-driven safety analysis (DDSA) techniques and professional judgment to 

predict how well infrastructure projects are expected to perform and refine those predictions 

based on experience and evaluation. However, agencies cannot know a project’s actual 

effectiveness until after it is implemented. Maximizing HSIP performance and meeting or 

exceeding safety performance targets is based on the predicted performance and range of 

potential effectiveness of the HSIP (along with external factors). Quantifying the safety 

performance of potential HSIP projects and selecting and implementing those that maximize the 

estimated lives saved and injuries prevented can improve the likelihood that the State meets its 

targets and achieves long term safety goals. 

Since meeting or exceeding targets may depend on the magnitude of the targets and other 

external factors, this guide focuses on opportunities to “maximize HSIP performance” rather 

than simply meeting targets. HSIP managers can maximize the program’s performance by 

identifying and selecting a set of projects that has the highest overall potential to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries within the available program budget and eligibility criteria. Further, 

since each State’s HSIP program consists of a fixed budget for safety improvement projects, this 

guide also considers “HSIP performance” and “HSIP performance per dollar spent” to be 

synonymous as well as “performance” and “economic performance.” 

The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of the HSIP process, how HSIP projects 

are developed, and opportunities to improve safety performance throughout project 

development.

2.1 HSIP PROCESS AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

The HSIP process, illustrated in figure 1, consists of planning, implementing, and evaluating 

effective safety countermeasures at locations with potential for safety improvement (PSI). This 

guide focuses on safety planning, which involves identifying candidate project locations, selecting 

appropriate countermeasures to address the safety issues at the site, and prioritizing and 

selecting proposed projects for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

(3)
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 2

10

Safety planning in the HSIP starts with a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The SHSP 

identifies the statewide goals, objectives, emphasis areas, and related strategies for reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Emphasis areas usually represent either types 

of crashes that commonly result in fatalities and serious injuries or common contributing 

factors to fatal and serious-injury crashes. Within each emphasis area, stakeholders list 

strategies or countermeasures that they hope to implement over the next several years. All 

HSIP projects must be consistent with the State’s SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1)), so it is important 

that the SHSP include the types of engineering strategies and countermeasures that have the 

highest likelihood to improve safety performance. While the SHSP guides investment decisions

in the HSIP, it also relies on the results from HSIP evaluations to inform future updates to the 

plan (i.e., continue using the strategies that work and consider new strategies when one does 

not perform well).

 Source: FHWA

Figure 1. Graphic. HSIP process.(3)
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 2

11

The primary factors that influence a project’s performance are the countermeasures 

implemented in the project and the location where the countermeasures are implemented. 

Agencies identify, propose, and select candidate projects using a wide range of safety 

management approaches and DDSA methods. Each State has variations in how they develop 

and implement highway safety improvement projects. The following is a brief overview of the 

most common safety management approaches in practice.

• Site-specific approach: The site-specific approach focuses on identifying locations 

based on crash experience (e.g., a high number or rate of crashes) and addressing the 

unique safety issues at each location. In 2010, the FHWA published the most recent 

HSIP Manual and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) published the Highway Safety Manual (HSM).(3,5) Both documents 

describe the site-specific approach and related methods.

• Systemic approach: The systemic approach focuses on addressing crash types that 

result in fatalities and serious injuries by identifying risk factors for those crashes and 

implementing countermeasures at locations where the risk factors are present. In 2013, 

FHWA published the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (SSPST), which presents a riskbased approach to safety management.

(6) Although the systemic approach was not 

fundamentally new, the analytical methods in the SSPST and demonstrated effectiveness 

in practice spurred a large increase in systemic projects, with about 40 percent of HSIP 

funds spent on systemic safety projects from 2017-2019.(7) 

• Systematic approach: The systematic approach focuses on treating all eligible 

locations and is briefly explained in the SSPST. Some States use the systematic approach 

by incorporating safety countermeasures in design policies (e.g., implementing Safety 

Edge on all paving projects). Other States identify a proven countermeasure (e.g., curve 

warning signs, rumble strips, cable median barrier) and install it wherever feasible within 

a large, standalone project.(6,8)

The FHWA HSIP Manual, HSM, and many other resources discuss how agencies can apply 

strategic, data-driven methods to develop higher performing projects. To increase the State’s 

potential to maximize HSIP performance, agencies should prioritize and select HSIP projects 

based on their potential to cost-effectively improve safety performance. Chapters 3-6 discuss 

various approaches and methods to maximize performance of the HSIP. 

Employing more reliable methods to identify safety improvement opportunities, diagnose crash 

contributing factors, and select cost-effective countermeasures can help to improve the overall 

effectiveness and performance of the HSIP.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 2

12

2.2 OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE SAFETY PERFORMANCE

Once an agency programs projects and allocates resources to implement them, they enter the 

broader project development process (planning, design, construction, operations, and 

maintenance), shown in figure 2, which parallels the HSIP process.

Source: FHWA

Figure 2. Graphic. HSIP and project development processes. 

Every phase of the HSIP and project development process has potential impacts on the 

resulting projects’ safety performance. Table 1 identifies opportunities throughout the HSIP and 

project development processes to increase average project benefits and decrease program 

costs to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the program. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 2

13

Table 1. Impacts of strategic planning and project development decisions on safety 

performance. 

Development Phase Potential Safety Performance Impacts from Decision Making 

Selecting Emphasis 

Areas and Strategies

Emphasis area selection guides where funds can and should be spent. Selecting 

emphasis areas and strategies based on data helps invest funds effectively because HSIP 

projects must be consistent with the SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1)). 

Strategic Data and 

Analysis Improvement 

An agency’s ability to maximize HSIP performance or quantify their ability to do so is 

dependent on data and analysis. Data-driven programs and more reliable analysis 

methods help to select projects to maximize performance. 

Program Management Program management can define specific goals and strategies for funding allocation. 

Involving various stakeholders in program management and oversight improves 

program awareness and accountability for program goals.

Network Screening and 

Project Solicitation

Effective network screening identifies sites with high potential for safety improvement. 

Further investigation omits sites where projects are not feasible. Complete network 

screening (i.e., screening all public roads) and more reliable methods can maximize the 

opportunities to cost-effectively improve safety.

Diagnosis and 

Countermeasure 

Selection

Diagnosis helps to understand the underlying safety problems. Identifying targeted 

countermeasures helps to mitigate the contributing factors to severe crashes or 

reduce the severity of crashes that do occur. Further, kinetic energy transferred to 

people during crash events is the primary cause of fatal and serious injuries. Agencies 

can implement safe system principles to reduce conflict points (i.e., minimize the 

potential for crashes) and manage the transfer of kinetic energy (i.e., minimize the 

severity of crashes that do occur). 

Economic Analysis and 

Eligibility Criteria

Effective economic analysis can help control project costs and identify projects that 

yield a positive return on investment. Conducting economic analysis consistently, 

reliably, and fairly across all projects can improve the average performance of projects 

selected based on those methods. Establishing higher eligibility thresholds for projects 

can increase the potential that projects cost-effectively address safety problems and 

contribute to an agency’s safety performance goals.

Project Prioritization 

and Selection

Effective project prioritization and selection methods help assure the most costeffective projects are funded and the overall program provides the greatest possible 

contribution to safety performance. Project applications and submittal deadlines can 

help program managers compare and prioritize projects fairly to select the best 

combination of projects for the program.

Effectiveness Evaluation Estimating the safety effectiveness of programs, countermeasures, and projects 

improves an agency’s ability to plan safety improvements in the future. Analyzing the 

program provides important feedback on contributions toward safety performance 

outcomes and targets. Evaluating implemented projects helps to assess if the predicted 

crash reduction is realized and if associated CMFs are reasonable. 

Improving Future 

Policies and Practices

Program managers should continue to seek improvement to policies and practices that 

incorporate more safety features, cut costs, enhance data, improve analysis, add 

efficiency in project delivery, and ultimately improve safety by reducing fatalities and 

serious injuries. Evaluation results can feed future policy changes. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 2

14

2.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Each State establishes policies, procedures, and practices to guide the implementation of their 

HSIP. The HSIP managers increase the potential to maximize HSIP performance when they 

maximize the expected safety performance (and therefore the economic performance) of the 

HSIP. One opportunity to impact expected performance is during the system and project 

planning stages when selecting sites, countermeasures, and projects to fund with the HSIP. 

There are other opportunities to influence expected performance throughout project 

development, including the use of Safe System principles in project design. Finally, there is an 

opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of past projects and programs to improve future 

policies and practices.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

15

CHAPTER 3. HSIP IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

This chapter discusses demonstrated program management (section 3.1), safety planning

(section 3.2), and project implementation (section 3.3) strategies that can help improve or 

maintain HSIP implementation capabilities and performance over time. It is difficult to quantify 

the benefits of these strategies; however, research and successful State practices indicate these 

strategies can be effective.

3.1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

The following strategies represent select noteworthy practices in HSIP management that can 

have an impact on safety performance. Each subsection describes one strategy. 

• Establishing an HSIP stakeholder committee.

• Developing a State HSIP Manual or Implementation Plan.

• Prioritizing and selecting HSIP projects based on predicted future safety performance.

• Creating funding goals to prioritize projects.

• Programming HSIP projects as placeholders in the STIP.

• Supporting local agencies through funding exchange and technical assistance. 

3.1.1 Establishing an HSIP Stakeholder Committee

Establishing a committee or task force can help guide and monitor the implementation of the 

HSIP as well as provide formal management and governance over project decisions and policy 

changes. Such a committee bridges across business units and may include external agencies, 

building a collaborative approach to set program priorities and increase participation. It can also 

help to inform agency executives and other stakeholders about the program and reduce the 

impacts of staff turnover. 

This approach increases an agency’s ability to maximize HSIP performance by more actively 

managing the program, assuring the program serves its purpose, and encouraging consistency in 

program administration and policy.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

16

The New Hampshire DOT’s (NHDOT) HSIP Committee is chaired by the Assistant Director of 

Project Development and includes representation from the Bureaus of Highway Design, Highway 

Maintenance, Planning and Community Assistance, and Traffic. The Committee also includes the 

FHWA Division Office Safety Engineer and representation from regional planning agencies and 

municipalities. The regional and municipal representatives serve three-year terms, and the rotation of 

these committee members seeks to achieve geographic diversity. The NHDOT HSIP Committee has 

helped HSIP stakeholders learn and share about the program, garners statewide input into decision 

making, and it provides transparency to the project selection and programming processes.

3.1.2 Developing a State HSIP Manual or Implementation Plan

Many States develop their own HSIP Manual or HSIP Implementation Plan to document their 

policies, strategies, procedures, and practices. Documenting the HSIP process helps promote 

consistency between decision makers and analysts across the State. An HSIP Manual can 

provide the tools that local agencies need to get involved in the program. HSIP Manuals also 

help agencies maintain the capability to implement a high-performing program after staff 

promotions or succession. The FHWA HSIP Planning website references the FHWA HSIP Manual

as well as several example State HSIP Manuals. The following are potential contents for a State 

HSIP Manual.(3,9) 

• Program administration information, contacts, and high-level policies.

• Background and references to legislation governing the program.

• General program strategy and objectives.

• Project eligibility needs and funding process.

• Project development process.

• Data and analysis tools and procedures. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

17

FHWA also issued HSIP Implementation Plan Guidance that includes the following outline for the 

information an agency should include in their HSIP Implementation Plan.(10)

• Available funding for the plan period.

• Funding allocation goals (e.g., by SHSP emphasis areas, by ownership, by safety 

management approach).

• Description of HSIP programs, strategies, and activities including their purpose, cost, 

methodology and implementation, and expected benefits.

• Implemented project list linking each project to the relevant program, strategy, or 

activity in the plan.

• Summary of actions.

In 2020, the Alaska DOT and Public Facilities developed the 19th edition of the HSIP Handbook. The 

new HSIP Handbook outlines the methodology for identification, prioritization, and evaluation of HSIP 

projects. The handbook assists practitioners preparing new project proposals and the HSIP Annual 

Report.

(11)

3.1.3 Prioritizing and Selecting HSIP Projects Based on Safety Performance

Safety practitioners use DDSA methods and professional judgment to select projects to 

improve safety performance. If other offices or groups, internal or external to the DOT, alter 

the projects programmed with HSIP funds or select projects without consideration of expected 

safety performance, it may degrade the performance of the program and lower the likelihood

the State meets its targets. For this reason, to the extent possible, HSIP project prioritization 

and programming decisions should rest with the division, office, or bureau responsible for 

highway safety within the State DOT.

3.1.4 Creating Funding Goals to Prioritize Projects 

States can set aside funding for subprograms (a.k.a., funding goals) to achieve a certain level of 

equity, address Safe System principles, and focus on emphasis areas or program needs not 

addressed by the projects selected from the overall competitive ranking by BCR, as discussed 

later in chapters 4 and 5.

(12) For example, an agency might allocate a set amount of funding to 

each District based on the percentage of fatalities and serious in each District. Other agencies 

may apply set-aside funding to address emphasis areas such as non-motorized safety. 

Establishing subprograms may reduce the overall cost-effectiveness of the program; however, 

this may be necessary to implement the program, account for data limitations, promote equity, 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

18

or to improve the type and diversity of projects selected from a safety management approach. 

Chapter 6 discusses how each approach can focus on certain types of projects.

Agencies can establish subprograms using a quantitative approach that reflects the relative 

importance of the subprogram. For example, an agency could allocate funding to various 

subprograms based on the distribution of fatalities and serious injuries (or other factors) 

associated with each subprogram. Program managers and key stakeholders can decide on a 

strategy to distribute funds and select projects within each subprogram—preferably 

competitively based on BCR or through other data-driven methods.

The following are potential advantages of establishing funding goals. 

• Funding goals provide a way for an agency to select competitive projects that address an 

SHSP emphasis area that would not be addressed otherwise.

• Funding goals can help achieve an equitable distribution of HSIP funds between State and 

local systems, urban and rural areas, various facility types, or geographic regions.

• Agencies can set aside funding for pilot projects that implement new countermeasures, 

countermeasures with no CMFs, and data improvements. 

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) developed an investment plan that outlines how they 

would distribute HSIP funds under the FAST Act.

(13) Their Investment Plan ties the HSIP to their SHSP 

with sections for roadway departure, intersections, commercial vehicles, non-motorized, and “other.” 

KYTC distributes funding to roadway departure, intersections, and other types according to the 

distribution of fatalities between each crash type after taking out fixed amounts for commercial 

vehicle and non-motorized safety projects. About two-thirds of fatalities are related to roadway 

departure, so they spend two-thirds of the funds on roadway departure improvements. Intersections 

and other types account for about 15 percent respectively, and each gets 15 percent of funds. Each 

District gets enough funding to implement at least some improvements, and additional funding is 

distributed to Districts within each subprogram by the number of related fatalities in each District.

3.1.5 Programming HSIP Projects in the STIP

States can consider programming HSIP projects in the STIP without clearly defining each 

project’s scope. Programming with grouped projects also gives more flexibility in program 

management to adapt and address future needs or issues as they arise (23 CFR 450.326(h); 23 

CFR 450.218(j)). 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

19

KYTC plans placeholder HSIP projects in their STIP that represent each year’s approximate annual 

HSIP apportionment.(14) This occurs before defining the scope of any of KYTC’s HSIP projects. KYTC 

assumes that if the site showed a high value for excess expected crashes (i.e., PSI) during screening 

with State-specific SPFs, there is likely a cost-effective solution available. By setting budgets with an 

undefined scope, they can accept proposals rather than bids for a project and do planning and design 

under the same contract. KYTC plans approximately twice as many countermeasures and 

improvements than could fit in the budget, which allows them to select the most effective 

countermeasures and quickly deliver projects using the same contractor team in a total of 9 to 15 

months. Timeliness is a major factor in how KYTC implements their HSIP projects.

3.1.6 Supporting Local Agencies through Funding Exchange and Technical 

Assistance 

Some local agencies do not have the resources or expertise to administer Federal-aid projects 

though they are eligible to receive Federal-aid funding, including HSIP. Several States offer a 

safety funding exchange or swap program in which the State DOT exchanges Federal safety 

funds for State safety funds to local agencies planning Federal-aid projects.(15) By using State 

safety funds instead of Federal safety funds, local agencies can streamline the project delivery 

process and implement projects without the administrative responsibilities, costs, and timelines 

associated with Federal-aid requirements.

(4) Each State with a funding exchange program has 

their own variant based on State and local laws. Such an exchange program may need a change 

in State code related to funding administration and eligibility, and the program is contingent on 

the State having funding available to exchange.

In 2018, the Iowa DOT modified the funding source of their County-focused safety program, HSIPSecondary. Instead of relying on Federal HSIP, the program now awards $2 million per year in State 

funds through the HSIP-SWAP for safety projects on county roads. The program promotes systemic

safety and focuses on reducing crashes related to lane departures and intersections.

(16)

Local safety programs should be paired with technical assistance from the State to help local 

agencies develop safety plans and identify and prioritize safety issues and projects. 

Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provides support for counties to develop Local 

Road Safety Plans (LRSPs). While counties are required to complete an LRSP to apply for HSIP 

funding, WSDOT eases the process and prepares summary data to help counites prioritize the crash 

types.(17) Additionally, WSDOT has hosted workshops throughout the State providing training for how 

to use the SSPST.

(18)

 

States can help local agencies access crash, roadway, and traffic volume data, conduct and 

interpret safety analysis, apply for HSIP projects, and evaluate implemented projects. As States 

employ and need more reliable DDSA methods to support decision making, some local 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

20

agencies cannot keep up or develop competitive project applications on their own. Several 

States offer technical assistance opportunities to local agencies, either from the State DOT

directly or through consultant and university contracts. The scale and scope of technical 

assistance needs may vary based on agency size, staffing, and expertise.

Local roads account for over 85 percent of Illinois’s public road network. Illinois DOT (IDOT) places a 

high priority on local safety projects. The IDOT Bureau of Safety Engineering offers safety data, a 

benefit-cost tool and other software, HSM training, and direct technical assistance (through IDOT and 

contractors) to local agencies seeking HSIP funding. IDOT noticed that local agencies using these 

data, tools, and technical assistance opportunities have submitted applications for more effective, 

proactive HSIP projects over time. This allows the State to better address local safety needs.

(19)

Other States have developed resources such as guides, forms, spreadsheets, and plans to help 

local agencies. State-specific CMF lists, expected countermeasure service life, and average 

project costs are particularly useful to support local safety analysis efforts.

3.2 SAFETY PLANNING STRATEGIES

The following strategies represent select noteworthy practices in safety planning that can have 

an impact on safety performance. Each subsection describes one strategy. 

• Developing LRSPs. 

• Employing database and software tools. 

• Developing State-specific CMF lists.

• Implementing a standard project application process.

Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) has created a traffic safety webpage under the State Aid for Local 

Transportation program. This webpage serves as a one-stop shop for local HSIP efforts, including 

general information and application forms, county road safety plans, and examples of road safety audits 

and before-after studies. The website also provides crash data information such as crash rates by 

county and access to the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool.(20)

3.2.1 Developing Local Road Safety Plans

LRSPs complement the State SHSP by taking a systemic approach to local road safety. An 

analysis of local crash, traffic, and roadway information highlights specific regional safety 

concerns, emphasis areas, strategies, and risk factors. LRSPs usually include detailed information 

about the strategies, projects, and even locations for potential safety improvements. State and 

local agency work plans can incorporate projects directly from LRSPs. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

21

WSDOT spends approximately 70 percent of their HSIP funding on local road safety improvements. 

To be eligible, counties and cities must develop an LRSP based on fatal and serious-injury crashes 

using the systemic approach.(17) Currently, 36 of 39 counties have an LRSP, and their success led to 

WSDOT expanding the program to cities.

MnDOT recognized that there was an opportunity to engage and assist local agencies with improving 

safety beyond the strategies included in the statewide SHSP. MnDOT helps all 8 MnDOT districts, 87 

counties, and several cities develop and implement a local roadway safety plan that tailors the SHSP 

to their jurisdiction. Each plan lists specific projects and countermeasures that the agency intends to 

implement based on data analysis and safety planning in each district and county. To assure counties 

can implement the plans, MnDOT provides locals a percentage of HSIP funding based on the split of 

fatalities and serious injuries between State and local roads in each district.

(21) 

3.2.2 Employing Database and Software Tools

Agencies can employ database and software tools to manage the safety of their road networks 

more efficiently and effectively. Databases and software, along with the training and skills to use 

them, are necessary to efficiently implement the most reliable safety performance management 

approaches across all public roads. The FHWA Roadway Safety Data and Analysis Toolbox

contains tools and resources that can help agencies maximize HSIP performance. 

3.2.3 Developing State-Specific CMF Lists

State-selected lists of approved CMFs can increase the reliability of analysis by assuring CMFs 

are applicable to the State. State-selected CMF lists also promote consistency and fairness in 

analysis, preventing situations where similar projects would have different effectiveness and 

priority solely due to the use of different CMFs. A committee of experts in the State typically 

develop CMF lists and regularly review them (e.g., continually, annually, or biannually) to identify 

new CMFs from research and remove or replace old ones as appropriate. The CMFs are often 

categorized by crash severity, and sometimes even by crash type. CMF lists can include a short 

list of commonly used countermeasures or a longer, comprehensive listing of potential 

countermeasures. The CMF Clearinghouse lists several example State-selected CMF lists.(22)

 

WSDOT developed a standardized CMF Short List that provides the most common CMFs analysts 

need. The list reduces the amount of time analysts spend identifying and selecting an appropriate 

CMF but does not replace the CMF Clearinghouse. WSDOT’s considerations for CMFs are the quality 

of research, countermeasure context, and the target crash types and severities. WSDOT documents 

every CMF chosen for the Short List on a CMF Review Form in detail along with the reasons for 

choosing that CMF. The WSDOT CMF Short List and the CMF Review Form for each CMF are 

available to staff on the WSDOT Intranet.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

22

3.2.4 Implementing a Standard Project Application Process

States can have District Offices and local stakeholders submit projects for consideration in the 

HSIP using a regular project application process or standard submission forms. Project 

application forms (e.g., paper, fillable electronic files, website) that include information about 

the project (e.g., its purpose, scope, and BCR) help HSIP managers consistently and fairly 

compare projects developed by different stakeholders as well as assure projects are data-driven 

and meet program eligibility requirements.(4) Establishing a project submission deadline or 

prioritization schedule allows agencies to rank and compare competing projects. 

3.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

The following strategies represent select noteworthy practices in HSIP project implementation 

that can have an impact on safety performance. Each subsection describes one strategy. 

• Employing Safe System principles.

• Encouraging project bundling.

• Exploring design-build contracting for HSIP projects. 

3.3.1 Employing Safe System Principles

Australia and several European countries have been implementing the “Safe System” approach 

to road safety, and some agencies in the United States are beginning to implement this 

approach as well. According to FHWA’s Zero Deaths and Safe System website, the Safe System 

approach generally assumes that it is impossible to avoid all crashes, and therefore, agencies 

should design their roads to reduce the kinetic energy transferred to road users in a 

collision.(23) The approach is based on the ethical position that fatalities and serious injuries from 

using the road network are unacceptable, and that road owners are responsible for making sure 

road users arrive at their destinations safely. Agencies can achieve these outcomes by adopting 

policies and implementing designs to reduce conflicts, reduce speeds, reduce impact angles, and 

separate traffic with large differences in mass and velocity. Applying these concepts and 

principles throughout the HSIP has the potential to improve the program’s performance 

outcomes.(24)

Most of the available DDSA methods do not directly quantify the impacts of conflicts, speed, or 

traffic separation—they are implied in SPFs and CMFs (e.g., for roundabouts) and can also be 

accounted for during site diagnosis.(25) To apply Safe System principles, agencies can first design 

to achieve a desired level of safety. The design for safety then defines or limits the level of 

mobility (i.e., in the form of a hierarchy of safety over mobility, rather than a tradeoff). Analysts 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

23

can assess risks related to road-user exposure to conflicts, crash likelihood from the exposure, 

and the likelihood of severity outcomes. Adopting principles associated with the Safe System 

approach to road safety can help complement and advance the approaches and methods 

presented in this guide.(25)

North Carolina’s SHSP, published in 2020, includes a provision to implement their Safest Feasible 

Intersection Design (SaFID) policy.(26) SaFID involves choosing the lowest-CMF intersection design 

alternative that applies to the average annual daily traffic (AADT) and number of lanes on each 

approach. North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) developed a table that lists the various alternatives and 

associated CMFs for designs applicable to each bin of approach AADTs and number of lanes to assist 

with implementing this policy. The SaFID policy integrates intersection control evaluation techniques 

with the Safe System approach. NCDOT would then need to present justification to deviate from the 

safest feasible alternative (e.g., to choose a more cost-effective design, to account for mobility needs).

3.3.2 Encouraging Project Bundling

Due to the level of effort needed to manage Federal-aid highway projects, it can be more costeffective to select projects with higher project costs or bundle smaller projects to gain 

efficiencies during project delivery and assure most of the budget is spent on implementing 

countermeasures. This applies to both State and local agency projects. Agencies can encourage 

capitalizing on economies of scale by bundling lower-cost countermeasures or projects into 

larger contracts. Project bundling often allows agencies to address a greater number of 

locations at a lower unit cost than could be achieved through multiple smaller projects. 

FHWA’s Every Day Counts—Round 5 includes a Project Bundling initiative. Refer to the Every 

Day Counts website for more information.

The Indiana DOT (INDOT) has several strategies for improving the efficiency of project 

implementation. For example, when individual projects come in with low costs (e.g., under $25,000) 

or a high overhead, program managers encourage increasing the scale of the design and construction 

scope to achieve economies of scale, principally by pooling the same countermeasure across multiple 

State districts into a statewide contract or bundling nearby projects of different work types.

b

3.3.3 Exploring Design-Build Contracting for HSIP Projects

Typical design-build projects issue a scope of work and then score contractor teams’ proposals 

based on the value of their bids and qualifications to design and deliver the scope. Design-build 

b INDOT shared this information with the project team during a focus group interview noted in appendix A. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 3

17

and other alternative contracting methods are potentially applicable to projects developed with 

the site-specific, systemic, systematic, and other approaches. Design-build projects can 

accelerate delivery, reduce costs, and reduce internal staff needs for planning and design. 

Agencies can also consider letting design-build projects with a fixed budget and allow 

contractors to propose a scope that offers the highest opportunity to improve safety 

performance from various options using the team’s bid prices. Agencies can score contractors 

based on qualifications as well as the safety and economic performance of the contractor teams’ 

proposed countermeasures and designs. 

The Missouri DOT (MoDOT) implemented a safety-performance-based design-build project in the 

St. Louis District, implementing over 20 different countermeasures at 31 locations in two counties at 

a cost of over $24 million. The countermeasures included high-friction surface treatments, reflective 

pavement markers, rumble strips, intersection conflict warning systems, and flashing beacons on stop 

signs. MoDOT estimates that the project is expected to prevent over 70 fatalities and serious injuries 

over 10 years.(27)

3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter presents strategies agencies can employ in program management, safety planning, 

and project implementation to improve decision making and the overall performance of the 

HSIP. These strategies include opportunities to improve program policies and procedures, 

encourage and support local agency involvement, and select and implement projects based on 

safety performance. 

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

19

CHAPTER 4. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS AND PROJECT

SELECTION

While there are differences in how analysts identify opportunities for safety improvement and 

select countermeasures, the economic appraisal and prioritization methods are generally the 

same for all infrastructure projects in the HSIP. The HSIP managers and analysts use a 

combination of policies, strategies, analytical methods, and research to select HSIP projects that 

maximize the lives saved and serious injuries prevented by their infrastructure programs. 

Benefit-cost analysis allows analysts to quantify and compare the benefits and costs among 

highway safety improvement projects. The results of benefit-cost analysis help program 

managers select a combination of cost-effective projects that improve the HSIP’s potential to 

save lives and prevent serious injuries. 

This chapter includes:

• Section 4.1, which describes fundamental DDSA concepts for estimating highway safety 

performance.

• Section 4.2, which compares economic measures used in highway safety benefit-cost 

analysis. 

• Section 4.3, which demonstrates project prioritization and selection approaches for 

safety performance.

• Section 4.4, which applies a cost-justification analysis for projects with unquantifiable 

benefits. 

• Section 4.5, which summarizes the chapter. 

4.1 QUANTIFYING HIGHWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE

Analysts can estimate the safety performance of an existing or proposed roadway using average 

historical crash frequencies to calculate observed crash frequency, SPFs to determine predicted 

crash frequency, or a weighted average of both called expected crash frequency. SPFs are bestfit regression models that predict average crash frequencies based on sites with similar 

characteristics and traffic volume. Planning-level SPFs typically rely on few data elements 

(e.g., traffic volume and segment length) so agencies can more readily apply them to all roads. 

Design-level SPFs typically incorporate more variables (e.g., roadway and operational 

characteristics) to be more precise and reflect the safety performance under specific design 

scenarios. CMFs are multipliers agencies can use in conjunction with observed, predicted, and 

expected crashes to estimate the change in crashes due to a countermeasure. Lower CMFs 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

20

represent a higher average crash reduction. Although SPFs and CMFs are in terms of crashes, 

reducing and preventing fatal and serious-injury crashes can reduce the number of fatalities and 

serious injuries.

(3)

SPFs and CMFs represent the predicted crash frequency and expected change in crash

frequency, respectively, and can apply to specific crash types and severities. Crash severity is 

commonly represented in terms of the KABCO scale: K = fatal injury, A = suspected serious 

injury, B = suspected minor injury, C = possible injury, and O = no apparent injury. After a 

crash, law enforcement officials report the KABCO injury severity based on their assessment of 

injuries and the injured persons’ complaints.(3) The remainder of the guide uses the K and A 

notation for brevity at times to represent fatal and serious-injury crashes.

4.1.1 Estimating the Benefits of Highway Safety Projects

The benefits of an HSIP project come from preventing future crashes that would have occurred 

over its service life had the project not been implemented or by reducing the average severity 

of such crashes. Although it may be desirable to consider a project’s benefits and disbenefits 

beyond safety, it is currently infeasible to do so consistently and fairly, and it does not 

represent current practice in the field. Focusing solely on projects’ safety performance allows 

HSIP managers to maximize the safety benefits of the HSIP.

By estimating the long-term average crash frequency at the site without the project (i.e., in 

terms of observed, predicted, or expected crash frequency), analysts can estimate the safety 

performance benefits of the projects by multiplying the no-build crash frequency estimate by a 

CMF representing the countermeasure’s effectiveness. Another option is to compare the crash 

frequency estimates for two alternative conditions. The difference in average crash frequency 

between existing and proposed conditions represents the safety benefits of the project. 

Analysts can use average crash costs to monetize a project’s safety benefits and compare the 

benefits to project costs. The Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis guide contains national 

crash costs and procedures to update and adjust them to individual States. Chapter 5 of this 

guide discusses these concepts further in the context of project selection methods to maximize 

HSIP performance. 

4.1.2 Assessing the Range of Estimated Countermeasure Effectiveness

CMFs represent the mean estimated effectiveness of countermeasures under average 

conditions, as shown in figure 3. Analysts almost universally apply CMFs as the mean point 

estimate of the CMF; however, the crash reduction indicated by the CMF is not guaranteed—

there is random variation associated with the estimate. Many CMFs also have an associated 

standard error, listed in the CMF Clearinghouse, indicating the variance in the sample of data 

used to develop the CMF. Analysts could use the CMF and associated standard error to 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

21

determine confidence intervals for the estimated change in crash frequency. Analysts should 

confirm that the CMF fits the scenario at hand (e.g., rural versus urban application).

Figure 3. Equation. Application of CMF to estimate crashes with treatment.

Using more conservative CMF values, such as the lower bound of the confidence interval as 

shown in figure 4, to estimate performance outcomes increases the likelihood that those 

outcomes are met. It also favors countermeasures with low CMFs and small standard errors, 

which is a desirable scenario. The Multiple of Standard Error is approximately equal to 1 for a 

68-percent confidence interval, 2 for 95-percent, and 3 for 99.7 percent. 

Figure 4. Equation. Calculating a CMF confidence interval.

When a project’s range of predicted effectiveness includes CMF values at or above 1.0, project 

managers can consider what success factors would be necessary for the project to meet 

expectations. For example, the 95-percent confidence interval for a CMF of 0.90 with a 

standard error of 0.10 is approximately 0.70 to 1.10, which indicates there is a 95-percent 

chance the true value of the CMF falls within this range. As such, there is a chance that crashes 

could increase (i.e., true value is greater than 1.0) as a result of the countermeasure.

4.2 QUANTIFYING SAFETY PERFORMANCE IN ECONOMIC TERMS

Agencies can use many measures, indices, and factors to prioritize proposed projects. Table 2 

lists the safety-related economic prioritization criteria commonly discussed in the literature and 

indicates whether the methods consider benefits, costs, and monetary values.

(3,5) 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

22

Table 2. Comparison of safety-related economic prioritization criteria.

Economic Measure Considers 

Benefits

Considers 

Costs

Considers Monetary 

Benefits and Costs

Number of crashes reduced Yes No No

Project costs No Yes No

Cost-effectiveness index (CEI) Yes Yes No

BCR Yes Yes Yes

Net present value (NPV) Yes Yes Yes

Payback period Yes Yes Yes

Incremental benefit-cost analysis 

(IBCA) Yes Yes Yes

The bottom four measures in table 2 directly compare monetary benefits and costs, which is 

necessary to prioritize projects economically in a fiscally-constrained program. As described in 

the HSM, the IBCA method yields the same priority ranking as NPV.

(5) The payback period does 

not consider the full extent of benefits—only up to the value of costs.

4.2.1 Measuring the Cost Effectiveness of Performance Impacts

FHWA’s Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide states that BCR and NPV are often the most 

appropriate economic measures to assess alternatives. The BCR is a unitless ratio of total safety 

benefits to project costs and it indicates the value of crash reduction per dollar spent. Further, 

analysts can use the BCR to compare safety projects on economic merit. Figure 5 shows the 

basic equation for BCR.(28) Chapter 5 of this guide discusses why the BCR in terms of the 

change in fatal and serious-injury crashes per dollar invested is the preferred measure to rank 

HSIP projects in order of estimated performance and cost effectiveness. 

Figure 5. Equation. Benefit-cost ratio calculation.

4.2.2 Measuring the Magnitude of Safety Performance Impacts

With respect to the overarching goal of the HSIP, the magnitude of safety performance impacts 

from infrastructure projects is represented in terms of the change in fatal and serious-injury 

crashes. Analysts can apply average injury-to-crash ratios (e.g., 1.1 fatalities and 0.3 suspected 

serious injuries per fatal crash) to translate crashes into fatalities and injuries when predicting 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

23

how a project or program affects the standard performance measures listed in chapter 1. These 

measures represent the overall outcomes of the program given its fixed inputs. The BCR 

provides an objective measure of the cost-effectiveness of the program. If the program budget 

is generally consistent over time, it is not necessary to compute the BCR or monetize the 

safety benefits since the denominator remains the same (or at least similar). Instead, there is an 

opportunity to simply compare the outcomes of the program. Analysts can add the crashes 

reduced across projects to determine the total effect of multiple projects, subprograms, or the 

whole HSIP on safety performance. 

The NPV (a.k.a., net benefits, net return) is the difference between a project’s total safety 

benefits and costs, which indicates the monetary safety benefits that each project is expected to 

generate beyond its costs to taxpayers. Figure 6 shows the basic equation for NPV. The NPV 

does not have much practical meaning in highway safety because projects do not have to pay 

back costs to taxpayers before realizing the investment’s desired benefits (i.e., unlike benefitcost analysis for buying a business or other private investment). For this reason, it is meaningful 

to include the total safety benefits of the program or a project—not the net benefits. 

Figure 6. Equation. Net present value calculation.

4.3 PRIORITIZING AND SELECTING PROJECTS 

While there are distinct differences in how agencies employ the site-specific, systemic, and 

systematic approaches to identify and address safety issues, all these approaches deliver 

projects with the purpose of cost-effectively saving lives and preventing serious injuries. The 

economic analysis and prioritization methods to estimate the cost effectiveness of each project 

are generally the same for all infrastructure projects in the HSIP regardless of the approach to 

identify and develop the projects. Benefit-cost analysis is an important component of the HSIP 

process because it allows analysts to quantify and compare the benefits and costs of all HSIP 

projects in consistent terms. The results of benefit-cost analysis help program managers select a 

combination of cost-effective projects that yield the greatest opportunity to maximize HSIP

performance. Section 4.3.2 discusses how qualitative factors, such as scheduling and public 

involvement, can also play a role in project selection.

Project selection practices in the HSIP are largely driven by whether projects are analyzed with 

benefit-cost analysis or not. States are not required to use benefit-cost analysis; however, they 

are required to consider the potential reduction in fatalities and serious injuries, the cost 

effectiveness of their projects, and the priorities in their SHSP (23 CFR Part 924(a)(6)). Thus, 

most States conduct benefit-cost analysis for at least some projects, and many prioritize 

projects primarily using benefit-cost analysis. Many of those States use BCR to rank projects, 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

24

and a few use NPV. The Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide includes methods to prioritize 

projects by BCR, indicating that ranking by NPV can result in less-efficient projects and reduce 

the overall effectiveness of the program.(28) Regardless of the approach and methods, applying 

safety management approaches and DDSA methods reliably and consistently across all projects 

is important.

Applying total safety benefits or NPV as a cost-effectiveness measure involves also knowing the 

costs needed to achieve those benefits. On the other hand, BCR is a direct measure of costeffectiveness on its own. Table 3 illustrates this comparison with two hypothetical projects. 

Each project is estimated to result in an NPV of $100,000. To achieve the same NPV, Project 1 

needs an investment of $200,000 and Project 2 needs an investment of $1,000,000. These 

projects are equal based on NPV. Based on BCR, Project 1 is a much better investment since it 

yields the same net outcome at five times lower costs, allowing program managers to use the 

other $800,000 more cost-effectively elsewhere. In summary, BCR is a better measure of costeffectiveness as well as the expected performance of each project because the program is 

fiscally constrained.

Table 3. Example projects to compare NPV and BCR.

Project Total Safety Benefits Project Costs NPV BCR

Project 1 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 1.5 

Project 2 $1,100,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 1.1 

4.3.1 Hypothetical Project Prioritization and Selection Example

Optimizing the implementation of highly cost-effective countermeasures at sites with high PSI 

maximizes the estimated performance of the HSIP. Table 4 shows the total safety benefits, 

project costs, NPV, and BCR for 10 hypothetical projects. All projects have a BCR greater than 

or equal to 1.5. Analysts can rank the projects by BCR to determine their priority in terms of 

cost-effectiveness. A simple approach would then be to select projects down the list until the 

available budget is spent based on implementation costs. While analysts should consider total 

maintenance costs over the service life of the project (whether these come from HSIP dollars 

or other funding sources) in computing the BCR, funding is constrained by implementation 

costs. This exercise could be completed with any set of projects to demonstrate their relative 

effectiveness and priority. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

25

Table 4. Present value economic data for 10 hypothetical safety projects. 

Project Total Safety Benefits

Implementation 

Costs

Total 

Maintenance 

Costs over 

Service Life

BCR

Project 1 $900,000 $300,000 $60,000 2.5 

Project 2 $500,000 $250,000 $40,000 1.7 

Project 3 $700,000 $200,000 $5,000 3.4 

Project 4 $1,000,000 $400,000 $100,000 2.0 

Project 5 $150,000 $75,000 $25,000 1.5 

Project 6 $600,000 $100,000 $50,000 4.0 

Project 7 $400,000 $100,000 $10,000 3.6 

Project 8 $250,000 $100,000 $15,000 2.2 

Project 9 $250,000 $50,000 $10,000 4.2 

Project 10 $150,000 $50,000 $0 3.0 

Note: Budgetary calculations may change depending on which budget the maintenance costs come from, especially 

if local agencies use their funds to maintain the treatment. 

For this example, suppose $800,000 is available within the HSIP budget and an agency wants to 

determine which of the 10 projects in table 4 represent the best investments in improving 

systemwide safety performance. Table 5 lists the project priority ranking by BCR (based on 

total projects costs). The agency selects projects from the top of the list based on

implementation costs until the $800,000 budget is filled. Rows are shaded gray for projects that 

do not fit within the budget. The economic measures for the programmed projects in table 5 

are listed in table 6. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

26

Table 5. BCR ranking and selection of hypothetical projects within an $800,000 

budget.

Project Total Safety Benefits

Implementation 

Costs

Total 

Maintenance 

Costs over 

Service Life

BCR

Project 9 $250,000 $50,000 $10,000 4.2 

Project 6 $600,000 $100,000 $50,000 4.0 

Project 7 $400,000 $100,000 $10,000 3.6 

Project 3 $700,000 $200,000 $5,000 3.4 

Project 10 $150,000 $50,000 $0 3.0 

Project 1 $900,000 $300,000 $60,000 2.5 

Project 8* $250,000 $100,000 $15,000 2.2

Project 4* $1,000,000 $400,000 $100,000 2.0

Project 2* $500,000 $250,000 $40,000 1.7

Project 5* $150,000 $75,000 $25,000 1.5

* Note: These projects do not fit within the budget. 

Table 6. Estimated outcomes of example projects ranked by BCR.

Economic Measure Outcomes from BCR 

Ranking

Total Safety Benefits $3,000,000 

Total Costs $935,000

BCR 3.2 

4.3.2 Adjusting Priority and Selecting Projects

Analysts can conduct benefit-cost analysis as projects are planned and proposed and use 

approaches such as those shown in section 4.3.1 to select projects based on safety 

performance. Chapter 5 of this guide describes a refined BCR ranking approach focusing only 

on fatalities and serious injuries. However, limitations to DDSA approaches may necessitate 

adjustments in the prioritization process. Agencies can review BCR data and associated 

calculations as well as the relative ranking to consider whether it is necessary to adjust the 

priority of any projects. Agencies using the BCR ranking method would then select sites in 

priority order after any necessary adjustments.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

27

The following are some factors that may warrant adjustments to the BCR priority ranking.

• Projects may have higher priority when other planned concurrent construction projects

at the location could contribute to less overall impacts to road users or a cost savings 

for the HSIP.

• Projects with lower maintenance needs over their service life may be higher priority 

than others.

• Projects addressing higher-priority emphasis areas or promoting equity may be given 

higher priority during selection.

• It may not be practical to use all HSIP funds in one District or region. Some agencies 

may need to balance work across staff in all regions.

• Projects needing right-of-way (ROW) acquisition may have lower priority than similar 

projects with no ROW needs due to schedule impacts and risk.

• Projects with positive environmental impacts may have higher priority than similar 

projects with no or negative environmental impacts. 

• Projects that can be implemented sooner and easier may have higher priority.

• Not having experience with implementing a countermeasure may warrant a higher or 

lower priority depending on others’ experiences, theoretical basis, and professional 

judgment. 

• Projects with favorable public feedback, support by local elected officials, or that address 

high-priority needs (e.g., school safety) could be given higher priority over projects with 

similar levels of safety benefit.

4.4 APPLYING COST-JUSTIFICATION ANALYSIS FOR PROJECTS WITH 

UNQUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS

To prioritize by BCR, there is a need to first estimate the quantifiable benefits of the projects. 

However, agencies can implement projects that have unquantifiable benefits. For example, it is 

difficult to quantify the benefits of pilot projects, workforce development, and safety data and 

analysis tool improvements, but those types of projects are necessary to improve decision 

making and maintain a successful program. Without quantifiable benefits, the methods in 

previous sections of this chapter (e.g., SPFs and CMFs) do not directly apply to selecting these 

types of projects. Instead, analysts can apply cost-justification analysis to any project with 

defined costs and unquantifiable, but reasonably expected, safety benefits. 

Cost-justification analysis helps agencies consider the likelihood that a project without a 

quantifiable benefit exceeds some level of cost-effectiveness (i.e., BCR > 1.0). While not the 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

28

ideal approach (since seeking the highest BCR is generally better than meeting a minimum 

threshold), it can provide a framework for an agency to think through their investment 

decisions for these types of projects and use judgment to determine if the projects are worth 

the cost.

Cost-justification analysis is simplest when comparing the present value of project costs 

(i.e., not annualized as the rest of this guide suggests) to the total safety benefits over the life of 

the project. For example, if a proposed project’s estimated present value costs are $300,000 

and a serious-injury crash cost is presently valued at $300,000, then the project would need to 

prevent at least one serious-injury crash (or the equivalent value of multiple minor crashes) 

over its service life to meet a BCR of 1.0. 

A more quantitative (but still subjective) approach, shown in figure 7, is also applicable to 

projects with unquantifiable benefits that are expected to indirectly increase the average BCR 

of future projects. Project stakeholders could estimate the magnitude of that increase over time 

(i.e., ∆BCR) as well as the total budget of affected projects to calculate the total expected 

impacts of the project. Agencies would need to determine if the average improvement over 

many projects would offset the costs at a reasonable ∆BCR value. 

Figure 7. Equation. Estimating reduction in fatal and serious-injury crashes from 

DDSA and safety workforce development projects.

Where: Value of Crash Reduction = estimated dollar value of crashes reduced by a 

project with unquantifiable benefits over its service life.

∆BCR = average percent increase in cost-effectiveness, expressed as a decimal,

of affected projects with quantifiable benefits in the future after the project with 

unquantifiable benefits is implemented due to improved decision making. 

Budget of Affected Projects = amount of funding for which decision making is 

expected to improve over the service life of the project.

For example, a project that provides an estimated 2-percent average improvement in BCR

across $30 million in projects (e.g., by improving safety data and analysis tools or supporting 

workforce development) could not cost more than $600,000. Program managers can use this 

information to determine if the proposed project with unquantifiable benefits would be likely to 

produce such returns over its life by selecting better projects with less resources. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 4

29

KYTC assesses DDSA-related projects against the whole budget. If a one-time, $100,000 DDSA 

project improves decision making for several years across their $41 million annual apportionment, 

they would consider using funds to advance DDSA capabilities. In contrast, with some advanced 

DDSA capabilities already, a $20 million DDSA project may not return enough benefits beyond what 

investing $20 million in more countermeasures would provide within the $41 million overall budget. 

4.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Analysts can use many economic measures in highway safety benefit-cost analysis; however, 

BCR is the preferred measure of cost-effectiveness. The estimated number of crashes 

prevented is the preferred measure of the magnitude of total performance impacts. Agencies 

should generally prioritize projects based on quantitative methods such as the BCR when 

possible, and select projects from the top of that list, considering case-by-case adjustments as 

appropriate.

Because the HSIP is focused on fatalities and serious injuries, the ideal prioritization method 

would focus only on the crashes that involve those injuries (i.e., fatal and serious-injury 

crashes). Chapter 5 describes economic methods to rank projects by their BCR pertaining to 

fatal and serious-injury crashes, which helps agencies select the best-performing projects with 

respect to the overarching goals of the HSIP.

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

31

CHAPTER 5. METHODS TO MAXIMIZE HSIP PERFORMANCE

The performance of the HSIP is dependent on the performance of its projects. Maximizing the 

safety performance of HSIP projects means maximizing the number of lives they save and 

serious injuries they prevent. As explained in chapter 4, agencies can support investment 

decisions by predicting the outcomes of competing projects or alternatives and using those 

predictions to prioritize projects through benefit-cost analysis. The best-performing, mostcost-effective, highest-priority HSIP projects deliver the greatest expected 

reductions in fatalities and serious injuries at the lowest costs.

DDSA and benefit-cost analysis methods allow analysts to estimate the number of fatalities and 

serious injuries that a project would reduce and develop a BCR based on that value by dividing 

by the project’s costs. Having a higher than expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency, a 

lower CMF, or lower costs per percent of crashes reduced does not mean that a project will 

be cost-effective—all three factors are equally important in maximizing a project’s safety 

performance. 

This chapter is divided into four sections where:

• Section 5.1 translates the concepts into mathematical terms showing how to measure 

and increase the performance of the HSIP. 

• Section 5.2 explains how to calculate inputs to the BCR equation, recognizing that SPFs 

and CMFs are not always available specifically for K and A crashes. 

• Section 5.3 reworks the BCR equation in a way that makes it easier to apply in rules of 

thumb by not relying on direct comparisons of benefits and costs. 

• Section 5.4 describes strategies based on available data and judgement that prevent K 

and A crashes most cost effectively.

5.1 MEASURING AND INCREASING HSIP PERFORMANCE

As discussed throughout this guide, the BCR is the best measure of economic performance for 

projects, countermeasures, and the overall program. Because the HSIP is constrained by a 

budget, the projects that improve safety performance most cost-effectively should maximize 

HSIP performance. BCR allows agencies to rank projects by their performance and select the 

best-performing combination of projects. 

To improve systemwide safety performance in terms of lives saved and serious injuries 

prevented, there is a need to focus the BCR on fatal and serious-injury crashes only

(i.e., BCRKA). Most States do not currently limit their benefit-cost analysis to only fatal and 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

32

serious-injury crashes because those crashes are relatively rare and random at individual 

locations. SPFs and CMFs for those crash types alone are not prevalent, and the method has 

not been well-documented and explained elsewhere in prominent literature. (See references 3, 

4, 5, 6, 28, and 30). Focusing on fatal and serious-injury crashes in benefit-cost analysis, and 

ignoring crashes resulting in minor injuries or no injury, is important to FHWA’s goal of 

maximizing serious injury reduction, not only the monetary impacts of crashes of all severities. 

Figure 8 shows a project’s BCRKA, which can be interpreted as the dollar value of prevented 

fatal and serious-injury crashes per dollar spent to implement and maintain the project over its 

service life. Projects with a higher BCRKA have greater opportunities to improve HSIP 

performance, and thus provide a greater potential for the State to meet its safety performance 

targets. A BCRKA value of 1.0 indicates that the value of the safety benefits based on KA crashes 

are equal to the project costs; a value less than 1.0 indicates the safety benefits are less than the 

project costs; and a value greater than 1.0 indicates the safety benefits exceed project costs. 

Figure 8. Equation. HSIP project cost-effectiveness measured by BCRKA. 

Agencies can use BCRKA to evaluate projects as well as the entire HSIP. Figure 9 shows the 

BCRKA of the whole HSIP (i.e., BCRKA,HSIP), which is equal to the average BCRKA value of all 

implemented projects. Since the program budget is generally fixed, figure 9 implies that 

maximizing the average BCRKA of selected projects maximizes the program’s expected 

performance. The figure 9 equation is applicable to the entire program as well as any 

subprograms (a.k.a., funding goals), strategies, or activities. Agencies can review proposed 

projects and optimize the expected safety benefits of their program by identifying the program 

of projects that maximize the equation in figure 9.

Figure 9. Equation. Overall HSIP cost-effectiveness measured by BCRKA. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

33

Rearranging and simplifying figure 9 yields figure 10, which shows lives saved and serious injuries 

prevented by the HSIP (i.e., ability to maximize HSIP performance) is proportionate to the 

average BCRKA of implemented HSIP projects and the amount of funding spent on HSIP 

projects.

c As stated previously, this equation shows that with a fixed amount of HSIP funding, an 

increase in program BCR is correlated with an increase in expected lives saved and serious 

injuries prevented by the HSIP.

Figure 10. Equation. HSIP performance is dependent on average HSIP project 

cost-effectiveness and the total funding spent on HSIP projects.

Figure 10 implies that determining whether a project’s overall BCR is greater than 1.0 (or 

whether its overall NPV is greater than $0) is unnecessary. As discussed throughout this guide, 

agencies striving for higher BCRKA program values, rather than meeting a minimum BCR 

threshold at the project level, can maximize HSIP performance. Figure 10 is applicable to the 

HSIP, related subprograms, and other safety projects beyond the HSIP. Since simply adding 

funding does not make the HSIP more efficient, figure 10 also confirms that BCRKA,HSIP is a direct 

measurement of how effectively the HSIP uses its funding to improve safety performance.

5.2 MAXIMIZING THE PERFORMANCE OF HSIP PROJECTS

By better understanding how BCRKA is calculated, analysts can optimize its inputs and therefore 

increase project benefits and HSIP performance. 

c The mathematical symbol in figure 10 (∝) means “is proportionate to.”
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

34

Analysts can estimate a project’s economic benefits in terms of the dollar value of prevented 

fatal and serious-injury crashes (i.e., BenefitsKA) using the following three-step process, where 

each step is further explained in sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.3. 

1. Estimate the number of fatal and serious-injury crashes that would be expected to occur

over the proposed project’s service life if it were not implemented (Nexp,KA). Analysts 

can substitute observed or predicted fatal and serious-injury crash frequency instead of 

the expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency but with lower reliability.

2. Apply an estimate of the combined effectiveness of all countermeasures and strategies in

reducing fatal and serious-injury crashes (i.e., the project’s effective CMFKA). 

3. Monetize those benefits by applying average comprehensive fatal and serious-injury 

crash costs (i.e., CCKA). 

Figure 11 shows the equation that applies this method to calculate the monetary value of fatal 

and serious-injury crashes reduced by a project (i.e., BenefitsKA). BCRKA ignores any changes in 

B, C, and O crash frequency from the project.

Figure 11. Equation. General equation to determine the monetary value of a 

project’s safety benefits in terms of reduced fatal and serious-injury crashes. 

Where: Nexp,KA = expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency in the future without 

the proposed project (in terms of crashes per mile per year for segments and 

ramps, or crashes per year at intersections). 

CMFKA = effective CMF in terms of fatal and serious-injury crashes for the 

proposed countermeasures. The difference between 1.0 and the CMF value is 

equal to the proportion of crashes reduced by the project.

CCKA = weighted average comprehensive fatal and serious-injury crash cost.

Figure 12 provides the general equation to estimate an HSIP project’s BCRKA (i.e., its costeffectiveness and priority) based on figure 11. Project costs typically include preliminary 

engineering (PE), ROW, construction, and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs incurred 

over the project’s service life (see section 5.2.4 for further details on project costs). The 

selected project sites and the countermeasures, which are largely dependent on the agency’s 

safety management approach to develop the project, determine the inputs to figure 12. Chapter 

6 further discusses safety management approaches. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

35

Figure 12. Equation. General equation for BCRKA, which indicates a project’s 

relative cost effectiveness, priority, and performance. 

Figure 13 replaces figure 12 when using design-level DDSA methods such as in the Interactive 

Highway Safety Design Model, rather than Nexp,KA with standalone CMFs. 

Figure 13. Equation. Determining BCRKA with project-level predictive methods.

Rather than using weighted average inputs as in the previous equations, analysts with enough 

data may prefer calculating BCRKA with disaggregate crash severity inputs, as shown in figure 14. 

Figure 14. Equation. Disaggregate equation for BCRKA and HSIP project priority.

Agencies can increase the expected performance of their HSIP projects by selecting sites with 

higher (and more severe) expected no-build crash frequencies (i.e., Nexp,KA) and implementing 

countermeasures that have a lower CMFKA and lower implementation and maintenance costs.

Agencies can also improve performance outcomes by installing HSIP countermeasures 

simultaneously with other projects to reduce costs. For example, if an agency proposes a turn 

lane with a high-safety BCRKA at a location that was also slated for resurfacing, implementing 

them both at the same time could reduce costs and user impacts when compared to 

implementing them separately. 

5.2.1 Calculating Expected Fatal and Serious-Injury Crash Frequency

Many agencies estimate expected no-build crash frequencies during network screening. Analysts 

can calculate a site’s expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency (i.e., Nexp,KA) with the 

Empirical Bayes (EB) method, which determines a weighted average of observed fatal and 

serious-injury crash frequency (Nobs,KA) and predicted fatal and serious-injury crash frequency 

(Npred,KA). Nobs,KA is an estimate of a site’s future crash frequency based on the average of 

historical fatal and serious-injury crash frequency over a period. Npred,KA is an estimate of future

fatal and serious-injury crash frequency based on an SPF, which is based on the safety 

performance of many other similar sites, ignoring historical crash frequency. Planning-level 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

36

SPFs—based on facility type, AADT, and length—are appropriate for this purpose to minimize 

the amount of data needed to apply the models to all public roads. 

The KYTC partners with University of Kentucky to develop State-specific, planning-level SPFs for 

predicting fatal and serious-injury crashes as well as lower severities. Their State-specific SPFs are the 

basis for their network screening analysis and ranking. 

If analysts do not have the data or tools to calculate Nexp,KA, they can consider adjusting 

expected fatal and all injury crash frequency (i.e., Nexp,KABC) by the average ratio of KA-to-KABC 

crashes to estimate Nexp,KA with lower reliability. For example, this may be necessary when SPFs 

for KABC are the highest-severity SPFs available for the facility type of interest. Changes in 

property-damage-only crash frequency (i.e., O in KABCO) are generally not reflective of 

changes in fatal and serious-injury crashes. Omitting O crashes and minor injuries from benefitcost analysis is expected to increase the likelihood that high-BCR projects target fatalities and 

serious injuries. Figure 15 shows the approximation to translate Nexp,KABC to Nexp,KA by an 

average proportion.

Figure 15. Equation. Expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency as a 

proportion of expected fatal and all injury crash frequency.

Where: Nexp,KA = expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency.

 Nexp,KABC = expected fatal and all injury crash frequency.

NKA / NKABC = ratio of number of fatal and serious-injury crashes to the number 

of fatal and all injury crashes in a State or region over the same period.

When it is not feasible to use Nexp,KA, analysts can consider substituting Nobs,KA or Npred,KA with 

the potential for lower reliability. Analysts may need to use Nobs,KA when SPFs and input data 

are not available or not reliable enough to use as a basis for decision making, as determined by 

professional judgment. Similarly, analysts may find it necessary to use Npred,KA when site-specific 

crash data are either unavailable or unreliable to use for decision making. Ultimately, using 

Npred,KA is a more proactive approach (i.e., independent of experience) and using Nobs,KA is more 

reactive (i.e., solely based on experience). Readers may refer to FHWA’s Scale and Scope of 

Safety Assessment Methods in the Project Development Process for more information on how to 

select and apply an appropriate method to estimate the safety performance of proposed 

projects. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

37

5.2.2 Calculating Effective Fatal and Serious-Injury CMF

Analysts select CMFs during countermeasure selection and economic analysis. A project’s 

effective CMF for the change in fatal and serious-injury crashes (i.e., CMFKA) is the combined 

value of CMFKA for the various countermeasures and strategies implemented in the project. 

Analysts can consider using CMFK, CMFKABC, or other values if CMFKA is not available for the 

countermeasure of interest. This assumes the CMF is the same for all crash severity levels 

included in the original CMF. For example, if the original CMF is 0.8 and applies to total crashes, 

then the analyst could assume the CMF is 0.8 for K, A, B, C, and O crashes. If two CMFs are 

available, one for KABC crashes (i.e., all injury crashes combined) and one for PDO crashes, the 

analyst could assume the CMF for KABC crashes is representative of K, A, B, and C crashes 

individually and the CMF for PDO crashes represents O crashes individually. It is important to 

recognize the limitations of this assumption, which may result in lower reliability and may lead 

to over- or under-estimating changes in fatal and serious-injury crashes. As such, analysts 

should exercise caution when applying CMFs for other severities (e.g., CMFKABCO) to estimate a 

change in fatal and serious-injury crashes. The following FHWA ‘how-to’ videos describe 

methods to select and combine CMFs. 

• Application of CMFs. 

• Selecting a Method to Analyze Multiple CMFs. 

• Applying a Method to Analyze Multiple CMFs. 

FHWA’s CMF Clearinghouse is the most comprehensive source of CMFs. As of January 2021, the 

CMF Clearinghouse had only 174 CMFKA values out of all 7,595 star-rated CMFs listed in the 

database (i.e., two percent), and many of those CMFKA values are for the same 

countermeasures. Of the 174 CMFKA values in the CMF Clearinghouse, 100 are in terms of all 

crash types, 36 for non-motorized crashes, and the remainder are mixed between single-vehicle 

and multiple-vehicle types.(22) Additionally, 87 CMFKA values have a star rating of 3, 18 have a 

star rating of 4, and zero have a star rating of 5. These numbers demonstrate that 

countermeasure effectiveness in terms of improving HSIP performance (i.e., reducing fatal and 

serious-injury crashes) is not well known, and past research has not focused on measuring—or 

has not been able to measure—the necessary effects (i.e., CMFKA). There is an opportunity to 

research CMFK, CMFA, and CMFKA data to better understand how countermeasures affect HSIP 

performance.

Table 7 summarizes the CMF Clearinghouse entries for higher-severity CMFs as of January 

2021. Table 7 demonstrates the opportunity to develop new CMFKA data in the future as well 

as the need to use CMFKABC or other values in the near term as an approximation of CMFKA.

(22)
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

38

Arizona, Virginia, and Utah are among the States that use CMFKABC as an approximation of 

CMFKA.

(29)

Table 7. Summary of CMF Clearinghouse entries by severity as of January 2021.(22)

Star 

Rating

CMFKA

Values

CMFK

Values

CMFA

Values

CMFKABC

Values

CMFKAB

Values

CMFABC

Values

CMFAB

Values

5 1 1 0 72 1 17 0 

4 28 68 2 391 31 111 0 

3 58 56 8 620 12 198 2 

2 49 54 12 258 2 74 0 

1 20 26 3 108 0 34 0 

Unrated 18 3 0 18 0 5 0 

Total 174 208 25 1467 46 439 2 

Analysts can also estimate a project’s CMFKA using the ratio of expected fatal and serious-injury 

crash frequency under proposed and existing conditions, as shown in figure 16. 

Figure 16. Equation. Estimating a project’s CMFKA using expected fatal and seriousinjury crash frequency under proposed and existing conditions.

Where: Nexp,KA,proposed = a project’s expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency 

under proposed conditions.

Nexp,KA,existing = expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency for existing 

conditions (i.e., no-build). 

5.2.3 Calculating Weighted Comprehensive Fatal and Serious-Injury Crash Costs

Most States establish standard comprehensive crash costs for use in HSIP analysis. FHWA’s 

Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis guide presents national crash costs and the associated 

methods to adjust them by year and State. That guide also presents a method to weight crash 

costs. The average comprehensive fatal and serious-injury crash cost (CCKA) is the weighted 

average of the comprehensive fatal crash cost (CCK) and comprehensive suspected seriousinjury crash cost (CCA) by severity proportions. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

39

The costs are weighted by the average severity distribution for the facility type (or an entire 

State or region) as shown in figure 17.

(30)

Figure 17. Equation. Weighted average comprehensive fatal and suspected 

serious-injury crash cost. 

Where: NK / NKA = ratio of number of fatal crashes to the number of fatal and seriousinjury crashes across a State, region, or facility type over the same period.

NA / NKA = ratio of number of serious-injury crashes to the number of fatal and 

serious-injury crashes in a State, region, or facility type over the same period. 

The FHWA Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis guide indicates that using weighted average 

crash costs is not an ideal practice, but is appropriate when disaggregate crash frequency 

estimates (e.g., separate SPFs for K and A) are not available.

5.2.4 Calculating Project Costs

Analysts estimate project costs during countermeasure selection and economic analysis. It is 

simplest to express project costs in annualized values since projects have different service lives. 

Analysts can also compare benefits and costs in present value or other equivalent terms if they 

account for differences in service lives. A common practice for comparing countermeasures 

with different service lives in terms of present value is to analyze multiple subsequent 

installations within the least common multiple of their service lives. For example, the common 

analysis period is 2,100 years when analyzing countermeasures with service lives of 3, 5, 7, 10, 

20, and 50 years. Using service lives that have a lower common multiple reduces the analysis 

period. For example, an analysis period of 50 years would be appropriate for analyzing 

countermeasures with service lives of 5, 10, 25, and 50 years.

Agencies typically incur implementation costs involving PE, ROW acquisition, and construction 

(CONSTR) as well as the annual increase to O&M costs resulting from the project over its 

service life. Most projects do not incur maintenance costs in the first year or two. Estimating 

annual maintenance costs throughout the service life is conservative and offers a simpler 

calculation. Analysts can calculate equivalent annuities for non-uniform operations and 

maintenance costs if judgment indicates it is necessary. Figure 18 shows how to calculate 

annualized project costs in these terms. Service lives for many countermeasures are listed in 

FHWA’s Countermeasure Service Life Guide.

(31) 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

40

Figure 18. Equation. Annualized project costs.

Where: A/P = capital recovery factor as shown in figure 19.

 i = interest rate.

n = estimated project service life before needing major reconstruction or until 

full deterioration of safety benefits. 

Figure 19. Equation. Capital recovery factor for equivalent annual costs. 

5.2.5 Sample BCRKA Calculations with Benefits and Costs

Table 8 presents BCRKA for three hypothetical projects to demonstrate the calculations. For 

Project 1, the total annual safety benefits (i. e., $143,500) are equal to the product of Nexp,KA

(i.e., 0.25 average expected fatal and serious-injury crashes per mile per year), 1 – CMFKA

(i.e., 0.20), and CCKA (i.e., $2,870,000). The annualized project costs (i.e., $29,214) are equal to 

the product of the present value implementation costs (i.e., $500,000) and the capital recovery 

factor (i.e., 0.05743) plus the annual operations and maintenance costs (i.e., $500). The BCRKA

(i.e., 4.9) is equal to the total annual safety benefits (i.e., $143,500) divided by annualized project 

costs (i.e., $29,214). 

An agency can use economic analysis results as summarized in table 8 to prioritize projects. An 

agency looking to maximize cost-effectiveness would select Project 1, as this project provides 

the best return on investment. Meanwhile, agencies looking to maximize the reduction in KA 

crashes, regardless of project cost, would select Project 3, which is expected to prevent 0.12 

KA crashes (compared to 0.05 in Project 1 and 0.005 in Project 2).
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

41

Table 8. BCRKA calculations for three hypothetical projects using benefits and costs. 

Value Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Nexp,KA 0.25 0.10 0.40 

CMFKA 0.80 0.95 0.70 

Expected KA crash reduction 0.05 0.005 0.12 

CCKA $2,870,000 $2,870,000 $2,870,000 

Implementation costs (present value) $500,000 $150,000 $3,000,000 

Operations and maintenance costs (annual) $500 $1,000 $2,500 

Service life (years) 25 10 50 

Interest rate 3 percent 3 percent 3 percent

Capital recovery factor (A/P, i, n) 0.05743 0.11723 0.03887 

Total safety benefits (annual) $143,500 $15,000 $360,000 

Project costs (annualized) $29,214 $18,585 $119,096 

BCRKA 4.9 0.8 3.0 

5.3 IMPROVING THE INTERPRETATION OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE

As explained in section 4.2, agencies can appraise the benefits and costs of projects as shown in 

figure 5 and figure 8. The challenge with calculating BCR this way is that countermeasuredependent inputs are associated with the numerator (i.e., benefits) and denominator (i.e., costs) 

of the equation. This makes it difficult to compare the monetary benefits of countermeasures 

independent of their location. Alternatively, comparing countermeasures by their CMF or total 

safety benefits does not account for their cost effectiveness—a lower CMF does not necessarily 

increase the BCR because it may come at disproportionately higher costs, and vice versa.

It would be easier to understand how to maximize a site or countermeasure’s anticipated 

contributions to the performance of a project by consolidating the site-dependent and 

countermeasure-dependent inputs to single factors (i.e., rather than benefits and costs). 

Rearranging figure 12 yields figure 20, which separates site-dependent and countermeasuredependent factors in each set of brackets, respectively. Crash costs (i.e., CCKA) are applied to 

the site-specific crash frequency and are grouped accordingly. Additionally, although project 

costs are somewhat site-dependent (e.g., land use, real estate value) they are mostly driven by 

what countermeasures are proposed in the project. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

42

Figure 20. Equation. Rearranged equation for BCRKA showing site- and 

countermeasure-dependent inputs. 

The site-dependent component of figure 20 (i.e., the product of Nexp,KA and CCKA) represents 

the monetary value of expected future crashes if a project were not implemented. This 

measure could also be considered the maximum amount of monetary benefit available at a 

location in terms of fatal and serious-injury crashes (PSI$,KA), as shown in figure 21. 

Figure 21. Equation. Maximum monetary potential for safety improvement.

The countermeasure-dependent component of figure 20 (i.e., (1 – CMFKA) / Project Costs) 

represents the proportion of fatal and serious-injury crashes reduced per dollar. However, in 

practice this ratio is difficult to interpret or apply. The difference of (1 – CMFKA) is a 

proportion, not a percent. It would be easier for practitioners to interpret this measure in 

practice with a CRF, which is in terms of percent crash reduction. Substituting PSI$,KA and 

CRFKA into figure 20 yields figure 22. 

Figure 22. Equation. BCRKA equation based on PSI$,KA, CRFKA, and project costs.

However, the combined ratio of CRFKA to project costs shown in figure 22 can also be difficult 

to interpret when the percent crash reduction per dollar is very small. Conceptually, 

practitioners may want to compare how much it costs to reduce a comparable amount of 

crashes with different countermeasures, not how many crashes each countermeasure can 

reduce at a comparable cost. Rather than scaling up this ratio (e.g., CRFKA per $100,000), 

inverting the ratio indicates the average cost to reduce one percent of fatal and serious-injury 

crashes, which could be referred to as a Countermeasure Score (CM ScoreKA). 

The CM ScoreKA measure is shown in figure 23. In general, lower CM Scores are desirable. The 

project costs in CM Scores need to be in terms of annualized value per unit installation 

(e.g., mile, intersection) to compare projects with different service lives and extents. CM Scores 

have the same geometric, operational, and spatiotemporal applicability ranges as the associated 

CMFs and costs. Agencies could also consider developing CM Scores for different severity 

levels.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

43

Figure 23. Equation. Various ways to calculate CM ScoreKA. 

Substituting CM ScoreKA from figure 23 into figure 22 yields figure 24. PSI$,KA measures the 

dollar value of potential benefits at a location and a countermeasure’s CM ScoreKA represents 

how much it costs to generate one percent of those potential benefits. Thinking about HSIP 

projects in these terms can make it to easier for decision makers and analysts to understand 

how to improve the HSIP’s performance. In summary, the objective of safety management is to 

find locations with a relatively high dollar value of expected fatal and serious-injury crash 

frequency (i.e., high PSI$,KA) and implement countermeasures with a relatively low 

implementation and maintenance costs per percent fatal and serious-injury crash reduction 

over the service life (i.e., low CM ScoreKA) at those locations.

Figure 24. Equation. Simplified BCRKA equation based on PSI and countermeasure 

cost-effectiveness.

Where: PSI$,KA = equivalent dollar value of the average number of fatal and serious-injury 

crashes anticipated to occur annually per mile per year if an HSIP project were 

not implemented at a location.

CM ScoreKA = costs incurred to implement and maintain a project over its 

service life per percent reduction in fatal and serious-injury crashes.

While BCRKA is appropriate to prioritize projects and alternatives among different locations, 

analysts can use CM Scores to select among countermeasures at a given location. Considering 

the no-build expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequency (Nexp,KA)—and therefore PSI$,KA—

is fixed for projects in the design phase, designers would minimize the CM ScoreKA of their 

proposed design to maximize a project’s expected performance, rather than maximizing the 

BCRKA. To accurately compare CM Scores, the values should be expressed in terms of the 

underlying unit costs (e.g., per mile, per site, per project).

5.3.1 Developing Average CM Scores

In the future, it may be desirable to compare CM Scores across multiple locations and projects 

in addition to or in place of CMFs, CEI, total safety benefits, NPV, or BCR. Of those five other 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

44

measures, only the CMF is location-independent (i.e., assuming costs are primarily driven by the 

proposed countermeasures) and it does not account for costs. The countermeasures with the 

lowest CM ScoreKA generally have the greatest opportunity to cost-effectively reduce fatalities 

and serious injuries based on predictive analysis. 

• The CM Score improves upon the CMF because the percent reduction is not enough to 

compare countermeasure cost-effectiveness—implementation and maintenance costs 

are also needed. The CM Score incorporates both components in one measure. 

• The CM Score improves upon the CEI, total benefits, NPV, and BCR because the CM 

Score is independent of project location. As shown in figure 24, the CM ScoreKA is 

directly related to BCRKA. Therefore, the CM ScoreKA is another measure of HSIP 

performance. 

Agencies could develop and maintain average CM Scores (i.e., like a State CMF list as explained 

in section 3.2.4) to compare countermeasures based on performance and to develop rules of 

thumb about implementation. Each State or region could develop CM Scores using locallydeveloped CMFs from safety effectiveness evaluations as well as average bid or construction 

prices for a countermeasure across many projects. Agencies can consider listing the most costeffective countermeasures (i.e., lowest CM Score) in the SHSP for each emphasis area or 

related to various facility types. This strategy helps reinforce the implementation of those highperforming countermeasures. 

CM Scores could also be developed nationally (e.g., using the highest quality CMFs and average 

costs, using averages of States’ CM Scores). Average CM Scores may be transferrable between 

States or area types using an index representing relative construction costs, and this approach 

would be helpful for States lacking their own data. However, calibrating CMFs and transferring 

costs separately may be more appropriate. 

The CMFs, costs, and service lives used in determining CM Scores have a large effect on the 

relative comparison between countermeasures. CM Scores would ideally use costs from 

projects that cover the same range of AADTs and facility types that the CMF is applicable to. 

Each countermeasure could have multiple CM Scores applicable to different site characteristics 

or regions. Development of such accurate and precise CM Scores would need a complete and 

regular evaluation program as well as an integrated and accessible implemented 

countermeasure data set. Updating project costs to the current year (or a consistent period) is 

important when comparing CM Scores based on historical cost data.

Additionally, agencies could explore developing ranges of CM Scores for each countermeasure

using low, medium, and high costs and a range of applicable CMFs to improve decision making. 

Table 9 displays data and example CM ScoreKA calculations for common countermeasures. CMF 

inputs in table 9 are from the CMF Clearinghouse. The implementation and maintenance costs 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

45

in table 9 come from the Utah and North Carolina CMF lists, also available on the CMF 

Clearinghouse. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

46

Table 9. Example Countermeasure Score calculations with CMF Clearinghouse IDs and hypothetical costs.

(22)

Countermeasure CMF 

ID CRFKA

Implementation 

Costs (Initial)

O&M Costs 

(Annual) 

Cost 

Units 

Service 

Life

(yr)****

Interest 

Rate A/P CM ScoreKA

Install chevron signs 2438 16** $9,000 $0 Curve 15 0.03 0.0838 $47

Install centerline and 

shoulder rumble strips 2420 18 $60,000 $0 Mile 10 0.03 0.1172 $391

Install cable median 

barrier 3173 44 $300,000 $1,500 Mile 25 0.03 0.0574 $426

Convert higher speed 

intersection to 

roundabout 

4697 68*** $800,000 $2,500 Intersection 25 0.03 0.0574 $712

Install raised median 3035 44 $500,000 $0 Mile 20 0.03 0.0672 $764

Provide intersection 

illumination 436 42*** $400,000 $1,000 Intersection 15 0.03 0.0838 $822

Convert minor STOP 

to modern roundabout 7868 71** $1,000,000 $2,500 Intersection 20 0.03 0.0672 $982

Install high friction 

surface treatment 7901 52*** $650,000 $0 Mile 10 0.03 0.1172 $1,465

Install pedestrian 

hybrid beacon

2917 15** $250,000 $600 Crossing 10 0.03 0.1172 $1,994

Install w-beam 

guardrail 8393 16 $450,000 $1,500 Mile 15 0.03 0.0838 $2,450

Note: * = CRFKAB; ** = CRFKABC; *** = CRFKABCO; and **** = values based on FHWA’s Countermeasure Service Life Guide.(31)
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

47

5.3.2 Sample BCRKA Calculations with PSI and Countermeasure Scores

Table 10 presents example BCRKA calculations for the same three hypothetical projects from 

table 8. For Project 1, the PSI$,KA (i.e., $717,500) is equal to the product of Nexp,KA (i.e., 0.25 

average expected fatal and serious-injury crashes per year) and CCKA (i.e., $2,870,000). The CM 

ScoreKA (i.e., $1,461) is equal to the annualized project costs (i.e., $29,214) divided by the 

CRFKA (i.e., 20). Annualized project costs (i.e., $29,214) are equal to the product of the present 

value implementation costs (i.e., $500,000) and the capital recovery factor (i.e., 0.05743) plus 

the annual operations and maintenance costs (i.e., $500). The BCRKA (i.e., 4.9) is equal to the 

PSI$,KA (i.e., $717,500) divided by 100 times the CM ScoreKA (i.e., $1,461 x 100 = $146,100).

Given the PSI$,KA, CM ScoreKA, and BCRKA of the three projects in table 10, Project 1 offers the 

greatest potential to improve systemwide safety performance because it has the highest BCRKA

and lowest CM ScoreKA. 

Table 10. BCRKA calculations for three hypothetical projects using PSI$,KA and CM 

ScoreKA. 

Value Project 1 Project 2 Project 3

Nexp,KA (expected KA crash frequency) 0.25 0.10 0.40 

CMFKA 0.80 0.95 0.70 

(1-CMFKA) 0.20 0.05 0.30 

CRFKA (percent KA reduction) 20 5 30 

Expected KA crash reduction 0.05 0.005 0.12 

CCKA (weighted average comprehensive) $2,870,000 $2,870,000 $2,870,000 

Implementation costs (present value) $500,000 $150,000 $3,000,000 

Operations and maintenance costs (annual) $500 $1,000 $2,500 

Service life (years) 25 10 50 

Interest rate 3 percent 3 percent 3 percent

Capital recovery factor (A/P, i, n) 0.05743 0.11723 0.03887 

PSI$,KA (annual) $717,500 $287,000 $1,148,000 

CM ScoreKA (annualized) $1,461 $3,717 $3,970 

BCRKA 4.9 0.8 3.0 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

48

5.4 SELECTING PROJECTS TO MAXIMIZE HSIP PERFORMANCE 

Selecting projects and strategies to maximize HSIP performance means applying available 

funding to projects and strategies that prevent fatal and serious-injury crashes most cost 

effectively based on available data and professional judgment. Agencies can determine whether 

to prioritize all or a portion of their funding by BCR and whether to establish multiple funding 

goals (e.g., subprograms or set-asides) to program projects within. Agencies prioritizing a 

portion of their funds by BCR can create separate funding goals for projects selected by BCR 

and those selected using other means. Higher-quality safety data and more-reliable DDSA 

methods support more-objective decision making.

5.4.1 Selecting Projects for Maximum Predicted Performance

Agencies can consider using the following three-step process to select projects for maximum 

predicted performance.

1. Calculate BCRKA or BCR of a lower severity level (e.g., BCRKABC) for each project.

Agencies should use a consistent ranking measure to promote fair prioritization if 

possible (i.e., rank all projects by either BCRKA or BCRKABC, not a mix of both).

2. Prioritize (i.e., sort) all feasible projects with quantifiable benefits that are in 

consideration for funding (as in table 5) by BCR.

3. Select projects in BCR order until either:

a. The sum of all proposed projects’ implementation costs (i.e., PE, ROW, and 

CONSTR) plus reasonable contingencies exceeds the available HSIP funding for 

the target program year. 

b. The sum of all proposed projects’ annual maintenance costs exceeds an agencydefined limit of allowable maintenance cost increases annually, if such a threshold

is set. After hitting this threshold, the agency could fill the rest of the program 

with projects needing no more maintenance beyond existing conditions. 

5.4.2 Selecting Projects Using Multiple Factors

Agencies can consider the following two methods to rank and select projects considering 

multiple factors.

• Develop a weighted average index that accounts for BCR and other factors, such as 

those listed in section 4.3.2, by applying a standard weighting or scoring scheme for each 

factor of interest and summing the results as an index. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

49

• Apply the method from section 5.4.1 and determine if any changes to the proposed 

program of projects are necessary based on other factors, such as those listed in section 

4.3.2, using consensus agreement and professional judgment. 

INDOT conducts a two-step process to generate its annual capital program of traffic safety projects. 

Initially, statewide screening to identify highest-need sites is carried out by means of an application 

capturing core traffic safety performance metrics. Highest value candidates are then further assessed 

individually to confirm the best treatment, then each is explicitly scored based on formal business 

rules, such that the highest scoring in order are funded until the program budget is exhausted. 

(Overrides are rare but in select cases enable an otherwise lower-scoring candidate project to be 

evaluated in priority, to be potentially funded where scoring criteria fail to truly capture merit; and 

there are special set-asides for a number of recurring systemic countermeasures.) Project score, thus 

priority for funding, is a function of 7 scoring factors and 2 supplemental scoring factors, with 

associated weightings, based on a base 100-point scale:

• Crash severity (40 points). 

• Crash frequency (10 points). 

• Benefit-cost ratio (35 points).

• Mobility improvement (3 points).

• Public & other interests (5 points).

• Route continuity & corridor completion (2 points). 

• Multimodal components (5 points). 

• Supplemental a: external funding contributions of offsets (25 points).

• Supplemental b: coordination with other disciplines (5 points).

5.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter presents analytical approaches to estimate and improve upon overall HSIP 

performance as well as the performance of HSIP projects. In general, agencies can save more 

lives and prevent more serious injuries by increasing the average BCRKA of implemented 

projects or increasing the funding spent on performance-based safety improvements. BCRKA is a 

direct measure of program and project cost-effectiveness, priority, and performance.

Analysts can calculate BCR using annualized total safety benefits and project costs or with PSI$

and CM Score measures. Agencies can improve average project BCRKA by selecting sites with 

higher expected fatal and serious-injury crash frequencies and implementing countermeasures 

that have a lower annualized project cost per percent reduction in fatal and serious-injury 

crashes. Site and countermeasure selection are largely dependent on the safety management 

approach an agency uses to develop HSIP projects. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 5

50

Agencies should prioritize projects based on quantitative methods such as the BCR and other 

factors when possible, regardless of the approach used to identify the project. There are many 

ways to select projects. Applying a transparent, consistent, performance-based process to 

select projects, and improving upon and refining that process over time, can help agencies 

maximize HSIP performance. Transparency helps stakeholders develop competitive projects 

and can promote participation from local agencies. Consistency promotes fairness and helps 

evaluate the effectiveness of the project selection process.

The fundamental components necessary to implement a BCR prioritization approach, at least 

for a portion of projects, are currently available to agencies: crash frequency estimates or SPFs, 

crash costs, CMFs, project costs, and relevant analysis methods. Applying the general approach 

to prioritize projects by BCR is essential to improving the HSIP’s performance. One challenge 

to implement the approach in practice for fatal and serious-injury crashes is the need for 

reliable CMFKA data, which are lacking for many facility types and countermeasures. While 

DDSA tools are expected to continue to improve over time, agencies can use variations of the 

approach (e.g., applying BCRKABC) as an approximation in the interim. 

Chapter 6 discusses how agencies can apply BCRKA concepts in safety management to develop 

high-priority, cost-effective, well-performing projects during site and countermeasure selection. 

Applying BCRKA concepts allows agencies to be more strategic and performance-oriented 

throughout safety planning.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIME HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

51

CHAPTER 6. PLANNING HIGH-PERFORMING SAFETY PROJECTS

As discussed in chapter 5, tools are available to estimate a project’s expected performance in 

terms of BCR and the calculation is relatively straightforward. Planning and developing highperforming projects that include highly cost-effective countermeasures at sites with high PSI is 

not as simple. For many years, practitioners have been using the site-specific, systemic, and 

systematic approaches to strategically identify high-priority safety issues and implement targeted 

countermeasures. Each approach represents a different philosophy and framework for 

improving highway safety. 

In general, decision makers should select the best projects for their HSIP regardless of the 

approach used to identify those projects. Research has not yet demonstrated the relative 

performance of each safety management approach in practice—only the relative difference in 

countermeasure effectiveness. Safety benefits come from the countermeasures, how costeffective they are, and where they are implemented—not the approach used to plan and 

implement them. Further, agencies may need to use more than one approach to find the most 

cost-effective projects from such a wide range of potential options. If DDSA indicates one 

countermeasure is substantially more cost-effective than others, then maximizing the 

implementation of that countermeasure in a systematic approach could be a good option to 

consider. If a group of relatively high PSI sites have a similar focus crash type suitable for the 

systemic approach, then that could produce a good project. When some sites have 

extraordinarily high PSI or cost-effective countermeasures that are not applicable to the other 

approaches, the site-specific approach may be effective. 

This chapter refines current safety management approaches to gear them toward developing 

projects with optimal inputs to the BCRKA equations in figure 12 and figure 24. Sections 6.1, 6.2, 

and 6.3 outline procedures to implement the site-specific, systemic, and systematic approaches 

in practice. Table 11 includes an overview of the strengths, limitations, and variations of the 

approaches. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

52

Table 11. Comparison of safety management approaches.

Approach Main Strengths Main Limitations Main Variations

Site-specific

Address sites with higher than 

expected crash frequency; high 

potential crash reductions per location

Usually limited to one site

All crash types; Crash 

type-based screening; 

Corridor projects

Systemic

Address sites with severe crash risk in

a focus crash type; does not need sitespecific crash data

Usually addresses one crash type 

with one countermeasure; data to 

choose risk factors may be limited

SSPST; AASHTOWare 

Safety; usRAP; other 

COTS* software

Systematic

Efficiently deploy highly cost-effective 

countermeasures; independent of crash 

data

Does not consider site-specific 

potential for safety improvement

Standalone; Policybased 

Note: * COTS: commercial-off-the-shelf.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

53

6.1 APPLYING THE SITE-SPECIFIC APPROACH

Agencies applying the site-specific approach to safety management identify high-crash locations

and select the most effective and appropriate countermeasures for those sites. Site selection 

involves identifying the locations across the road network with the highest PSI based on the 

selected measure of performance (e.g., Nexp,KA). Agencies select countermeasures that address 

crash patterns or hazards constituting a large portion of each site’s Nexp,KA. Site-specific projects 

usually aim to implement highly-effective countermeasures that can reduce as many crashes as 

possible at these locations over the long term.

6.1.1 Implementing BCRKA in the Site-Specific Approach

The following steps outline the use of BCRKA in the site-specific approach to maximize or 

control for each of the factors in figure 12:

1. Conduct network screening to identify locations with high expected fatal and seriousinjury crash frequency (i.e., Nexp,KA). When it is not feasible to perform network 

screening with Nexp,KA, agencies can use Nexp,KABC or Nexp,KABCO in screening with the 

assumption that those measures are expected to identify sites that also have potential 

for improvement in fatalities and serious injuries. Agencies should consider using the EB 

method to determine Nexp,KA in terms of expected average fatal and serious-injury crash 

frequency. When it is not feasible to use the EB method, the observed fatal and seriousinjury crash frequency may be a reliable surrogate in screening. The Reliability of Safety 

Management Methods: Network Screening guide demonstrated empirically that observed 

fatal and injury crash frequency (i.e., Nobs,KABC) is nearly as effective as Nexp,KABC in 

screening the network for locations that lead to cost-effective projects.(32)

2. Set a reasonable threshold of sites to review from the network screening results based 

on staff and funding availability. While agencies can review locations and develop 

projects beyond the available HSIP budget, it is not necessary to investigate every site 

across the network every year and it is not an effective use of resources to develop 

projects that are not cost-effective. However, it is unlikely that every high-ranking site 

from screening is a feasible location for HSIP projects (i.e., due to eligibility and budget 

limitations). As such, agencies could review and develop projects at more locations than 

are likely to receive funding. Agencies should consider developing a backlog of unfunded 

safety needs that are regularly prioritized against new projects and can enter the 

program as needed when planned projects experience issues with schedule or budget.

3. Diagnose safety concerns at each location chosen for further investigation from network 

screening. Specifically, analysts consider the crash types and contributing factors that 

indicate the potential for future fatal and serious-injury crashes. Diagnostic analysis may 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

54

involve crash summaries, a collision diagram, investigating individual crashes, and road 

safety audits or field reviews.

4. Select feasible, appropriate countermeasure alternatives that target prominent safety 

concerns or contributing factors related to fatal and serious-injury crashes. This is an 

opportunity to employ the Safe System approach, which favors countermeasures that 

remove the risk, reduce the risk, change road user behavior, protect the road user, or 

knowingly retain the risk if necessary, in that order.

(33) Agencies should consider using 

the CMFKA and average life-cycle project costs in countermeasure selection (i.e., 

selecting targeted countermeasures that also provide a relatively high benefit in fatal and 

serious-injury crashes). When a countermeasure’s effects on fatal and serious-injury 

crashes are unknown, analysts can use CMFKABC or CMFKABCO as an approximation of 

CMFKA, recognizing that this assumption may lead to over- or underestimating changes 

in specific severity levels. 

5. Apply crash costs (e.g., CCKA) in benefit cost analysis to determine each project’s BCR. 

Agencies can apply average crash costs by severity (CCK and CCA) to the expected 

change in fatal and serious-injury crashes, respectively. When this information is not 

available by severity, analysts can estimate benefits using more aggregate severity levels 

(KA, KABC, or KABCO).

6. Rank alternatives by BCR and select economically valid alternatives that address the 

needs of stakeholder agencies and the public at the project location. To maximize lives 

saved, agencies can analyze and prioritize projects by BCRKA. When it is not possible or 

practical to estimate BCRKA, analysts can estimate the BCR using more aggregate 

severity levels (BCRKABC or BCRKABCO).

6.1.2 Strengths and Limitations of the Site-Specific Approach in Practice

The site-specific approach has the following strengths in practice.

• It addresses locations with history of frequent severe crashes, poor safety performance, 

or negative public perception (e.g., frequent near misses or high-profile fatalities).

• It concentrates the implementation of countermeasures where many crashes are likely 

to occur and where many road users are likely to benefit from them, especially when 

paired with the EB method. The EB method can help to account for regression-to-themean, which is particularly relevant when focusing on KA crashes. 

• The approach relies on integrated high-level crash and roadway data across the 

network, and in some cases crash data is enough to identify candidate project locations. 

Detailed crash and roadway data are only necessary on a site-by-site basis because the 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

55

only inputs for planning-level SPFs used in network screening are high-level crash and 

roadway data. 

• The process is straightforward and easy to learn, implement, and communicate to 

others. 

• Most agencies already have well-defined procedures to implement the approach.

• Many existing resources document the site-specific approach and related methods.

The site-specific approach has the following limitations in practice.

• Program managers and analysts review sites iteratively, which is not an efficient way to 

identify the most effective projects across all public roads.

• Achieving a high-crash reduction can be more important for project stakeholders than 

cost-effectiveness due to extraordinarily high-crash frequencies at each location (i.e., if 

agencies prefer ranking NPV over BCR for mutually-exclusive alternatives).

• The approach tends to concentrate fewer projects at high-volume, urban locations. 

Agencies could establish supplemental policies or procedures to promote more 

equitable funding distribution across all high PSI sites.

• Investing a large amount of funds at each site can cause significant impacts to the HSIP’s

expected performance when even one project does not achieve its intended outcome.

• Using observed crashes, particularly observed K and A crashes, in the site-specific 

approach is prone to issues related to regression-to-the-mean. As discussed in the 

previous list of strengths, using the EB method can help to account for regression-tothe-mean.

6.2 APPLYING THE SYSTEMIC APPROACH

Rather than concentrating projects at high-crash frequency locations, agencies apply the 

systemic approach to widely implement countermeasures that can address fatal and seriousinjury crash types with a high average BCR across a corridor, region, or the whole network.

Agencies typically use crash trees, summaries, statistics, and other tools to select focus crash 

types as well as facility types where those crash types are common or overrepresented.

Analysts then identify risk factors by reviewing data to identify geometric, operational, and 

contextual characteristics that are overrepresented at the locations where those severe crash 

types occur. Some systemic projects begin with a focus crash type and a highly-cost-effective 

countermeasure that an agency wants to use to address those crashes. Agencies following this 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

56

approach use the same process but can tailor their risk factors to characteristics that indicate 

the site’s need and suitability for the countermeasure. The SSPST contains more information 

about selecting focus crash types, facility types, and risk factors.(6)

IDOT’s Systemic Safety Improvements: Analysis, Guidelines and Procedures document demonstrates 

benefit-cost analysis for systemic projects using their benefit-cost tool. The tool uses crash frequency, 

countermeasure costs and quantities, target crash types, CMFs, and service life to calculate a BCR 

and the total estimated number of lives saved by the systemic project.

(34)

6.2.1 Implementing BCRKA in the Systemic Approach

The following steps outline the use of BCRKA in the systemic approach as laid out in the SSPST

to maximize or control for each of the factors in figure 12: 

1. Select a focus crash type from the SHSP or identify focus crash types from crash type 

distributions for observed fatal and serious-injury crashes across a corridor, region, or 

the whole network. 

2. Determine a focus facility type where many sites have a relatively high expected fatal 

and serious-injury crash frequency for the focus crash type (i.e., high Nexp,KA,type) or 

where the focus crash type is proportionally overrepresented (i.e., high ratio of 

Nobs,KA,type to Nobs,KA). 

3. Select risk factors that indicate a greater potential for severe focus crashes to occur. 

Agencies may determine risk factors from existing resources (e.g., SSPST, CMF 

Clearinghouse) or existing safety databases, or they may collect new data to use as risk 

factors. There is typically limited information on risk factors across the network that can 

be readily used for analysis. Agencies should consider basing risk factor selection on

statistical correlations and the predictive power of potential risk factors. 

4. Screen and prioritize sites based on high Nexp,KA,type or the presence of risk factors. Figure 

12 and figure 14 demonstrate that projects are expected to be more effective when a 

site’s Nexp,KA is higher as well as when Nexp,KA,type represents a higher proportion of a 

site’s Nexp,KA. 

5. Select feasible, appropriate countermeasure alternatives that target the focus crash type. 

Agencies should consider the CMFKA and average project costs in countermeasure 

selection. When a countermeasure’s effects on fatal and serious-injury crashes are 

unknown, analysts can use CMFKABC or CMFKABCO to approximate CMFKA, recognizing 

that this assumption may lead to over- or underestimating changes in specific severity 

levels.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

57

6. Apply crash costs (e.g., CCKA) to determine the project’s BCR, considering the benefits 

and disbenefits to all fatal and serious-injury crashes (i.e., not solely the focus crash 

type). Agencies should consider applying average crash costs by severity (CCK and CCA) 

to the expected change in fatal and serious-injury crashes, respectively. When this 

information is not available by severity, analysts can estimate benefits using more 

aggregate severity levels (KA, KABC, or KABCO).

7. Rank alternatives by BCR and select alternatives from the list that address the needs of 

stakeholder agencies and the public at the project location. Agencies should consider

using BCRKA. When it is not possible or practical to estimate BCRKA, analysts can 

estimate the BCR using more aggregate severity levels (BCRKABC or BCRKABCO).

The following steps outline an alternative implementation of the systemic approach based on 

the BCRKA equation in figure 24. Analysts can consider this version of the systemic approach to 

overcome concerns about the quality of data used to identify risk factors or high-PSI locations.

1. Select a focus crash type, as discussed in Step 1 in the previous systemic process.

2. Select one or more facility types where the focus crash type is highly prevalent or 

where previous research (e.g., NCHRP Report 500 guides and FHWA’s Contributing 

Factors for Focus Crash and Facility Types: Quick Reference Guide) has indicated a risk for 

the focus crash type.(35,36)

3. Select one or more countermeasures with a low CM ScoreKA that are likely to address 

the focus crash type and are appropriate for the focus facility types.

4. Select sites based on high PSI$,KA,type where the countermeasure is applicable and feasible. 

In lieu of reliable site-specific data, analysts could assess and compare whole corridors 

or functional classifications of sites based on their anticipated fatal and serious-injury 

crash frequency. 

5. Rank alternative projects or locations by BCRKA and select alternatives that address the 

needs of stakeholder agencies and the public.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

58

6.2.2 Strengths and Limitations of the Systemic Approach in Practice

The systemic approach has the following strengths in practice:

• Can implement countermeasures at far more sites than could reasonably be addressed 

with the site-specific approach.

• Often focuses on implementing proven, highly cost-effective, low unit-cost 

countermeasures that generate favorable BCRs at many levels of Nexp. Previous research 

has suggested that systemic projects are empirically almost three times more costeffective on average than site-specific projects.(8)

• Investing small amounts of funding at each location prevents significant impacts to the 

HSIP’s performance when any one implementation does not achieve its intended 

outcomes (i.e., the overall project would still likely be highly cost-effective).

The systemic approach has the following limitations in practice.

• Some States do not estimate the BCR for systemic projects. Based on interviews with 

several States, one reason for not conducting benefit-cost analysis for systemic projects 

is the level of effort to do so for projects that span many miles or intersections. 

Another reason is the difficulty in integrating the roadway, crash, and traffic data needed 

to support benefit-cost analysis.

• Some countermeasures are not applicable to the systemic approach because of the 

nature of the countermeasure or limited budgets. 

6.3 APPLYING THE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH

The systematic approach to safety management involves implementing proven, cost-effective 

countermeasures or upgrades to existing safety features at most or all feasible locations across 

a facility type (e.g., freeways, signals), region, or the whole network. Agencies either implement 

the systematic approach through standalone projects or by integrating countermeasures into 

the agency’s design standards. The preferred approach is to integrate the most cost-effective 

countermeasures into design standards, so the costs are distributed amongst all projects and 

not incurred solely by the HSIP. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

59

However, agencies may want to consider implementing standalone systematic HSIP projects for 

highly cost-effective countermeasures in the following situations:

1. If DDSA or performance-based analysis demonstrates a countermeasure is extremely 

cost-effective and can be feasibly implemented at most sites of the applicable facility 

types (e.g., rumble strips, retroreflective backplates).

2. If the agency does not have resources or tools to reasonably identify candidate project 

locations, which is a necessity in the site-specific and systemic approaches.

3. If the quality of site-specific crash data is relatively poor or generally unknown.

KYTC lists cost-effective countermeasures like rumble strips in their SHSP. Once the countermeasure 

has been deployed on most high-priority locations using HSIP funding, it gets incorporated into KYTC’s 

design standards and is no longer implemented on State-owned facilities using HSIP funds. 

6.3.1 Implementing BCRKA in the Systematic Approach

Systematic projects do not consider site-specific safety performance during countermeasure 

implementation. This means that the only factor impacting the performance of this approach 

(i.e., beyond network safety performance) is the project cost per percent reduction in fatalities 

and serious injuries over the proposed project’s service life, which is determined by CMFKA and 

project costs. 

1. Select a focus crash type from the SHSP or identify focus crash types from crash type 

distributions for observed fatal and serious-injury crashes across a corridor, region, or 

the whole network. 

2. Select feasible, appropriate countermeasure alternatives that target a focus crash type.

Agencies should consider using CMFKA and estimates of project costs in countermeasure 

selection. Because systematic projects are generally implemented at all feasible locations, 

agencies may want to emphasize lower-unit-cost countermeasures. When a 

countermeasure’s effects on fatal and serious-injury crashes are unknown, analysts can 

use CMFKABC or CMFKABCO to approximate CMFKA, recognizing that this assumption may 

lead to over- or underestimating changes in specific severity levels.

3. Identify candidate locations and determine the scale and cost of the project. 

4. Apply crash costs (e.g., CCKA) to determine the project’s BCR, considering the benefits 

and disbenefits to all fatal and serious-injury crashes (i.e., not only the focus crash type). 

Agencies should consider applying average crash costs by severity (CCK and CCA) to the 

expected change in fatal and serious-injury crashes, respectively. When this information 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

60

is not available by severity, analysts can estimate benefits using more aggregate severity 

levels (KA, KABC, or KABCO).

5. Rank alternatives by BCR and select alternatives from the list that address the needs of 

stakeholder agencies and the public at the project location. Agencies should consider

using BCRKA to rank and select proposed projects. When it is not possible or practical 

to estimate BCRKA, analysts can estimate the BCR using more aggregate severity levels 

(BCRKABC or BCRKABCO).

The use of BCRKA in the systematic approach simply involves selecting countermeasures with 

the lowest CM ScoreKA that can be widely implemented to nearly all applicable sites. Integrating 

these countermeasures into agency standards is the preferred approach but standalone projects 

can be highly cost-effective as well.

6.3.2 Strengths and Limitations of the Systematic Approach in Practice

The systematic approach has the following strengths in practice:

• It is simple and needs the least analysis of the major safety management approaches, 

because it needs no site-specific crash data.

• Accurate risk assessment is not a component, and therefore it is especially applicable to 

widely addressing low volume roads where relative differences in risk between sites are 

negligible.

The systematic approach has the following limitations in practice.

• While the decision to implement a countermeasure systematically may be based on 

average cost-effectiveness, the approach does not consider the relative costeffectiveness of implementation at different locations (i.e., like site-specific or systemic) 

and therefore may include locations that are not the most cost-effective. 

• Some countermeasures are not reasonable or feasible to implement widely across the 

network.

 6.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter presents three safety prioritization approaches that can help agencies plan highperforming highway safety infrastructure projects. Agencies can implement the site-specific, 

systemic, and systematic approaches to strategically identify sites, select countermeasures, and 

develop projects that quantitatively improve safety with available resources, data, and analytical 

tools. Each approach has strengths and limitations related to ease, efficiency, and scalability of 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6

61

implementation; data needs; accuracy of the results; and the resulting projects’ costeffectiveness. 

Agencies can tailor each safety management approach to their needs and resource constraints 

using different analytical methods with varying levels of reliability. Agencies with relatively high 

data and analysis capabilities can implement each approach using more reliable DDSA methods. 

Agencies with relatively low data or analysis capabilities can still implement each approach (as 

discussed further in the FHWA HSIP Manual, SSPST, and other resources). 

SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

63

CHAPTER 7. CASE STUDIES 

This chapter presents case studies that illustrate how agencies can apply two quantitative 

methods discussed in chapters 4 and 5, the BCRKA and the CM Score, to prioritize projects. 

Two States, Ohio and Utah, supplied safety data and permitted the project team to compare 

their methods for prioritizing HSIP projects to the BCRKA method. Additionally, the project 

team used State-supplied information to compute CM Scores for several countermeasures. 

7.1 CASE STUDY 1: USING BCRKA TO SELECT HSIP PROJECTS

Ohio and Utah both calculate BCRs using expected benefits from crashes of all severities when 

evaluating HSIP applications. The project team calculated the BCRKA for each State-supplied 

HSIP application and ranked the applications according to the newly-calculated BCRKA to 

determine differences in ranking results.

7.1 1 Abbreviated Methodology

Typically, when agencies calculate BCRKA to evaluate HSIP applications, they apply crash costs 

by severity to the expected change in fatal and serious-injury crashes, convert these safety 

benefits to present value, and divide by present-value costs of the project. However, the Ohio 

and Utah case studies began with HSIP data that included a BCR that considers all crash 

severities. As such, the project team used an abbreviated method to calculate the BCRKA, as 

follows. The project team:

1. Determined the fraction of the safety benefit derived from reductions in fatal and 

serious-injury crashes (as opposed to reductions in all crash severities) for each HSIP 

application. This fraction is labeled the K&A fraction. 

2. Multiplied the existing BCR by the K&A fraction to calculate the BCRKA for each HSIP 

application.

The reason for using this abbreviated approach is to capture the assumptions contained in the 

State-specific methods. The State-specific methods and resulting BCRs consider elements such 

as project service life, forecast project costs by year, and forecast traffic growth. The project 

team used the existing BCRs as a starting point for the calculation and retained the assumptions 

inherent in these values when computing the BCRKA. 

The project team calculated the BCRKA for all HSIP applications and ranked each State’s 

applications according to the BCRKA. Using a consistent HSIP budget, the project team 

compared results from each State’s existing HSIP project selection methodology with the 

results from the BCRKA method. Specifically, the project team compared each method with 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

64

respect to the overall performance (i.e., estimated reduction in fatal and serious-injury crashes 

and reduction per dollar spent) within the given HSIP budget. 

7.1.2 Ohio

The Ohio DOT (ODOT) provided crash costs by severity for HSIP project applications 

considered for funding in 2020. ODOT also provided HSIP project applications and summary 

data for each application, which included the expected annual number of crashes for each 

severity level for both existing and proposed conditions. The project team identified 108 

applications suitable for analysis in this case study. Of the 108 HSIP applications investigated, 

ODOT approved 47 applications (44 percent) for HSIP funding. Following are characteristics of 

these 47 applications:

• Collectively, the approved projects are expected to reduce 12.3 fatal and serious-injury 

crashes per year, a K&A benefit of about $4.5 million annually.

• The projects are expected to gain about 40 percent of their crash benefit from 

reductions in fatal and serious-injury crashes. 

• Collectively, the projects have an expected total initial cost of about $176.2 million.

The project team calculated a crash-prevention ratio as the number of annual fatal and 

serious-injury crashes prevented per year divided by the initial program cost. For ODOT’s 

existing project selection method, this ratio is 6.98 fatal and serious-injury crashes prevented 

per year per $100 million in initial cost.

If ODOT had selected projects starting from the highest BCRKA and worked down until the 

same budget was expended, the agency could have selected 52 projects for funding with a total 

initial cost of $176.3 million—nearly identical to the cost of the projects actually funded. These 

52 projects with the highest BCRKA would have the following characteristics:

• ODOT would have funded 27 of the projects (52 percent). 

• Collectively, the projects would be expected to reduce 14.4 fatal and serious-injury 

crashes per year, 2.1 more annual crashes than ODOT’s existing selection method.

• The projects’ crash-prevention ratio would be 8.17 fatal and serious-injury crashes 

prevented per year per $100 million in initial program cost. Projects from the BCRKA

methods are expected to prevent about 17-percent more fatal and serious-injury 

crashes per program dollar than projects from ODOT’s existing method.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

65

Table 12 summarizes the differences between ODOT’s actual program and a potential program 

using the BCRKA. 

Table 12. Comparison of actual and potential ODOT HSIP Program. 

Value Actual Program Potential Program if 

Maximized by BCRKA

Total HSIP applications 108 108 

Applications funded 47 52 

Cost of funded projects $176.2 million $176.3 million

Expected annual reduction in fatal 

and serious-injury crashes 12.3 14.4 

Expected fatal and serious-injury 

crashes prevented per year per 

$100 million in program cost

6.98 8.17 

7.1.3 Utah

Like ODOT, Utah DOT (UDOT) provided crash costs by severity and summary data for 

recent HSIP project applications. The project team identified 74 project applications dated 2019 

through 2021 for analysis. Of the 74 HSIP applications investigated, UDOT approved 56 for 

HSIP funding. These 56 funded projects have the following characteristics:

• Collectively, the projects are expected to reduce 14.9 fatal and serious-injury crashes 

per year, a K&A benefit of about $42.8 million annually.

• The projects are expected to generate 78 percent of their crash benefit from reductions 

in fatal and serious-injury crashes. 

• Collectively, the projects have a total initial program cost of $115.0 million.

• The project team calculated the crash-prevention ratio of 12.96 fatal and serious-injury 

crashes prevented per year per $100 million in HSIP program funding.

If UDOT had selected projects according to their BCRKA, 48 projects could have been funded 

for a program cost of $114.6 million. These 48 projects with the highest BCRKA have the 

following characteristics:

• Forty projects (83 percent) are among those funded by UDOT. 

• The projects are expected to reduce 16.5 fatal and serious-injury crashes per year, 1.6 

more annual crashes than UDOT’s selection method.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

66

• The crash-prevention ratio would be 14.40 fatal and serious-injury crashes prevented 

per year per $100 million in program cost. The projects from the BCRKA method are 

expected to prevent about 11-percent more fatal and serious-injury crashes per 

program dollar than projects from UDOT’s existing method.

Table 13 summarizes the differences between UDOT’s actual and a potential program using the 

BCRKA. 

Table 13. Comparison of actual and potential UDOT HSIP Program. 

Value Actual Program Potential Program if 

Maximized by BCRKA

Total HSIP applications 74 74 

Applications funded 56 48 

Cost of funded projects $115.0 million $114.6 million

Expected annual reduction in fatal 

and serious-injury crashes 14.9 16.5 

Expected fatal and serious-injury 

crashes prevented per year per 

$100 million in program cost

12.96 14.40 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

67

7.1.4 Observations and Conclusions

ODOT used crash costs that were much lower than UDOT’s—about 7.7 times lower for

weighted fatal and serious-injury crashes. This difference in cost led to several observations:

• UDOT’s BCRs tend to be higher than ODOT’s BCRs. When considering all 

applications, those both funded and unfunded, UDOT’s HSIP applications have a median 

BCR of about 5.3, and ODOT’s have a median BCR of about 0.80.

• Higher costs of fatal and serious-injury crashes provide greater weight to severe crashes 

when calculating the BCR using all severities. The higher the cost for fatal and seriousinjury crashes, the closer the BCR calculated using all severities will be to the BCRKA. 

• ODOT indicated that its assumed crash-cost values are based on human capital costs. 

An alternative, comprehensive societal crash costs, if used, would increase the weighted 

cost of fatal and serious-injury crashes to about $1.118 million, according to ODOT. 

Since projects can be justified with the lower human capital cost, ODOT considered 

this method to be a conservative estimate of future safety benefits. If using the BCRKA, 

ODOT indicated that it would consider using comprehensive societal costs to justify 

project investments.

Other case-study observations and conclusions include the following:

• In these case studies, the BCRKA method resulted in selecting projects expected to 

prevent more fatal and serious-injury crashes than the current project selection 

methods used by the two States. The BCRKA method is expected to prevent 17-percent 

more severe crashes in Ohio and 11-percent more in Utah.

• The BCRKA is virtually always equal to or lower than the all-severity BCR. In Ohio, the 

median BCRKA was 0.34, compared with a median BCR of 0.80. In Utah, the median 

BCRKA was 4.1, compared with a median BCR of 5.3. If States use a minimum threshold 

BCR to consider an application for HSIP funding, the use of the BCRKA is likely to cause 

fewer projects to meet the threshold than a BCR that considers all crash severities. 

• ODOT ranks HSIP applications using a scoring system that assigns points based on 

several factors; the BCR accounts for 30 percent of the total scoring. However, ODOT 

uses a subjective process to allocate funding rather than strictly according to the results 

of the scoring.

• UDOT prioritizes applications according to the BCR, but funding decisions also consider 

other factors, such as project readiness. If Utah had selected projects solely according 

to the original State-calculated BCR, the funded projects would have had a crash-
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

68

prevention ratio of 14.29 fatal and serious-injury crashes prevented per year per 

$100 million in program cost. The BCRKA method—with a ratio of 14.40—would have 

improved on this by 0.8 percent.

• States often consider factors (as described in section 5.4) other than the BCR in 

allocating HSIP funding. However, States should recognize that the more they deviate 

from strictly funding applications with the highest BCRKA, the less effective the HSIP 

program becomes at preventing fatal and serious-injury crashes. 

7.2 CASE STUDY 2: COUNTERMEASURE SCORE

Ohio and Utah provided information about the costs, typical crash reduction factors, service 

life, and other information related to a series of countermeasures. The project team used this 

information to compute CM Scores for several countermeasures to assess the reasonableness 

of the method.

7.2.1 Ohio

ODOT provided average implementation cost and service life for several systemic 

countermeasures from the Ohio Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program (PSIP). The project 

team used the method discussed in chapter 5 to compute CM Scores for the countermeasures, 

as shown in table 14. Lower CM Scores indicate countermeasures that more efficiently reduce 

fatal and serious-injury crashes. 

The project team sourced CRFs for the countermeasures from the CMF Clearinghouse where 

available. Most CRFs for PSIP countermeasures have only a 2- or 3-star quality rating; none 

have 5-star ratings. All but one CRF applied to crashes of all severities. It was assumed that the 

remaining CRFs are uniformly applicable to all vehicle/pedestrian crash severity levels. 

ODOT provided CRFs for some countermeasures that other agencies had developed. The 

project team used ODOT-provided CRFs when no other CRF was available or when the CRF 

from the CMF Clearinghouse had only 1 or 2 stars or was not applicable to a specific 

treatment. Table 14 indicates the source of the CRF used for each countermeasure.

ODOT provided annual operation and maintenance cost for a pedestrian-hybrid beacon (PHB). 

The project team estimated the operation and maintenance cost for streetlighting, which 

includes power and periodic lamp replacement. ODOT provided no operation and maintenance 

cost for the remaining countermeasures, assuming these costs will be borne by localities rather 

than the State itself.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

69

7.2.2 Utah

UDOT provided service life, CRF, and cost ranges for five intersection improvement 

treatments that allowed the project team to compute CM Scores, as shown in table 15. The 

costs in the table are the midpoint of a broad range of costs, reflecting UDOT’s belief that 

costs are highly site-specific. The costs appear to be high for some countermeasures, such as 

lighting, which, according to UDOT, reflects the potential need to relocate conflicting overhead 

utility lines. Other agencies may find costs for lighting to be lower than those assumed by 

UDOT. Operation and maintenance cost for a PHB was estimated from ODOT-provided 

information, and the project team estimated annual cost for intersection lighting based on four 

luminaires per intersection.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

70

Table 14. Countermeasure score calculations for PSIP countermeasures using ODOT data.

Countermeasure CRFKA* Implementation 

Costs (Initial)

O&M 

Costs 

(Annual) 

Cost 

Units 

Service 

Life 

(yr)**

A/P*** CM 

ScoreKA

CRF source

Street lighting 52.5 $3,000 $25 Luminaire 30 0.0510 $3 Wanvik 2009 (2 stars),

nighttime, injury, rural**** 

Pedestrian countdown 

signals 70 $4,000 NA Crosswalk 10 0.1172 $7 Van Houten 2012 (3 stars)

Ground-mounted signs 10 $1,000 NA Crosswalk 15 0.0838 $8 ODOT 

Advance yield 

markings and signs 25 $1,500 NA Crosswalk 4 0.2690 $16 Zegeer 2017 (3 stars)

RRFBs 47.4 $15,000 NA Crosswalk 10 0.1172 $37 Zegeer 2017 (3 stars)

High-visibility 

crosswalk markings 20 $3,000 NA Crosswalk 4 0.2690 $40 ODOT 

Raised crosswalks 30 $20,000 NA Crosswalk 20 0.0672 $45 ODOT 

Curb extensions 30 $20,000 NA 2 

extensions 20 0.0672 $45 ODOT 

Refuge islands 56 $40,000 NA Crosswalk 20 0.0672 $48 FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasures

Overhead signs 10 $20,000 NA Crosswalk 30 0.0510 $102 ODOT 

Pedestrian hybrid 

beacons 56.8 $75,000 $500 Crosswalk 10 0.1172 $164 Zegeer 2017 (4 stars)

In-pavement flashers 10 $20,000 NA Crosswalk 2 0.5226 $1,045 ODOT 

* = Vehicle-pedestrian crashes only; ** Source: ODOT; *** = Assumes interest rate of 3 percent per year; and **** = CRF was determined by multiplying Wanvik CRF of 70 

by 75-percent fraction of pedestrian crashes that occur at nighttime. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

71

Table 15. Countermeasure score calculations for intersection countermeasures using UDOT data. 

Countermeasure CRFKA* Implementation 

Costs (Initial)

O&M 

Costs 

(Annual) 

Cost 

Units 

Service 

Life 

(yr)**

A/P*** CM 

ScoreKA

CRF source**

Install left-turn lanes 

on major approach 27 $140,000 NA 2 approaches 20 0.0672 $348 Highway Safety Manual,Table 14-11

Convert from STOP 

control to signal 

control 

44 $250,000 $600 Intersection 20 0.0672 $395 CMF Clearinghouse

Convert from minorstreet STOP control to 

roundabout  

88 $800,000 NA Intersection 30 0.0510 $464 CMF Clearinghouse

Convert from signal 

control to roundabout 66 $750,000 NA Intersection 30 0.0510 $580 CMF Clearinghouse

Install intersection 

lighting 38 $400,000** ** $100 4 luminaires 15 0.0838 $885 Highway Safety Manual

* = Multiple crash types; ** Source: UDOT; *** = Assumes interest rate of 3 percent per year;   = For high-speed (40 to 65 mph) major roadways; and ** ** = agencies 

may find lighting costs to be lower than those assumed by UDOT. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 7

72

7.2.3 Observations and Conclusions 

In Ohio, the high CM Score for PHBs is due to their high initial cost. It seems likely that the 

service life of a PHB is longer than ODOT’s assumed service life (perhaps 20 years instead of 

10 years); a large variation in an average cost or service life can result in a large variation in CM 

Score.

In Utah, the lowest (most favorable) CM Score is for adding left-turn lanes on major street 

approaches. Despite having the lowest CRF (smallest expected crash reduction) of the 

treatments evaluated, the low CM Score reflects the modest initial cost compared with other 

countermeasures evaluated. The conversion to a roundabout had a higher CM Score due to 

higher estimated costs, despite a roundabout’s higher CRF for severe crashes. The highest CM 

Score was for lighting, which is likely due to the relatively high cost and a relatively low CRF. As 

noted earlier, agencies may find actual lighting costs to be lower than those UDOT assumed. 

A challenge with the CM Score method may be the lack of CRFs specifically for severe crashes. 

CRFKA values are difficult to obtain for many treatments due to the relative randomness and 

infrequency of severe crashes. Some CRFs were developed for injury crashes (for all injury 

severity levels), but most CRFs are for crashes of all severities, including those where no injury 

was reported. Calculating CM ScoreKA often needs an assumption that the selected 

countermeasure reduces fatal and serious-injury crashes at the same rate as all crashes. It is 

important to recognize the limitations of this assumption, which may lead to over- or 

underestimating changes in specific severity levels.

An additional concern about the CM Score is that it does not explicitly refer to the types of 

crashes considered. For instance, table 14 shows that high-visibility crosswalk markings have a 

CM Score of $40, which means the markings can typically reduce 1 percent of severe crashes 

for a cost of $40. However, the type of crashes susceptible to correction by crosswalk 

markings is typically pedestrian crashes and not, for instance, roadway departure crashes. It may 

not be appropriate to compare the CM Score for countermeasures targeting pedestrian crashes 

with countermeasures targeting other types of crashes, such as horizontal curve signing.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIME HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 8

73

CHAPTER 8. SUMMARY

This guide presents various approaches and methods agencies can use to maximize HSIP 

performance. Agencies can use DDSA techniques to predict how well infrastructure projects 

are expected to perform. By selecting and implementing those projects that maximize the 

estimated lives saved and injuries prevented, agencies can improve the safety performance of 

the HSIP and the likelihood to meet safety performance targets and long-term safety goals. 

Section 8.1 summarizes the salient points of the guide. Section 8.2 poses opportunities for 

future research to develop and expand upon the methods discussed in this guide. 

8.1 SAFETY MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT SELECTION 

As described in chapters 2 and 3, many different decisions through project planning and 

development can impact program performance. This guide focuses on safety planning, in which 

agencies propose projects that may implement various countermeasures across the roadway 

network. BCRKA, which measures the monetary safety benefits in terms of fatal and seriousinjury crashes reduced per dollar spent to implement and maintain a project over its service 

life, is the best economic measure of a project’s priority, cost-effectiveness, and effect on safety 

performance with respect to the overall goals of the HSIP (i.e., to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads). The BCRKA accounts for the fact that the program is fiscally 

constrained, even if individual projects are not, and focuses on the program’s intended 

benefits—lives saved and serious injuries prevented. Projects with higher BCRKA are expected 

to be more cost effective at saving lives and preventing serious injuries than projects with lower 

BCRKA. BCRKA is dependent on four main inputs:

• The average annual number of fatal and serious-injury crashes that would be expected 

to occur over the project’s service life if it were not implemented (i.e., Nexp,KA). 

• The combined effectiveness of the project’s countermeasures and strategies in reducing 

fatal and serious-injury crashes (i.e., the project’s effective CMFKA).

• Average comprehensive fatal and serious-injury crash costs (i.e., CCKA). 

• Annualized implementation and maintenance costs incurred over the project’s service 

life (i.e., project costs). 

Analysts can calculate BCRKA using the ratio of BenefitsKA to project costs (as in figure 12) or 

the ratio of PSI$,KA to CM ScoreKA (as in figure 24). The PSI$,KA and CM ScoreKA represent sitedependent and countermeasure-dependent factors, respectively, that contribute to a project’s 

performance. Projects with higher BenefitsKA and PSI$,KA values and lower project costs and CM 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIME HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 8

74

ScoreKA values generally provide the greatest opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries and thereby maximize HSIP performance. Agencies can improve the reliability of 

decision making based on BCR prioritization by using higher-quality safety data, more reliable 

predictive methods, and benefit-cost analysis. 

FHWA suggests that agencies can plan more HSIP projects than they can implement, rank those 

by BCRKA, and select feasible projects from the top of that list until the cumulative 

implementation costs exceed the program’s available budget. Agencies may also consider other 

factors as discussed in sections 4.3.2 and 5.4.2. When it is not feasible to calculate BCRKA for all 

proposed projects, approximating BCRKA with BCRKAB or BCRKABC may be necessary. 

There are at least three safety management approaches—site-specific, systemic, and 

systematic—that allow agencies to strategically identify candidate project locations, select 

appropriate countermeasures, and develop high-performing projects. This guide refines these 

safety management approaches to help agencies develop high-BCRKA projects in practice. 

Agencies can also explore other approaches that may better fit their needs. Generally, agencies 

should select the best projects regardless of the safety management approach. While many 

agencies try to implement strategies to address several emphasis areas each year, it may be 

effective to focus on fewer emphasis areas and widely implement a few countermeasures that

have an especially high BCRKA until the candidate locations are exhausted. 

When benefit-cost analysis is not applicable, agencies can prioritize by available data as well as 

frameworks such as the Safe System approach. Agencies can also consider how to best handle 

projects for which it is difficult to quantify benefits (e.g., data improvements, software upgrades, 

workforce development). This can be done by prioritizing subjectively in a separate funding goal

using alternative economic measures described in section 5.4. 

8.2 KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

The main limitation in implementing a BCRKA prioritization framework is gaps in applicable 

DDSA tools. Calculating BCRKA using the most reliable methods needs SPFs and CMFs 

applicable to fatal and serious-injury crashes; however, there are few CMFs currently available 

for fatal and serious-injury crashes. Developing more CMFKA estimates would support the 

implementation of engineering countermeasures to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. While

CMF development to prioritize all projects by fatal and serious-injury crashes carries high costs 

and would take time to fully develop, analysts can approximate BCRKA with a lower level of 

reliability using observed or predicted crashes and a CMF applicable to all injury crashes. 

Agencies can consider the benefits and costs of additional research to determine if it is worth 

the costs or if there are other methods that would work nearly as well or better at a lower 

cost. Agencies may determine that calculating BCR for all projects in consistent terms (i.e., all 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIME HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 8

75

BCRKA or BCRKABC) may be more important than estimating BCRKA for a portion of projects 

and not having the DDSA tools necessary to compute BCRKA for others.

Generally, agencies could benefit from higher-quality (e.g., complete, accurate, accessible) safety 

data regarding their implemented projects and countermeasures (e.g., locations, implementation 

dates, costs, service life, effectiveness). As discussed throughout this guide, relatively highquality safety data is helpful in improving an agency’s safety performance. 

Another gap in knowledge is how to compare expected, observed, and predicted crash 

frequencies, BCRs for different severities, and BCRs related to specific crash types. If methods 

were available to better compare and relate these values, agencies would be able to use more 

of the available DDSA tools and prioritize projects fairly with fewer funding goals. Additionally, 

some sites are not conducive to predictive modeling (e.g., when the facility types comprise only 

a few unique sites). That does not mean projects would be any less effective, but analysts may 

not know how effective they are because it is difficult to quantify with such a limited sample. 

This guide focuses on implementing engineering countermeasures to improve safety. However, 

there are numerous other ways that States can improve safety performance. There is little data 

available about the relative cost-effectiveness of safety improvements and strategies 

implemented through other disciplines (e.g., education, enforcement, vehicle design, and 

technology). With a goal of reaching zero fatalities and serious injuries at some point in the 

future, it may be important to consider which disciplines, strategies, and methods offer the 

greatest cost-effectiveness toward that goal (i.e., getting there the fastest and using the least 

resources). 

8.3 SUMMARY 

FHWA’s key findings of this research are as follows.

• Measure the performance of proposed programs or project selection scenarios in terms 

of lives saved and serious-injuries prevented to help focus the HSIP on fatal and seriousinjury crashes.

• Rank proposed projects by BCRKA and select the highest-ranked projects offers based 

on the maximum predicted performance of the HSIP. Agencies can consider other 

factors not reflected in DDSA results (e.g., geographic distribution of projects, 

environmental impacts) when selecting projects. 

• Express the BCR in terms of potential monetary safety benefits and costs or PSI$ and 

CM Score. The PSI$ measures a location’s estimated contribution to the safety 

performance of a project independent of countermeasures. The CM Score measures a 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIME HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 8

76

countermeasure’s ability to impact the safety performance of a project independent of 

where it is implemented.

• Develop more planning-level SPFs and CMFs in terms of fatal and serious-injury crashes, 

average project costs (or range of costs), and other data to support the BCRKA

prioritization method.

• Use a combination of site-specific, systemic, and systematic approaches to develop highperforming projects to fit their needs.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE APPENDIX A

77

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH MATERIALS

The authors interviewed the following agencies to inform the development of this guide.

Section A.1 lists the interview question prompts.

• Indiana DOT. 

• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.

• Montana DOT.

• Nevada DOT.

• New Hampshire DOT.

• North Carolina DOT.

• Virginia DOT.

• Wisconsin DOT.

The authors held a focus group meeting with the following agencies get provide feedback on 

the issues addressed in this guide. Section A.2 lists the focus group agenda and discussion 

questions. 

• Arizona DOT.

• Georgia DOT.

• Massachusetts DOT.

• Missouri DOT.

• New Mexico DOT (on behalf of the FHWA New Mexico Division Office staff).

• Oregon DOT.

• Washington State DOT.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE APPENDIX A

78

A.1 INTERVIEW QUESTION PROMPT

Thank you for meeting with us today. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about 

how you select and program projects at your agency. We expect this meeting to last about 60 

minutes. The purpose of this meeting is to learn about your practices, policies, and procedures 

around identifying, selecting, and programming safety improvement projects. Our goal is to 

better understand how States could choose projects to maximize HSIP performance.

1. How does your State select SHSP emphasis areas and related strategies to most 

effectively maximize your State’s HSIP performance?

2. How do the strategies documented in your State’s SHSP influence the development of 

engineering safety improvement projects?

3. What performance measures do you track and set targets for, beyond the five required 

for the HSIP?

4. What approaches does your agency use to screen your network for locations with 

potential safety improvement or otherwise solicit safety improvement projects?

5. What is the importance of data quality and analysis improvements in your ability to 

maximize HSIP performance?

6. How does your State assure projects are economically justified and meet program 

eligibility requirements? 

7. How are projects outside of the HSIP (e.g., other safety programs or where safety is not 

the primary purpose and need) considered when assessing your State’s ability to 

maximize HSIP performance?

8. How does your State prioritize safety improvement projects and program projects 

within your available budgets?

a. Site-specific, systemic, systematic, nominal safety, and data improvements?

b. Non-monetary considerations?

c. Data-limited projects?

d. Equity across districts/regions, urban/rural, road type, etc.?

e. Across multiple program years?

9. Does your State establish funding areas within the program budget (e.g., 50% of funds 

for one area or project type, 25% for another, etc.)? If so, how are the areas chosen and 

how are the funding amounts selected?

10. How does your State evaluate the effectiveness of your safety improvement programs? 

How do your evaluations affect future planning or changes to program policy and 

procedures? 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE APPENDIX A

79

11. What other approaches does your State use to help improve the potential for safety 

improvement projects to maximize HSIP performance?

12. What are the biggest challenges or barriers impacting your ability to maximize HSIP

performance and meet safety performance targets most effectively?

A.2 FOCUS GROUP AGENDA AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

FHWA is developing a guide for State DOTs and their partners relating to selecting safety 

improvement projects and strategies to meet safety performance targets. The purpose of the 

guide is to present various organizational, management, and analysis approaches to more 

effectively and reliably meet safety performance targets. This focus group meeting will help 

refine the guide’s content and identify new approaches that may be used in the future.

Focus Group Agenda (90 minutes)

10 minutes Welcome

• Introductions and expectations for the meeting

• Overview of research process and objectives

50 minutes Open Discussion

Setting Safety Performance Targets (20 minutes)

1. How important is it for States to quantify their ability to meet their 

targets, rather than simply focusing on implementing the best projects?

2. How could States account for budgetary constraints when setting targets?

3. How much involvement do MPOs and local agencies have in target 

setting? 

4. How important is it to factor in the economy and other aspects when 

setting targets and analyzing program effectiveness? What are the barriers 

to doing so?

Practical Implementation (20 minutes)

5. What program management and project delivery considerations hinder 

your ability to deliver the most cost-effective projects?
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE APPENDIX A

80

6. How do you address behavioral safety in your safety engineering 

programs?

7. How do you select effective bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements?

8. Apart from B/C and budget, what can impact a project’s priority or 

timeline?

New Methods (10 minutes)

9. If you are not totally happy with your current procedure or approach to 

selecting safety improvement projects and strategies, what would you 

change?

10. What new project selection approaches could be beneficial in the future?

20 minutes Feedback on Objectives and Draft Outline

11. What information or direction would you look for in this guide, and how 

could the guide most help your State?

12. After reviewing the draft outline, what topics or approaches would you 

like to see (or not see) in the guide? Is anything missing?

10 minutes Wrap up

• Closing thoughts/miscellaneous feedback

• Questions, next steps, and adjourn
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REFERENCES

81

REFERENCES 

1. Holodny, E. (2016). Traffic Fatalities in the US Have Been Mostly Plummeting for 

Decades. Business Insider. Available online: https://www.businessinsider.com/trafficfatalities-historical-trend-us-2016-4, last accessed February 25, 2021. 

2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2019). “Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) Encyclopedia.” (website) Washington, DC. Available online: https://wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx, last accessed November 12, 2019.

3. Herbel, S., L. Laing, and C. McGovern. (2010). Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) Manual, Report FHWA-SA-09-029, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

4. Federal Highway Administration. (2019). “Safety Performance Management (Safety PM).” 

Available online: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/, last accessed November 12, 2019.

5. AASHTO. (2010). Highway Safety Manual, AASHTO, Washington, DC.

6. Preston, H., R. Storm, J.D. Bennett, and B. Wemple. (2013. Systemic Safety Project 

Selection Tool, Report FHWA-SA-13-019, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

7. Albee, M. and Gross, F. (2019). HSIP 2019 National Summary Report, Report FHWA-SA21-006, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

8. Gross, F., T. Harmon, G. Bahar, and K. Peach. (2016). Reliability of Safety Management 

Methods: Systemic Safety Programs, Report FHWA-SA-16-041, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

9. Federal Highway Administration. (2019) “Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

– Planning.” (website) Washington, DC. Available online: 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/planning.cfm, last accessed December 19, 2020.

10. Federal Highway Administration. (2017). “HSIP Implementation Plan Guidance.” (web 

document) Washington, DC. Available online: 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/docs/hsip_implementation_plan_guida

nceFINAL.pdf, last accessed December 19, 2019. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REFERENCES

82

11. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. (2020). Alaska Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Handbook. Available online: 

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/dcstraffic/assets/pdf/hsip/2020_hsip_handbook.pdf, last 

accessed February 25, 2021. 

12. Finkel, E., McCormick, C., Miltman, M., Abel, S., Clark, L. (2020, October). Integrating 

the Safe System Approach with the Highway Safety Improvement Program: An 

Informational Report. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-20-018. Washington, 

DC. Available online: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/fhwasa2018.pdf, last accessed 

February 2, 2021. 

13. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. (2017). Kentucky Highway Safety Improvement Program 

FAST Act Investment Plan. Frankfort, KY. 

https://transportation.ky.gov/TrafficOperations/Documents/HSIP%20FAST%20Act%20In

vestment%20Plan%20with%20Memo%20to%20FHWA.pdf, last accessed February 25, 

2021. 

14. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Division of Program Management. (2018, 

September). Kentucky Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Frankfort, KY. 

Available online: https://transportation.ky.gov/ProgramManagement/Documents/2019_STIP_Complete.pdf, last accessed March 1, 2021. 

15. United States Government Accountability Office. (2020). Federal-Aid Highways: States and 

Local Governments Reported Benefits to Federal Highway Fund Swapping, but Impacts Cannot 

be Definitively Determined, Washington, DC. https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/710256.pdf, 

last accessed February 25, 2021. 

16. Iowa Department of Transportation. (n.d.). “Traffic and Safety” (website) Ames, IN. 

Available online: https://iowadot.gov/traffic/sections/HSIP, last accessed January 21, 2021.

17. Washington State Department of Transportation. (2021). “City Safety Program: Call for 

Projects”. (website). Seattle, Washington. Available online: 

https://wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Traffic/CitySafetyProgram, last accessed March 3, 

2021. 

18. Enders, M. and Bowe, S. (2015). “Washington State DOT Implements $26 Million in 

Local Roadway Safety Improvements through Local Agencies” (website). Seattle, WA. 

Available online: 

https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/html/hsip_wa2.aspx?id=167, last accessed 

February 2, 2021. 
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REFERENCES

83

19. Federal Highway Administration. (2014). “Illinois DOT Provides Local Public Agencies

with Assistance on the Use of Safety Data.” (website) Washington, DC. Available online:

https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/html/datacollect_il.aspx?id=138, last

accessed December 19, 2019.

20. Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2021). “Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis

Tool (MnCMAT2).” (website). Saint Paul, MN. Available online:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/mncmat2.html, last accessed February 25, 2021.

21. Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2014). “Final Report for the Minnesota

County Roadway Safety Plans.” (web document) Saint Paul, MN. Available online: https://

www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/rsa/CRSPphaseVreportFINAL20140313.pdf, last 

accessed December 20, 2019.

22. Federal Highway Administration. (2021, February). “Crash Modification Factors

Clearinghouse” (website). Accessible online: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/, last

accessed March 1, 2021.

23. Federal Highway Administration. (2021). “Zero Deaths and Safe System” (website).

Washington, DC. Available online:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/zero_deaths_vision.cfm. Last accessed February 

25, 2021. 

24. Federal Highway Administration. (2020). Integrating the Safe System Approach with the

Highway Safety Improvement Program. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-20-

018, Washington, DC. Available online:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/fhwasa2018.pdf, last accessed February 25, 2021.

25. Porter, R.J., J. Gooch, M. Albee, C. Chestnutt. W. Kumfer, and S. Heiny. (2019). A Safe

Systems Approach to Intersection Planning, Design & Operations in the U.S.: Literature and

Resource Review and Synthesis. Unpublished second draft manuscript.

26. North Carolina Department of Transportation. (2019). 2019 North Carolina Strategic

Highway Safety Plan. Raleigh, NC. Available online:

https://spatial.vhb.com/ncdotshsp/assets/Reports/NC%20SHSP%20Guide%20Web%20Sp

read.pdf, last accessed February 25, 2021.

27. Missouri Department of Transportation. (2019). “St. Louis Safety Design Build Project.”

(website) Jefferson City, MO. Available online: https://www.modot.org/st-louis-safetydesign-build-project, last accessed November 12, 2019.
SELECTING PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REFERENCES

84

28. Lawrence, M., A. Hachey, G. Bahar, and F. Gross. (2018). Highway Safety Benefit-Cost 

Analysis Guide, Report FHWA-SA-18-001, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. 

29. Arizona Department of Transportation. (2018, December). Arizona Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Manual, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Available online: https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/06/2015-hsip-manual.pdf, last 

accessed February 3, 2021. 

30. Harmon, T., G. Bahar, and F. Gross. (2018). Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis,

Report FHWA-SA-17-071, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

31. Himes, S., Gooch, J., Coley, D., and K. Heggedal. (2021 [anticipated]). Countermeasure 

Service Life Guide, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-21-026, Washington, DC. 

32. Srinivasan, R., F. Gross, B. Lan, and G. Bahar. (2016). Reliability of Safety Management 

Methods: Network Screening, Report FHWA-SA-16-037, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

33. Federal Highway Administration. (2020). “Zero Deaths – Saving Lives through a Safety 

Culture and a Safe System” (website). Washington, DC. Available online: 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/zero_deaths_vision.cfm, last accessed February 2, 

2021. 

34. Illinois Department of Transportation. (2014). “Systemic Safety Improvements: Analysis, 

Guidelines and Procedures.” (web document) Springfield, IL. Available online:

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides-

&-

Handbooks/Safety/Systemic%20Safety%20Improvements%20Analysis,%20Guidelines%20a

nd%20Procedures.pdf, last accessed December 20, 2019.

35. NCHRP. (2014). “NCHRP Report 500 Series” (website). Available online: 

http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152868.aspx, last accessed March 1, 2021. 

36. Porter, R., Le, T., Gross, F., Carter, D., Saleem, T., and R. Srinivasan. (2020, November). 

Contributing Factors for Focus Crash and Facility Types: A Quick Reference Guide. Federal 

Highway Administration, FHWA-HRT-20-053, Washington, DC. Available online: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/20053/20053.pdf, last accessed 

March 1, 2021. 
For More Information:

Visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/

FHWA, Office of Safety

Karen Scurry

Karen.Scurry@dot.gov

202-897-7168

FHWA-SA-20-00