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.

Sources for all photos on front cover, back cover, and first page of each chapter: iStockphoto, LP.
ii

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-16-101

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Safety Target Setting Coordination Report

5. Report Date

September 2016 

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Audrey Wennink, Ryan Klitzsch, Beth Wemple, Danena Gaines

8. Performing Organization Report 

No.

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Dr., Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140-2369

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10D-00020

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety, 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered

Final Report, June 2015-

October 2016

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Danielle Betkey is the staff at FHWA Office of Safety who led this project.

16. Abstract

MAP-21/FAST Act regulation require that identical safety targets be set in each State for the common 

safety performance measures. Additionally, safety targets must be coordinated between State DOTs 

and MPOs. This report documents best practices identified via interviews and workshops that can help 

States and MPOs improve coordination on safety target setting. 

17. Key Words 

Safety performance measures, traffic safety, 

targets, coordination

18. Distribution Statement

Unrestricted

19. Security Classif. (of this 

Unclassified

report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. 

Pages

48

of 22. Price

N/A

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

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Overview............................................................................................................................... 2

Legislative Context................................................................................................................ 3

Safety Target Setting Process Overview......................................................................... 9

Safety Target Setting Framework........................................................................................10

Technical Considerations................................................................................................. 16

Data Analysis and Availability..............................................................................................17

Serious Injury Definition ......................................................................................................21

Reporting Format ................................................................................................................22

Key Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 23

Key Stakeholders ................................................................................................................24

Coordination Process.................................................................................................... 29

Forums for Coordination......................................................................................................34

Approvals ............................................................................................................................38

Resources for Target Setting Coordination ................................................................... 39

Agenda Items for Meetings on Safety Target Setting Collaboration.....................................40

Checklist for Safety Target Development ............................................................................42
Introduction

This report is intended to assist State Departments of 

Transportation, State Highway Safety Offices, and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations with coordination as they set Federally 

required safety targets. 
2

OVERVIEW

In anticipation of Moving Ahead for Progress (MAP-21) requiring increased coordination on 

safety performance measures, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) undertook an 

initiative to identify State and regional best practices on safety target setting coordination. The 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety, in partnership with the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) led this research, which involved conducting

interviews with nine States and convening workshops in seven States to understand how State 

Departments of Transportation (DOT), State Highway Safety Offices (SHSO) and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPO) currently are coordinating on safety targets and anticipate 

enhancing their processes. 

In the fall of 2015 the study team conducted interviews on safety target setting processes with 

SHSO leadership in Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South Carolina, Texas, 

Vermont, and Washington. In the spring of 2016, the study team led seven one-day workshops 

involving State DOT safety and planning staff, SHSO staff and MPOs leadership to discuss 

crash trends, target setting methods, and coordination between the State DOT, SHSO and 

MPOs. The study team coordinated workshops in Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington. The best practices documented in this report

are a result of input received via this research.

Previous research on safety target setting by FHWA has included a Safety Target Setting Final 

Report that defined a high-level framework for safety target setting and separate research on 

urbanized and non-urbanized safety targets. (FHWA resources on safety performance 

management are available at: the Safety PM Web site.) As the MAP-21 rulemaking process has 

progressed, the safety target setting process has evolved and a wider range of stakeholders is 

involved. This report addresses the target setting coordination process, which includes steps in 

the safety target setting framework defined previously. The coordination process includes:

• Review crash trends.

• Define target setting method.
3

• Review scenarios. 

• Select targets. 

• Secure approval of targets.

This document provides information and best practices that States and MPOs can draw upon as 

they coordinate their own safety target setting processes. 

LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

USDOT established seven national performance goal areas in MAP-21 that were affirmed by 

the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, one of which is safety. USDOT issued 

final rulemakings in March 2016 on Safety Performance Management (Safety PM) and the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The Safety PM rule detailed the requirements 

for safety target setting. Annual safety targets are required for five performance measures, 

expressed as a five-year rolling average, and applicable to all public roads:

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 nonmotorized fatalities and nonmotorized serious injuries.
4

In 2008, SHSOs voluntarily agreed to include 

performance measures in their Highway Safety 

Plans (HSP) beginning with their fiscal year 

(FY) 2010 documents. Beginning in FY 2014, 

the NHTSA Uniform Procedures for State 

Highway Safety Grant Programs Interim Final 

Rule required States to include performance 

measures and data-driven targets for each 

measure. This requirement continues under the 

FAST Act and is reaffirmed in the NHTSA 

Interim Final Rule issued in May 2016. 

Three of the 15 required performance 

measures for SHSOs are common to those 

required for State DOTs: number of fatalities, fatality rate, and number of serious injuries. 

FHWA and NHTSA required identical targets for the three common measures. Given the 

resulting need to consider both engineering and nonengineering strategies (education, 

enforcement, and emergency response) in setting targets, the target setting process is shifting 

to one co-led by both the SHSO and State DOT, and including MPOs. 

Data-driven means informed by a 

systematic review and analysis of quality 

data sources when making decisions 

related to planning, target establishment, 

resource allocation, and implementation.

Evidence-based means based on 

approaches that are proven effective 

with consistent results when making 

decisions related to countermeasure 

strategies and projects.

Source: NHTSA Uniform Procedures for State 

Highway Safety Grant Programs Interim 

Final Rule.

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5

The Safety PM rulemaking requires MPOs to 

establish safety targets for each of the five 

measures for all public roads within 180 days 

after the State DOT reports its targets. MPOs

have two options when setting targets for each 

measure: 

1. Establish a numerical target for each 

performance measure specific to the MPO 

planning area. 

2. Agree to support the State DOT target.

By supporting the State target MPOs agree to 

plan and program projects to contribute toward

achieving the State target. As noted in the

Statewide and Metropolitan Planning; 

Nonmetropolitan Planning Final Rule 

published in May 2016, the planning process 

must not only consider safety, but increase the 

safety of the transportation system. 

Safety Planning Factor

The Statewide and Nonmetropolitan 

Transportation Planning; Metropolitan 

Transportation Final Rule § 450.306

(b) published May 27, 2016 describes 10 

required planning factors, one of which is 

safety. The rule states:

The metropolitan transportation planning 

process shall be continuous, cooperative 

and comprehensive, and provide for 

consideration and implementation of 

projects, strategies, and services that will 

address the following [safety] factor:

• Increase the safety of the 

transportation system for motorized 

and nonmotorized users.

REPORTING TARGETS

State DOTs will report data-driven targets in the HSIP Annual Report, due annually by

August 31. SHSOs report targets in the Highway Safety Plan (HSP), due annually by July 1 as 

shown in figure 1. MPOs must establish targets within 180 days after the State establishes each 

target (by August 31). MPO targets are reported to the State DOT, and made available to 

FHWA upon request. 
6

Figure 1. Table. Annual reporting deadlines.

Highway Safety Plan July 1

HSIP Annual Report August 31

MPOs report to State February 27 of following year is the last day for MPOs 

to establish targets

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Each State is required to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), updated every five 

years. The SHSP identifies a State's key safety needs and guides investment decisions towards 

strategies and countermeasures with the greatest potential to save lives and prevent injuries. 

The strategies and programs identified in the SHSP are developed into specific projects and 

programs in the HSIP and HSP. Annual target setting methods should be coordinated with the 

SHSP multiyear goal setting approach. 

SHSPs typically include goals, such as specific fatality and serious injury reduction amounts 

over the multiyear timeframe of the Plan. Targets reported in the HSIP Annual Report and HSP 

are for a one-year timeframe. The SHSP must include goals that are consistent with the safety 

performance measures. Figure 2 shows the relationship of the plans and targets to each other. 
7

Figure 2. Chart. Required safety documents and agencies setting targets.

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.) 

Highway Safety 

Improvement Program 

(HSIP)

• Developed by State DOT

• Report submitted annually

• Infrastructure improvements

• FHWA approves

Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP)

• Plan development coordinated by 

the DOT involving 4E stakeholders

• Updated every 5 years

• Infrastructure and behavioral 

countermeasures

• SHSP process approved by FHWA

• Requirement of HSIP

Targets must be identical for 

Highway Safety Plan 

(HSP)

• Developed by SHSO

• Plan submitted annually

• Behavioral programs

• NHTSA approves • Number of Fatalities

• Fatality Rate

• Number of Serious Injuries

Whether an MPO agrees to support a State HSIP target or establishes its own numerical target 

the MPO would include in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) a systems performance 

report evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to the 

safety performance targets described in the MTP, including progress achieved by the MPO in 

achieving safety performance targets. 

FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS

Each year, FHWA determines whether a State has met or made significant progress toward

meeting its targets. FHWA will use the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and Highway 

Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data to determine if the fatality number and rate 

targets have either been met or if performance is better than the year prior to target 

establishment. As part of this process States will report fatality and serious injury data from their 

State crash databases in their HSIP Annual Report, which FHWA will use for evaluation of 

serious injury targets. 
8

If a State does not achieve or make significant progress on four out of five targets it must 

obligate HSIP funds to safety projects and develop an Implementation Plan. Similar to the 

FHWA requirements, if a State has not met its performance targets in the previous year’s HSP, 

NHTSA’s regulation requires the State to describe how it will adjust the upcoming HSP to better 

meet performance targets.

MPOs will be held accountable for safety progress through the statewide and metropolitan 

planning process. FHWA will review how MPOs are addressing and achieving their targets (or 

assisting the State in achieving targets) as they conduct Transportation Management Area 

(TMA) Certification Reviews (only for large MPOs with more than 200,000 population). The 

TMA Certification Review requires the Secretary to certify at least once every four years 

whether the metropolitan planning process of an MPO serving as a TMA meets requirements, 

including the requirements of 23 USC 134 and other applicable Federal law. One of these 

requirements is to include a performance-based approach in the metropolitan transportation 

planning process (see 23 USC 134(h)(2)). For non-TMA MPOs FHWA will review how MPOs 

are addressing and achieving their targets during routine and ongoing Stewardship and 

Oversight of the planning process.
Safety Target Setting 

Process Overview
10

SAFETY TARGET SETTING FRAMEWORK 

As agencies begin the process of setting data-driven, evidence-based targets, several 

approaches should be considered. No one approach to setting targets is required by FHWA—

States can choose their own technical methods. FHWA has developed a general framework for 

guiding the target setting technical process, which is detailed in the Safety Target Setting Final

Report and summarized here. (FHWA resources on safety performance management are 

available at: the Safety PM Web site.) The general three-step framework is shown in figure 3. 

Agencies may wish to test several approaches or scenarios based on different assumptions. 

The basic steps for safety target setting are: 

1. Use trend analysis.

2. Consider external factors, i.e., population, demographic distribution.

3. Forecast fatality and serious injury reductions based on planned implementation of proven

countermeasures:

• Identify potential for application of countermeasures (through SHSP, HSP, HSIP or other

planning processes).

• Identify data on countermeasure impact.

• Develop constrained list of countermeasures based on expected effectiveness and

resources (i.e., expected lives saved per dollar of investment).

• Estimate system, region, or State benefits based on the aggregation of expected

countermeasures, discounting for potential overlap among emphasis areas.
11

Figure 3. Graph. Safety target setting framework.

(Source: Safety Target Setting Final Report, FHWA, 2013.)

Target setting is intended to help stakeholders identify the likely outcomes of a set of 

investments. This process will aid in determining how to allocate resources to obtain the best 

outcomes for a given level of expenditure. The full range of stakeholders involved in setting or 

achieving targets should be involved in the process. Executive leadership for both the State 

DOT and SHSO also will need to provide input when reviewing draft targets, and ideally at key 

milestones in the process when assumptions for policies, legislation, safety programs, resource 

allocation, and other factors are being established. 

The State and MPOs will need to address key questions in each of the safety target setting

phases. Considerations when setting targets are highlighted in the steps below. 

STEP 1—REVIEW EXISTING TREND 

When reviewing trend data and considering how it will inform future targets, a State will need to 

evaluate where the trend is heading and whether it is acceptable. For example, if a State 
12

experiences fatality increases over multiple years, or even a sharp increase or decrease in one 

of the last five years, this can alter the trend line. 

Given that performance measures are five-year rolling averages, agencies can test out the 

range of potential targets possible using three to four years of known historical data plus 

estimates of annual reductions for one or two years in the future. This will inform what numbers 

are needed in year four or five to calculate a desired five-year average target. 

Figures 4 and 5 show how Missouri tested scenarios, with historical fatality data shown in the 

red bars and potential future results shown in yellow bars. Given the large increase in fatalities 

in 2015, the State considered what the five-year average target could be for the next few years 

if the State anticipated a one percent (figure 4) or two percent decrease (figure 5) in fatalities for 

each of the next five years. With a five-year rolling average calculation, a State could set a fiveyear average target higher than their current five year rolling average while assuming annual 

reductions in fatalities. 

Figure 4. Graph. Missouri annual fatalities and five-year average fatalities 2005 to 

2015 and forecasted to 2020 with one percent annual fatality reduction.

(Source: Missouri Department of Transportation.) 
13

Figure 5. Graph. Missouri annual fatalities and five-year average fatalities 2005 to 

2015 and forecasted to 2020 with two percent annual fatality reduction.

(Source: Missouri Department of Transportation.) 

For example, analysts might find that it is 

technically nearly impossible for the five-year 

average to go down for the target year unless the 

next year’s fatalities decrease dramatically (e.g., 

more than 15 percent). In such a case, 

stakeholders and leadership will need to decide if 

a data-driven increasing target is acceptable. If 

executive leadership decides that an 

increasing—or even flat—target is not 

acceptable, then the State or region will need to 

acknowledge that dramatic changes will be 

needed in policies or the level of investment to 

achieve an aggressive target. If such significant 

changes are not made there may be an 

increased likelihood that the target will not be 

Target Setting Increases 

Transportation Planning 

Transparency

Transportation agencies are 

conducting safety planning in a fiscally 

constrained world. A transparent 

approach is to know what the data 

shows, what resources are available, 

and to be able to define expected 

outcomes based on the safety plan. 

With this information planners and 

executive leadership can decide if they 

need to allocate resources differently to 

achieve different outcomes. 
14

achieved. The intent of target setting is to foster these types of discussions and to help 

decisionmakers understand how resource allocation, policies, and investment decisions are 

linked to performance outcomes. 

STEP 2—CONSIDER EXTERNAL FACTORS 

During the second step in the target setting 

process, stakeholders will need to consider

what trends are occurring in the State and 

what they can influence. Planners can 

influence factors such as the extent to which 

multimodal options can provide alternatives 

to auto travel, which may influence VMT as 

well as overall severe crash rates. While 

some factors are out of stakeholders’ 

control, such as weather and demographic 

shifts, the State will need to consider them 

during development of data-driven targets. 

The factors considered and their impact on 

target selection should be reported as part of

target justification. Step 3 factor in estimated 

improvements from safety programs. 

Considerations for Aggressive 

Safety Targets

A State that chooses a very aggressive 

target is making a very strong 

commitment to safety. This approach 

will require aggressive implementation 

efforts to improve performance. While 

an aggressive target introduces greater 

risk of missing the target, it is an 

opportunity to emphasize commitment 

to safety, strengthen safety policies, and 

improve consideration of safety in 

investment decisions.

STEP 3—FACTOR IN ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENTS FROM 

SAFETY PROGRAMS

During the third step in the framework, safety specialists estimate how their planned safety 

program is anticipated to affect the current trend and thus how it will influence the target for the 

next year. Stakeholders will need to identify and use tools to forecast safety outcomes of 

planned transportation programs, including both engineering and behavioral projects, to check 

how the planned program is anticipated to perform compared to proposed targets. This will 
15

involve using evaluation information from previous efforts such as program evaluations and 

crash modification factors (CMF), as well as considering how long it takes for projects to be 

implemented and generate results. If systems are not available to forecast reductions in 

fatalities and injuries based on a planned level of investment, safety planners should begin work 

on developing this information.

Safety is one of many priorities transportation planners must address and one of several 

performance targets required to be set by State DOTs and MPOs. Therefore, another facet of 

the safety target setting process is determining what tools are available to assist with resource 

allocation across multiple priority areas against which a State commits resources. State DOTs 

and MPOs are not limited to using only HSIP funds for safety; to achieve targets they may need

to identify other transportation funds for safety projects and programs. Resource allocation tools 

help decisionmakers to understand the outcomes that can be expected with a particular mix of 

spending across program areas. Safety stakeholders should be part of the team developing or 

using resource allocation tools.
Technical 

Considerations
17

DATA ANALYSIS AND AVAILABILITY

DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS 

When beginning the target setting process, a

key initial question to resolve is who will lead 

data analysis. Every State maintains a crash 

database from which fatality and serious injury 

data can be extracted. Additionally, all agencies 

have access to the public Federal database 

FARS, although data is typically not finalized 

until up to two years after the close of the 

calendar year. Many SHSOs have a data 

analyst or statistician on staff. In other cases the State DOT, which often manages the State 

Motor Vehicle Crash Database, takes the lead on analysis. Another scenario is that a contractor 

such as a university research center manages data queries. The key is to identify early who has 

access to the needed data and the right skills to conduct the analysis throughout the target 

setting process. It is critical that the entity that takes the lead be trusted by all stakeholders, 

provide access to the data, and be able to clearly explain technical methods used. 

For MPOs to make a decision about whether to develop their own targets or adopt the State 

DOT targets, they will need to evaluate fatality and serious injury trends in their planning areas. 

In some cases States make crash data available online so MPOs can run their own queries. In 

other cases MPOs need to make requests of the State DOT for crash data. As coordination is 

occurring on target setting, some States such as Missouri and Pennsylvania are preparing crash 

data trend information for all MPOs in the State and providing this directly to the MPOs. MPOs 

will need to understand how to obtain the data and how much time it will take if they need to 

make a data request of the State DOT. 

Analysis will likely occur in multiple phases during the target setting process. Stakeholders will

need to review trends and develop scenarios considering the impact of different external factors

and the anticipated fatality and serious injury reduction of planned programs. 

The South Carolina DOT is meeting with 

MPOs in 2016 and continuing into 2017 

to conduct safety briefings and provide 

crash data for their regions prepared by 

the DOT. This will inform how safety is 

addressed in MPO long-range 

transportation plans.
18

As an example, for support on safety performance management and target setting, Louisiana 

Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) works with the Highway Safety 

Research Group (HSRG) at Louisiana State University. HSRG has developed several webbased dashboards to support the SHSP, including one for target setting, which is shown in 

figure 6. The dashboard calculates five-year averages and shows how they compare to the 

SHSP goal. It also calculates a linear trend forecast.

Figure 6. Image. Louisiana safety target setting dashboard.

(Source: Louisiana Crash Data Reports.) 
19

DATA AVAILABILITY

CRASH DATA

To prepare for reporting the common safety targets in the HSP by July 1, safety planning work 

should be conducted in the spring of each year. However, for some States it takes some time to 

process and finalize crash data from the previous year. Given the need to have targets set 

sooner than FARS data is available, States will likely use their State crash database for the last 

year or two of fatality data. Serious injury data is obtained from State crash databases as no 

national database exists for serious injury data. States will need to work with staff that manage 

crash data to try to move up the date by which data are finalized for the previous year to early 

spring. However it is worth noting that even if a complete set of data for the previous year is 

available by the time the target setting process occurs, the targets will be set for two years in the 

future, as shown in figure 7. 

Figure 7. Chart. Data timing.

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.) 

Review data available 

as of spring 2017

Set targets 

in spring 2017

Trend analysis 

is based on crash 

data for years 

2012 to 2016

Note target is set for 2 years 

after most recent data from 

State Crash Database

Targets are set 

for 2014 to 2018

Agencies with limited experience in crash data analysis may have questions about data quality. 

Crash data system managers should be prepared to describe the status and quality of crash 

data and plans for improvement to stakeholders, particularly to MPOs. This is an opportunity to 
20

leverage MPO relationships with local law 

enforcement and the State’s Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committee to assist in cases 

where there is a need to improve processes for 

crash data collection and entry. For example, if 

local jurisdictions are slow in adopting 

electronic crash reporting, MPOs may be able 

to assist in communicating the benefits to 

adopting these systems in terms of data quality 

and timeliness and its importance in making 

safety investment decisions. Data collection on 

non-State roadways also can be enhanced by 

partnerships between State DOTs and MPOs 

and coordination of data collection efforts, as 

was the case in Louisiana.

MPOs also may need training in accessing 

crash data from State crash databases. DOTs 

can provide training to enable MPO staff to gain 

skills in crash data analysis and better consider safety in planning and programming processes. 

Sometimes MPOs and State DOTs have concerns about liability when crash data are shared 

publicly due to the legal context in the State. DOTs can provide information to MPOs on what is 

permissible regarding crash data sharing so agencies can feel more comfortable working with and 

communicating safety information. The Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Washington DOTs are 

addressing these concerns by developing guidance for MPOs on this issue.

DOT-MPO Collaboration 

on Data Collection

During the Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and Development’s 

(DOTD) process of collecting Model 

Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) 

fundamental data elements (FDE) on all 

public roads it established a program to 

support MPO data collection. MPOs 

were able to pay for the collection of 

additional data in their regions via

supplemental agreements to collect 

signage and pavement data on the local 

road network. The cost for one data 

collection effort was $90,000 per MPO

(which represented a discount because it 

was conducted along with another data 

collection effort).

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED DATA

VMT data are needed to calculate fatality and injury rates. Many States currently do not have 

VMT data for the previous year ready by spring. To set rate targets using the most accurate 
21

trend data, States will want to have VMT data by 

approximately the same date in the spring as the 

crash data so trend analysis can begin. This may 

require some process changes or reallocation of 

resources but will help States develop more accurate 

targets. States may estimate VMT changes for future 

years and incorporate them into fatality and serious 

injury target calculations.

MPOs that wish to set their own safety targets for their planning area will need to calculate their 

own regional VMT estimates and submit their methodology for doing so along with their targets 

to the State DOT, as noted in the final rule. FHWA has provided technical guidance on methods 

for performing these calculations. (FHWA resources on safety performance management are 

available at: the Safety PM Web site.) MPOs also will need to coordinate with the State DOT and 

internally to ensure that VMT data are available in sufficient time to complete their target 

process. While MPOs have 180 days after the State DOT sets targets to either set their own 

targets or adopt the State targets for the same calendar year as the State DOT targets, they are 

not required to wait that long and could set targets concurrently with the State cycle if desired. 

However, even if MPOs define targets at the same time as the State, they might need additional 

time to secure approval of targets from the MPO Policy Board.

The University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute

(UMTRI) uses VMT data from 

Michigan DOT and calculates a 

predicted VMT value to aid 

Michigan in setting rate targets.

SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION

The FHWA and NHTSA established a single, national definition for serious injuries to ensure a 

consistent, coordinated, and comparable system for reporting serious injury data. States are 

required to report serious injuries per the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 

4th Edition attribute for "Suspected Serious Injury (A)" by April 15, 2019. However, it is 

recommended that States begin using the MMUCC 4th Edition definition and attributes beginning 

January 2019 in order to have a complete and consistent data file for the entire 2019 calendar year. 

States that use a different definition for serious injury may use the State Serious Injury Conversion 

Tables available from NHTSA and FHWA to report their data according to this standard in the 

interim. (Conversion tables are available at: the Safety PM Web site.) For States that will need to make 
22

changes to their reporting of serious injuries it will be important to ensure clarity during the 

transition as that may significantly affect the way trends appear. If a change is needed, States 

should reclassify data for the five-year period used in the target calculation. 

REPORTING FORMAT

From a technical perspective, for the State DOT and SHSO targets to be the same, they must 

be expressed in the same terms. According to the Safety PM Final Rule targets must be 

expressed as five-year averages. NHTSA also requires the three common targets in the HSPs 

to be expressed as five-year averages. 

Source: iStockphoto LP.
Key Stakeholders
24

KEY STAKEHOLDERS 

This section defines the core traffic safety stakeholders as well as wider range of individuals that 

should be involved to achieve consensus in setting targets and define a shared purpose on the 

direction of safety programs. The process for setting targets involves each of these agencies 

and their respective stakeholders.

STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY OFFICE

SHSOs have the longest history of setting annual State targets. Therefore, SHSOs primarily 

have developed annual targets and in recent years shared them with the State DOT for 

concurrence. Moving forward, given the required identical targets for the three common 

measures, and the resulting need to consider both engineering and nonengineering strategies 

(education, enforcement, and emergency response) in setting targets, the process should be 

shifting to one co-led by both the SHSO and the State DOT, and including MPOs. Stakeholders

with which the SHSO typically has a relationship and who should be included in the process 

include representatives from the law enforcement community, public health, and education. 

When establishing targets it will be increasingly important to document the rationale for the 

selected targets and the data used to inform the process. Performance measures reported in 

the HSP must include documentation of current safety levels, quantifiable annual performance 

targets, and justification for each target. 

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
25

STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

State DOTs will report safety targets in the 

HSIP Annual Report submitted each year by

August 31. However, given that the targets for 

fatalities, serious injuries, and fatality rate 

already will have been reported in the HSP by 

the SHSO, the State DOT will need to have 

worked closely with the SHSO and other 

stakeholders during the spring of each year to 

come to agreement on the methods and 

approved targets. 

The State DOT has responsibility for all transportation projects on State-owned roadways, as well 

as providing input and guidance on projects on county and local roadways. Given the scale of a 

State DOT’s influence on the transportation system, it is important to remember that all 

transportation projects have an element of safety in them. Every project has the potential to either 

improve or degrade the overall safety of the transportation system, and all transportation 

investments should be carefully reviewed for their anticipated impacts on safety. Therefore, 

coordination processes should include the full range of stakeholders that have an influence on the 

DOT-MPO Collaboration on HSIP

During its last call for HSIP projects 

Washington State DOT (WSDOT) 

specified to MPOs three project types 

that have been giving the best results of 

reducing the most severe crashes for the 

cost. MPOs accepted these 

recommendations and proposed these 

types of safety projects.

Considering Safety in the Planning Process to Achieve Targets 

As targets are set, stakeholders need to think about how they will achieve them. Staff that plan 

and design infrastructure need to ensure projects—particularly capacity projects—are improving 

safety, not degrading safety. In cases where improvements bring a project up to present design 

standards, there is likely some inherent safety benefit. However, it is preferable to use the 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and other safety analysis methods to ensure that safety is 

maximized based on proven methods. With the HSM, it is possible in the planning stages to 

identify potential safety problems that will result from a general transportation project and try to 

mitigate them. Consideration of safety should be encouraged early in the planning process for 

all projects. 
26

safety of the transportation system 

and safety target achievement. 

This includes State DOT staff with 

responsibility for transportation 

planning and programming, 

operations, maintenance, and 

asset management. Ultimately the 

State DOT will be responsible for 

setting and tracking progress 

toward achieving multiple targets in 

seven national goal areas

established under MAP-21 and will 

need to optimize resources to 

achieve the desired results in each 

of these areas. Therefore, decisionmakers across various areas within the State DOT will need 

to coordinate on resource allocation. Other divisions and programs (such as Safe Routes to 

School and nonmotorized transportation programs) also may be consulted, or their programs 

considered in these calculations. When States develop dedicated programs to support safety 

improvements on local roads such as North Dakota’s Local Roads Safety Program this benefits

engagement in safety by MPOs, which represent local jurisdictions.

North Dakota Local Roads Safety Program

North Dakota developed its Local Roads Safety 

Program after discovering 50 percent of severe 

crashes occur on local roads. The program takes a 

systemic approach to reducing fatalities and serious 

injuries by implementing low-cost safety strategies at 

areas with identified risk factors. Individual plans were 

developed for all counties in North Dakota, along with 

12 cities, 4 Tribal areas, and a national park. The 

plans make it easy for local agencies to apply for 

HSIP funding. North Dakota sets aside 50 percent of 

HSIP funds for local roads safety projects. 

METROPOLITAN PLANNING 

ORGANIZATIONS 

As noted, MPOs have the option of setting their 

own safety targets for the public roads within 

their planning area, or stating that they will 

support the State target through their planning 

and programming. It is important to ensure 

MPOs are part of the process whether they set 

It is beneficial to involve elected officials 

in safety target setting discussions, 

particularly at the regional level. This 

provides an opportunity to build the 

political will for ensuring potential future 

investments are properly reviewed for 

their impacts on safety.
27

their own targets or support the State 

target. MPOs are governed by policy 

boards comprised of local elected 

officials who will need to approve 

targets. MPO technical committees and 

agency staff will be involved in 

developing target setting methodology, 

considering factors that will influence 

targets and making recommendations. 

Ideally the MPO will involve a broad 

range of safety stakeholders in the 

discussion about setting regional safety 

targets, including representatives of both 

the infrastructure and behavioral aspects 

of transportation safety. Relevant 

stakeholders also include elected 

officials, planners, engineers,

representatives of law enforcement, 

public health, advocacy organizations, and education. MPOs also have public participation 

plans that may require engaging a public involvement committee or other methods for gaining 

public input.

MPO Safety Planning—DVRPC

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

(DVRPC) the MPO for Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania conducts annual analysis of

crashes, injuries, and fatalities for the most 

recent five years for municipalities and counties. 

Every three years the DVRPC develops its 

Transportation Safety Action Plan, which is 

similar to an SHSP. A regional safety task force 

(RSTF) meets quarterly and discusses safety 

emphasis areas. In addition to those focusing on 

engineering, a number of partners are involved 

with RSTF that are leading behavioral elements, 

including police departments, district attorneys, 

representatives of transportation management 

associations, AAA, and transportation safety 

advocates . The RSTF guides development of 

the plan. 

As MPOs begin to more closely track safety 

outcomes and target achievement, it will be 

important for them to conduct some level of 

self-evaluation regarding how safety is 

addressed in planning and programming 

processes. Are safety criteria used in selecting 

projects in the MTP or Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP)? How are safety impacts of all transportation projects (not only 

safety-specific projects) considered? Target setting presents a perfect opportunity to help 

decisionmakers connect the region’s level of emphasis on safety and the anticipated outcomes 

in terms of traffic fatalities and serious injuries. 

The SCDOT provides data on how safety 

performance in each MPO planning area 

compares to total statewide fatalities and 

serious injuries and to other MPOs.
28

State DOTs can take a proactive role in supporting MPOs by assembling crash data for their 

regions and distributing it to them. Additionally, States may want to track how crashes are 

trending in MPO areas compared to the State at large to understand the share of the State 

safety problem occurring in MPO areas and how those trends compare to statewide trends. 

If MPOs choose to support the State 

targets—that is to plan and program 

projects to help reach those targets—the 

State DOT and MPO should be prepared 

to coordinate on what this means in 

concrete terms. Will the State DOT engage 

MPOs in a review of how safety is 

considered in their planning and 

programming process? Some States are 

holding MPO peer exchanges to share 

best practices in considering safety as part 

of the transportation planning process.

Pennsylvania Support of MPOs

Pennsylvania DOT develops a Highway 

Safety Guidance Report each year for each 

MPO and Rural Planning Organization (RPO) 

that describes crash trends, identifies highcrash locations, and includes recommended 

strategies to address certain crash factors. 

The MPO report tracks the current safety 

status against its share of the long-term 

statewide safety goal in the SHSP.
Coordination Process
30

As noted, targets for the three common performance measures are required to be submitted by 

both the State DOT and SHSO. It is logical that these targets be identical so that all parties are 

working toward the same goal. Coordination is therefore required between the State DOT and 

SHSO and other stakeholders to come to agreement on the three identical safety targets. 

A main element of the coordination process 

involves ensuring the right people are part of 

the discussions. As noted previously it is critical 

to have both engineering and behavioral 

experts involved in the discussions about 

targets from the beginning. The discussion of 

targets is really a discussion of priorities, 

resource allocation, review of evidence-based 

strategies, forecasting results, reviewing 

policies, and determining political will for doing what it takes to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries. If the SHSO and the State DOT are not co-located, or do not have processes 

established to collaborate on a regular basis, additional time may be needed to accomplish a 

thorough, data-driven target setting process. 

Given the large number of agencies involved and the importance of data-driven analysis 

stakeholders should expect to accomplish target setting over multiple steps. Steps in the process 

are shown in figure 8: This process builds on and integrates the framework for safety target setting. 

(The Safety Target Setting Final Report is available at the Safety PM Web site.) 

In North Dakota, weekly safety strategy 

meetings are held on an ongoing basis 

to ensure coordination between the 

SHSP, HSP, HSIP, and Local Road 

Safety Program. This forum will be used 

to discuss future issues related to target 

setting and approval of identical targets.
31

Figure 8. Chart. Target setting coordination process.

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.) 

1. Review Crash Trends

2. Define Target Setting Method

3. Review Scenarios

4. Select Targets

5. Secure Approval of Targets

Stakeholders should consider several elements during each step in the process:

1. Review crash data trends—During the review of historical crash data trends, analysts will

need to discuss any data considerations that affect understanding of the trends, such as 

whether the definition of serious injury will be changing or if there have been changes to 

crash forms. They will likely want to evaluate what a target would be if the current trend were 

to continue into the future (step 1 in the Target Setting Framework). Stakeholders also should 

consider how successful they were in achieving previous safety targets.

2. Define target setting method—States may use any data-driven method they choose to set 

safety targets. They likely will want to test out several technical approaches to setting targets

(i.e., different types of trend lines or assuming different rates of annual reduction). While one 

agency may take the lead in recommending a method, all stakeholders committing to the 

target should understand and agree on the method. 
32

3. Review scenarios—Once the technical method is determined, stakeholders will want to 

think about questions in steps 2 and 3 of the Target Setting Framework, such as different 

VMT trend assumptions and anticipated policies and anticipated outcomes of investments,

and will likely want to test different potential scenarios. They may wish to evaluate scenarios 

that involve using the years of known data that comprise a five-year average and determine 

what number they would need to achieve in the target year to reach a certain five-year 

average target. 

4. Select targets—Once the method and assumptions for the preferred scenario are agreed 

upon, safety stakeholders will need to agree upon the final target to be reported in the HSIP 

annual report and HSP. It is important that all stakeholders agree targets are based on a 

realistic, data-driven approach. 

5. Secure approval of targets—Both State DOT and SHSO leadership will need to agree on 

the common State safety targets selected. Approval of the targets signifies State leaders’ 

commitment to a certain level of focus on and investment in safety. Leadership needs to 

understand the resources required for the State to achieve the selected targets and the 

consequences if targets are not achieved or significant progress is not made. Similarly, MPO 

leadership will need to understand how regional planning and programming priorities are 

anticipated to impact safety outcomes and target achievement. MPO Policy Boards will likely 

need to approve MPO targets.

A safety target is based on considering what reductions in fatalities and serious injuries can be 

achieved from both the infrastructure and behavior perspectives. Therefore the State DOT will 

bring its infrastructure perspective and the SHSO its knowledge of behavioral programs to 

collaborative discussions on setting the targets. Since the three targets reported in the HSP will 

need to be identical to those in the HSIP Annual Report, collaboration by all stakeholders will be 

required, building in sufficient time before July 1 for stakeholders to review trend data, 

determine a target setting methodology, review potential scenarios, agree upon a draft target, 

and obtain approval from leadership. 
33

Figure 9 shows one cycle of coordination and reporting. 

Figure 9. Chart. Target setting coordination and reporting cycle.

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.) 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

July 1

SHSO

submits 

HSP to 

NHTSA 

including 

safety targets

Target Setting 

Coordination

• Engage DOT, 

SHSO, and 

MPO 

stakeholders 

• Review crash 

data

• Define target 

setting method

• Review 

scenarios

• Set targets 

for Year 2

August 31

State DOT submits 

HSIP Annual Report

to FHWA including 

safety targets

Secure Year 2 

target approval 

from DOT/SHSO

leadership

By February 27

MPOs establish 

safety targets

March

States notified of 

determination whether 

they met or made 

significant progress 

toward Year 1 targets

COORDINATION WITH METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS

Given that the State target encompasses all public roads, including those within MPO boundaries, 

State targets must be coordinated with MPOs. Coordination between MPOs and the State is 

required whether MPOs set their own targets or support the State targets. 

If MPOs set their own regional targets the State and MPOs will want to consider how the regional 

targets relate to the State targets. If MPOs support the State target, they are committing to plan and 

program projects that will help the State achieve its target. HSIP funds are eligible for use both on 

State and non-State roadways. Behavioral programs funded through NHTSA and administered by 

the SHSO may be conducted in any area of the State with identified traffic safety problems, so 

safety improvements may be funded in any location where there is a defined need. MPOs will need 

to evaluate their project prioritization processes to ensure safety is adequately considered so 

transportation projects funded in the region contribute to improving safety along with other goals.
34

FORUMS FOR COORDINATION

Once stakeholders are identified, they need to work together to undertake the target setting process. 

Several options exist for conducting this work within existing safety collaboration structures.

STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN COLLABORATION 

STRUCTURES

States have been required to develop SHSPs for more than a decade. State DOTs are required 

to coordinate development of SHSPs through a collaborative process. States generally establish 

a technical and leadership committee structure with multidisciplinary representation to guide the 

SHSP update process and often to provide oversight on implementation. As part of SHSP 

updates, goals are typically established, so these stakeholders often have some familiarity with 

methods for setting quantitative safety goals. 

SHSP committees are more commonly staying active after plan development to oversee the 

implementation process and hold at least annual or semiannual meetings. This type of 

committee is an excellent forum for target setting discussions as membership represents the 

4 Es (enforcement, education, engineering, and emergency response), and communication

protocols exist. If States utilize an SHSP committee for target setting they may need to adjust 

the schedule so the group meets in the spring, potentially on multiple occasions. Additionally, 

group membership may need to be adjusted to include other stakeholders that may not have 

been included in previous discussions, such as State DOT planning and programming, 

maintenance and operations representatives, and MPO representatives. 

PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING

COLLABORATION STRUCTURES

After passage of MAP-21, some States established groups organized around PerformanceBased Planning and Programming (PBPP) to share information on this planning approach and
35

to discuss the rulemakings that would be forthcoming. These groups are excellent forums for 

target setting discussions. For example, Missouri and Washington State safety stakeholders

established communications structures around PBPP. 

Washington has a very collaborative approach for developing targets and prioritizing and 

programming safety funds. Figure 10 shows the State target setting process. The Multimodal 

Safety Executive Committee (MSEC) serves as the oversight body in the Washington DOT’s 

program management office. The Washington technical team was originally established to 

respond to the safety performance management notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). MPOs 

then expressed a desire to retain the structure moving forward to facilitate discussion. The 

technical team is comprised of managers at the MPOs who have hands-on experience with data 

and significant technical knowledge. This group is responsible for making technical 

recommendations to the Target Setting Working Group. 

The Target Setting Working Group is comprised of a small number of representatives with 

technical expertise from the MPOs, the State DOT, and the Safety Commission that meet 

monthly to discuss policy and process issues in depth and prepare recommendations for the 

Target Setting Framework group. The Target Setting Framework Group is comprised of WSDOT 

representatives and MPO and Regional Transportation Planning Organization directors who are 

decisionmakers that meet quarterly to seek agreement on safety target recommendations. 

Missouri Performance Based Planning Collaboration

In response to MPOs’ request for additional collaboration on MAP-21 implementation, 

MoDOT initiated monthly MAP-21 performance management webinars in March 2015. 

In addition to the Missouri MPOs, MoDOT invited DOT representatives from the States 

that share MPOs with Missouri: Arkansas, Kansas, and Illinois. MoDOT set up a 

collaboration Web site to facilitate the sharing of resources between the DOT and the 

MPOs. In addition, MoDOT sent emails to the MPOs as Notices of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) and new resources were published. The webinars continue to be 

held monthly, with MoDOT facilitating each webinar and topics suggested by the MPOs. 

Topics have included the Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, data sharing, performance 

based planning and programming, examples from MPOs, asset management how to 

develop performance measures and target setting. More information is available here. 
36

Figure 10. Chart. Washington safety target setting structures.

(Source: Washington DOT.) 

 

MSEC

Prepares WSDOT 

target setting proposal

MSEC Review

WSDOT

Executive Review

Target Setting Technical Team 

(WSDOT, MPO, WTSC)

Analyzes rule, data, and proposal 

implication(s) – Reviews target 

recommendation

Target Setting Working Group 

(WSDOT, MPO)

Reviews target recommendation

Target 

Setting Framework 

Group (WSDOT, MPO)

Seeks agreement on 

recommendation

WSDOT Secretary 

Approval

MPO/WSDOT outreach effort

Information sharing to locals, 

Tribes, and other partners

After the 12 month period for 

WSDOT to set targets, MPOs 

begin 6-month approval and 

adoption process

HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES 

SHSOs have been developing annual safety programs reported in their HSPs for a number of 

years. Many SHSOs have established oversight bodies that help with determining priorities and 

making grant awards. For example, the Delaware Office of Highway Safety (DOHS) has a Grant 

Advisory Committee comprised of members including DOT, SHSO, law enforcement, NHTSA, 

and FHWA staff. This group meets twice per year (January and May) to reach agreement with 

the State DOT on the proposed targets and priority areas for the safety program. Given this type 

of group includes both behavioral and engineering staff, it is a useful forum for engaging in 

discussion about coordinated targets. As needed the meeting dates of such groups can be 

adjusted or additional meetings added to address target setting by the required deadlines.
37

SAFETY SUMMITS

The safety planning coordination process can be enhanced via statewide safety conferences or 

summits. For example, many States conduct annual traffic safety summits or conferences to 

bring together a broad range of safety stakeholders or conduct such events as part of the SHSP 

development process. For example, South Carolina held a traffic safety summit with the 

intention of encouraging the development of innovative strategies as well as building 

relationships and partnerships among the multidisciplinary safety stakeholders such as 

engineers and law enforcement. Safety Summits provide an opportunity for MPO staff to build 

relationships and encourage coordination with a range of safety stakeholders such as law 

enforcement personnel with whom they may not have interacted previously. Presentations on 

data trends and progress toward targets are typically core elements of such conferences. 

Statewide safety conferences are useful opportunities for discussion on targets and how safety 

programs need to be adjusted to achieve targets.

LOGISTICS 

To support coordination it is helpful to make participation in the target setting process as easy 

as possible. One approach is to integrate safety target setting discussions into existing meeting 

structures such as those defined earlier. To ensure sustained participation by all critical 

stakeholders who may be located some distance from the capital city, it may be beneficial to 

enable remote participation in meetings via webinar and telephone. 
38

APPROVALS

Ultimately, safety targets must be approved by 

the appropriate State representative(s) before 

submission to USDOT in the HSP and HSIP 

Annual Report. Each SHSO has a designated 

Governor’s Representative who typically has 

final approval of targets. In some cases, there 

may be another executive body designated for 

approval, such as that of Michigan’s Governor’s 

Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. In other 

cases the Coordinator of the SHSO may have 

final say over the targets. In States where the 

SHSO resides within the State DOT, the 

Director of the State Department of Transportation also may serve as the Governor’s 

Representative, so a single individual may be able to approve targets.

However, if the SHSO and State DOT are housed separately, State DOT executive leadership 

will need to sign off on targets separately. There may be additional scrutiny by State DOTs on 

targets the State is committing to since there are potential consequences to funding flexibility for 

the State DOT if safety targets are not met or significant progress is not made. Safety 

stakeholders should determine early in the process what is required to secure approval from 

executive leadership on safety targets in terms of lead time and documentation required. 

Michigan Governor’s Traffic Safety 

Advisory Commission (GTSAC)

The GTSAC was formed by an 

Executive Order of the Governor in 

2002, in part, to serve as the State’s 

major forum for identifying key traffic 

safety challenges, and developing, 

promoting, and implementing strategies 

to address these challenges. The target 

setting process and approval is handled 

within the GTSAC.
Resources for Target 

Setting Coordination
40

AGENDA ITEMS FOR MEETINGS ON SAFETY 

TARGET SETTING COLLABORATION

The following is a list of agenda items to draw from for stakeholder meetings on safety target setting:

• Stakeholders required for target setting process: 

− State DOT representatives (including representatives from planning, programming, asset 

management, maintenance). 

− SHSO representatives. 

− MPO representatives. 

− Other stakeholders, e.g., law enforcement, public health, education, statisticians, 

epidemiologists. 

− Who needs to approve the HSIP and HSP targets from SHSO/State DOT?

• Planned target setting schedule (spring): 

− Number, dates, locations of meetings. 

− Format; provide webinar capabilities for remote attendance. 

• Data needs: 

− Who will manage data analysis and perform calculations for target setting? Should a 

formal data sharing plan be established? 

− Data availability—when will State crash and VMT data be finalized for previous year? Is 

data available for the first quarter of the current year?

• Trend analysis of performance measures—Statewide and by MPOs planning area: 

− Number of fatalities. 

− Fatality rate. 
41

− Number of serious injuries—are any adjustments required to report as “Suspected Serious 

Injury (A)” using the required MMUCC definition? 

− Serious injury rate. 

− Nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries displayed together, and separate bicycle and 

pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. 

• Target setting method: 

− Alignment with SHSP methods. 

• Target achievement in previous years. 

• External factors that will affect target setting/achievement next year. 

• Estimates of fatality/serious injury reduction from planned safety programs: 

− Evaluation results/forecasted impact from planned behavioral program. 

− Evaluation results/forecasted impact from engineering program. 

• Potential target scenarios. 

• Final State targets for approval. 

• Which MPOs are interested in setting regional targets? 

− Do they have needed data?

− What support is needed?

• Alignment of proposed MPO targets with State target. 

• Expectations if MPOs state support of State target. 

• Method of reporting MPO targets to State. 

• State/MPO target approval process. 
42

CHECKLIST FOR SAFETY TARGET 

DEVELOPMENT

 Identify who will lead data analysis (e.g., statistician, data analyst in SHSO, State DOT staff 

in charge of crash database, member of traffic records coordinating committee). 

 Define mutually agreeable method for MPOs to report targets to State, or express support 

of State targets. 

 If MPOs support the State targets, define how State will review MPO support of safety 

through planning and programming.

 Compile fatality, injury, and VMT data. 

 Identify all stakeholders who need to be involved in target setting process. 

 Establish meeting schedule for stakeholders during spring so final coordinated targets are 

approved by June or earlier; ensure time for approval by executive leadership is built into 

schedule. 

 Ensure all MPOs have access to crash data for their metropolitan planning areas and any 

other needed information to inform target setting. 

 Review State and MPO fatality and serious injury trends for each performance measure

with stakeholders. 

 Review achievement of targets in previous years. 

 If previous targets were not met, work with stakeholders to determine what changes to 

engineering and behavioral programs may have to occur. 

 Work with stakeholders to determine target setting method. 

 Work with stakeholders to identify external factors that will affect future trends (e.g., 

legislation, policies, demographics, trends in MPO areas, etc.) and develop potential 

scenarios for targets. 
43

 Assemble evaluation data from previous engineering and behavioral programs and 

forecasted results to estimate fatality and injury reduction from planned programs. 

 Check alignment of target setting method and potential targets with SHSP. 

 Review potential target scenarios. 

 Identify State targets. 

 Secure approval of State targets by SHSO and State DOT leadership. 

 MPOs report targets.
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

FHWA-SA-16-101

September 2016

This material is based upon work supported by the FHWA under contract 

number DTFH61-10-D-0020.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FHWA.