1

Coordinating State and Regional Transportation 

Safety Planning through the SHSP Process 

An RSPCB Peer Exchange

INTRODUCTION

Local and regional governments have important roles to play in identifying and addressing safety issues on roadways

within their jurisdictions. Congress recognized this need and passed legislation in 1998 requiring safety consideration

in transportation plans at the local, regional, and State levels. Efforts have since been underway to increase the explicit

consideration of safety in these planning processes. More recently, the focus has shifted to improving the linkage

between Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) and transportation planning documents, notably Statewide and

Metropolitan Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs), which are required to consider strategies and services to

improve the safety of the transportation system. In addition to these plans, States, Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPOs) and local agencies typically develop other important transportation planning documents (e.g.,

corridor, bicycle, freight, transit plans) that frequently include safety elements. Improving the coordination and

linkages of the safety elements and priorities among these planning processes supports a comprehensive and holistic

approach to transportation safety planning. It also provides additional opportunities to implement safety programs

addressing key priorities throughout the State.

This report provides a summary of the proceedings of the “Coordinating State and Regional Transportation Safety

Planning through the SHSP Process” Peer Exchange held in New Orleans, Louisiana on May 22 and 23, 2013. The

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored the Peer Exchange in coordination with Louisiana Department of

Transportation and Development (LA DOTD). The purpose of the Peer Exchange was to explore specific strategies the

peer States could adopt to improve the coordination of regional and statewide safety planning efforts. Representatives

from Louisiana, Nevada and Utah participated in the event (see Agenda A for the full list of participants).

PEER EXCHANGE PROCEEDINGS

The format of the Peer Exchange consisted of expert and peer presentations on State practices, followed by facilitated

discussions (see Appendix B for the agenda). Throughout the peer exchange participants met with colleagues in their

respective States to discuss safety issues and develop action plans covering the key topics discussed. The action plans

identified:

 Strategies to improve the coordination of transportation safety planning in their States;

 Resources needed to achieve those objectives; and

 Champions to lead implementation.

A brief description of the peer exchange proceedings is provided below.  

Roadway Safety 

Professional Capacity 

Building Program 

Through engaging peer workshops, the RSPCB Program matches agencies seeking

solutions to roadway safety issues with trailblazers who have addressed similar challenges 

and emerged with a roadmap and noteworthy practices for approaching the issue. 
2

Welcoming Remarks

The Assistant Secretary for Operations Planning for Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

welcomed participants to New Orleans. He remarked on Louisiana’s safety accomplishments in recent years. Louisiana

has experienced a 32 percent reduction in traffic fatalities over the past six years.  This is due in part to Louisiana

DOTD’s commitment to a culture of safety and their efforts to achieve the goal of “Zero Deaths.”  

LA DOTD has a number of initiatives underway to further reduce traffic fatalities by improving the coordination of

transportation planning. For example, LA DOTD has hosted safety planning boot camps to ensure that regional and

local stakeholders are involved early in the planning process when major decisions are made about priorities and

funding. In addition, LA DOTD has supported the formation of Regional Safety Alliances that are responsible for

developing Regional Safety Plans with the goal of involving all the regions in Louisiana in the safety planning process.  

The Program Delivery Team Leader for the FHWA Louisiana Division office echoed the Assistant Secretary’s remarks,

noting that a culture that values safety and interagency coordination is critical to achieving a goal of “Zero Deaths.”

She suggested that peer exchanges such as this one help to foster a collaborative safety culture and facilitate the

transfer of effective safety practices.

SETTING THE STAGE

FHWA Office of Planning

A representative from the FHWA Office of Planning extended a welcome from FHWA Headquarters and described the

offerings of FHWA’s capacity building programs, which range from direct technical assistance to facilitated peer

exchanges. The goal of peer exchanges is for the States to share successful practices and opportunities for coordinating

State and regional safety planning efforts through the SHSP and other safety planning processes. A desired outcome of

this event is to apply strategies and actions identified here to further the States’ progress “Towards Zero Deaths.”  

FHWA Office of Safety

The SHSP Program Manager from FHWA Office of Safety also welcomed participants and set the stage for the

presentations and discussions to come. She noted that all of the States at the peer exchange have a common goal of

“Zero Deaths.” Safety professionals understand that to achieve this goal they need to coordinate with stakeholders

across their respective States to set common goals and collectively implement appropriate strategies.  

The goal of the peer exchange is to focus on how to coordinate safety planning and link the SHSP process to the

regional planning process. SHSPs are the umbrella plan for the State. They consider the needs of all public roads and

help to drive safety investment decisions. The safety goals, strategies and

metrics established through the regional planning process ‐ the LRTPs,

Transportation Improvement Programs and other regional safety plans –

should contribute to and draw from the SHSP. The SHSP process can help

to connect planning processes as they pertain to safety by: increasing

collaboration and communication; helping to leverage partnerships; and

ensuring that there is a data‐driven approach to understanding regional

and statewide safety issues.  

This will not be an easy effort, the speaker noted, but the benefit of this approach is captured in an African proverb

that says, “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

“If you want to go quickly,

go alone. If you want to go

far, go together.”

‐ African Proverb
3

KEY POINTS

Louisiana 

 Regional Safety Alliances are

developing and implementing

regional safety plans and tracking

progress.

 Regional Safety Plans and

associated action plans guide the

implementation of SHSP

strategies.

 LTAP administers HSIP funds set‐

aside for local projects.

FHWA’s SHSP program manager provided a conceptual framework for understanding the aspects of safety planning

coordination.  The areas of focus for coordinating State and regional safety planning efforts are shown in the table

below:

Stakeholder Collaboration - This refers to collaboration among State and regional safety partners to link emphasis areas, 

goals, and objectives in the SHSP to the safety elements within regional planning documents. 

Goal and Objective Setting - State, regional and local plans can support common goals and priorities. State DOTs can engage 

MPOs in SHSP emphasis area teams and the development of the SHSP so that MPOs may, in turn, incorporate relevant goals, 

objectives and strategies from the SHSP into regional plans. 

Performance Measurement - The goal of coordinated performance measurement is to have complementary statewide and 

regional performance measures that result in aligned strategies, programs and projects to reduce fatal and serious injury 

crashes. 

Data Analysis – Goals and strategies in state and regional transportation plans should be based on the same data and address 

the most critical safety issues. Often State DOTs have more robust capabilities than regional and local governments. By sharing

data and providing analysis services, State DOTs can help to ensure that regional safety goals and strategies are based on the 

same data. 

Project Selection – State DOTs and MPOs can apply similar processes and criteria to select projects. This is facilitated when 

States and regions have the same goals. MPOs can screen projects based on SHSP and regional safety priorities. States can 

work with MPOs to communicate the selection criteria for HSIP funding. 

Monitoring and Evaluation - It is important to measure progress along the way. State DOTs and their safety partners can 

collaborate to monitor fatalities and serious injuries at the regional level. 

PEER PRESENTATIONS

The three States participating in the peer exchange are all at different stages regarding coordination safety planning.

Peers were asked to provide an overview of their efforts. Highlights from the presentations are summarized below.

Louisiana Safety Coordination Overview

Louisiana has developed a strategic,

multidisciplinary, and data‐driven SHSP in

coordination with a number of partners,

including the president of the committee

representing MPOs. An update of the SHSP was completed in

October 2011. The SHSP includes emphasis areas, objectives,

strategies and actions. To develop the SHSP, LA DOTD reviewed

data on contributing crash factors. The initial SHSP had 11 emphasis

areas. These were too many and not strategic enough. In the

update, Louisiana identified fewer emphasis areas: infrastructure

and operations; alcohol; occupant protection; young drivers;

aggressive driving; and distracted driving. The measurable goal of

the SHSP is to reduce the 3‐year rolling average of traffic fatalities

by 50 percent by 2030.

Louisiana DOTD works closely with the Louisiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) to administer HSIP funds

and establish regional safety alliances. The LTAP has established an application process for local agencies to compete

STRATEGIES TO COORDINATE STATE AND REGIONAL SAFETY PLANS
4

for HSIP funds set‐aside to local governments. Louisiana DOTD and LTAP are also trying to establish regional safety

alliances that will be responsible for establishing data‐driven, regional safety plans that are linked to the SHSP. LA

DOTD provides leadership, funding and technical assistance to develop the plans, which set regional goals and identify

regional emphasis areas based on the data. HSIP funding will be used to fund implementation of regional plans.

Four Regional Safety Alliances have been established in Louisiana: North Shore, South Central, Acadia, and New

Orleans. The South Central Regional Safety Alliance has adopted a final regional safety plan; other Regional Safety

Alliances are developing their plans. The South Central regional safety plan identifies emphasis areas, sets regional

goals for fatalities, and includes action plans for each emphasis area. Some strategies mirror the SHSP, while other

strategies are specific to the region. The Alliance is working with LA DOTD to track the implementation of the emphasis

areas.  

Some Regional Safety Plans will have emphasis areas that are not included in the SHSP. New Orleans, for example, will

have a bicycle/pedestrian emphasis area. New Orleans was identified as a Pedestrian Safety Focus City by FHWA and

received technical assistance from FHWA to develop an action plan for Bicycle/Pedestrian issues. Since 2005, the

Regional Planning Commission has worked closely with a bicycle/pedestrian stakeholder group to address

bicycle/pedestrian safety issues. They have sponsored public awareness campaigns and conducted training courses on

the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities for State and county engineers.  

LA DOTD believes the key to implementing SHSP is at the local level. The challenges for Louisiana are linking the SHSP

to the MPO planning process, bringing all 4Es (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services) to the

table, and keeping local stakeholders engaged.  

Utah Safety Coordination Overview

Over the past decade, Utah has experienced a growth in population and Vehicle Miles Traveled, while

traffic fatalities have declined. Utah DOT has addressed many of the “low hanging fruit” to improve

traffic safety; what is needed now is a more focused approach to achieve the goal of zero deaths.

Since 2000, UDOT has experienced an average annual decline in traffic fatalities of 4.3 percent. At this

rate, Utah will achieve zero deaths by 2036.  

State‐maintained roads make up 13 percent of the total road

mileage in Utah and account for 63 percent of the crashes. Only one

percent of crashes in Utah are on local and rural roads. Roadway

departure is the most common crash type, however behavioral

issues ‐‐ drunk driving, distracted driving, drowsy driving, aggressive

driving, speeding, and a lack of seatbelt use – drive fatality numbers.

Utah has a Unified Transportation Plan that unifies the State and

MPO long range plans. Utah DOT and the MPOs are working to

update the state and regional LRTPs to focus on a more

comprehensive and serious approach to safety. The fourth goal of

Utah’s State LRTP is Zero Fatalities. This goal is driving a major

cultural change in Utah. Because there has been success reducing

fatalities, more people are starting to believe that the zero deaths

goal is achievable. UDOT has rallied around idea of Zero Fatalities,

but a more consistent approach to safety across the State is still needed. UDOT’s goal is to have one approach to

improve traffic safety.

KEY POINTS

Utah  

 Towards Zero Death (TZD) goal is

driving major cultural change.

 UDOT is reaching out to  MPOs to

raise safety awareness and

coordinate efforts.

 UDOT is developing “Risk Maps”

for all State‐owned road

segments. Efforts underway to

expand to Federal‐aid roads and

MPOs.
5

Nevada Safety Coordination Overview

Nevada updated its SHSP in 2010 and established the goal of “Zero Fatalities.” Like Utah, the population

in Nevada is growing and traffic fatalities are decreasing,

although the rate of decrease has tapered off. Similar to

Utah, approximately 70 percent of crashes in Nevada

take place on State roads.  

Nevada established a Nevada Executive Committee on Traffic Safety

(NECTS) that leads the SHSP effort. There are two MPOs in Nevada: the

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada and the

Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission; they both

participate on NECTS.   

Nevada’s SHSP has five emphasis areas: Pedestrians; Impaired Driving;

Occupant Protection; Lane Departures; and Intersections. Nevada established a technical working group and emphasis

area teams to lead the implementation of SHSP strategies.  In addition, Nevada formed a Strategic Communications

Alliance to coordinate and streamline public information to avoid sending competing messages to the public. The three

key players on the Strategic Communication Alliance are Nevada DOT, Nevada Department of Public Safety, and

University of Las Vegas. Finally, Nevada has established a data team to: improve crash data; provide MPOs access to

crash data; and improve electronic crash data reporting.

STATE AND REGIONAL (MPO) COORDINATION ‐

PEER PRESENTATIONS

Peers from the participating States were invited to highlight some of

their successes coordinating regional and statewide safety efforts.

They were asked to focus on the areas of Stakeholder Collaboration,

Goal and Objective Setting, Performance Measurement, Data Analysis,

Safety Project Selection and Monitoring and Evaluation.

Stakeholder Coordination and Collaboration Strategies

Peers from Louisiana and Nevada shared how regional alliances and an

executive committee on traffic safety help them achieve stakeholder

coordination.

Regional Alliances  

The South Central Louisiana Regional Alliance is a multidisciplinary

team of 35 member agencies, primarily from law enforcement, that

meets quarterly. The alliance works collaboratively and proactively to

address transportation safety issues. With the help of Louisiana DOTD

and LTAP, the alliance has adopted a Regional Safety Plan which is

aligned to the SHSP. The alliance has appointed team leaders to lead

the implementation of action plans for each emphasis area. The

alliance is also working with the Louisiana LTAP to improve access to

and analysis of crash data.  

To support local engagement, the alliance administers a mini‐grant process for safety projects and equipment. The

KEY PONTS

Nevada  

 Nevada is improving the linkage

between MPO regional plans and

the SHSP.

 Nevada has formed a strategic

communications alliance to

coordinate and streamline public

safety messages.   

KEY POINTS  

Stakeholder Involvement

Louisiana  

 The South Central Regional

Louisiana Alliance has adopted a

regional version of the State’s

SHSP with the same emphasis

areas as the State SHSP.

 Mini grants awarded to support

local engagement.

 Alliance conducts safety

awareness campaigns and local

road safety assessments.  

Nevada

 Nevada Executive Committee for

Traffic Safety (NECTS) coordinates

safety goals and priorities.

 NECTS includes representatives

from a number of State agencies,

as well as the two major RPOs in

Nevada, FHWA, and FMCSA.  
6

alliance also conducts local outreach and marketing campaigns that engage citizens in safety efforts and raise safety

awareness. The alliance has conducted four local road safety assessments (RSA) in an effort to engage local public

works and engineering staff.  

Nevada’s Executive Committee on Traffic Safety

Nevada has established the Nevada Executive Committee for Traffic Safety (NECTS), which serves as the lead policy

making and steering group for Nevada’s traffic safety efforts. The purpose of NECTS is to:

 Establish SHSP policies and procedures, reviews progress, provides advice and guidance, addresses challenges, and

removes barriers;

 Provide support and assistance to specific SHSP strategies as appropriate;  

 Consult the SHSP when updating agency

or organization plans and programs; and

 Shares progress on safety initiatives.

NECTS includes representatives from the

SHSP partner agencies such as the

Department of Public Safety's Office of

Traffic Safety, the Nevada Highway Patrol,

the two major Regional Transportation

Commissions (RTCs) in the state, as well as

FHWA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA). NECTS provides

guidance on agency plans and programs to

ensure that safety remains a top priority.  

NECTS receives support from a technical

working group which is responsible for

reviewing the progress of teams assigned to

each of the SHSP critical emphasis areas and revising the SHSP. The critical emphasis area teams in turn assist with

implementation of multi‐disciplinary goals and strategies to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury crashes.

Goal and Objective Setting

LA DOTD Safety Priorities and Objectives

Louisiana’s SHSP defines safety priorities and sets measurable objectives for the State. The overarching goal of

Louisiana’s SHSP is to reduce fatalities to zero. Louisiana has also set an interim goal of cutting fatalities and serious

injury crashes in half by 2030. LA DOTD is striving to involve the entire State population because State agencies

operating alone won’t be able to achieve these ambitious goals.

The SHSP implementation team determines emphasis areas and performance measures and sets measurable goals for

fatalities and serious injury crashes in each of the four emphasis areas. For example, the SHSP set a goal for alcohol‐

related driving and assigned lead agencies (LA DOTD, Louisiana State Police, and Louisiana Highway Safety Council) to

implement the related strategies and track progress. The draft goals are submitted for review by stakeholders, who are

invited to review data and provide feedback. Progress toward SHSP goals is tracked quarterly and annually. LA DOTD

hosts a safety summit every other year to discuss safety goals and data.  

In addition, LA DOTD is encouraging MPOs to identify safety goals, objectives and performance measures in their
7

LRTPs. For example, the LA DOTD is giving presentations to the MPOs and the planning council on the SHSP to

encourage MPOS to set safety goals that align with the goals of the SHSP.

Local Engagement through the SHSP and RSAs  

Nevada DOT is focused on improving collaboration with local agencies through critical emphasis area teams, RSAs, and

cross‐jurisdictional, high‐visibility law enforcement campaigns.  

Critical emphasis area teams include members from local agencies

and are responsible for establishing goals in each emphasis area

and supporting the implementation of strategies and track

progress.  

Another way Nevada engages local agencies is through RSAs.

Nevada DOT has conducted approximately 150 RSAs on State and

local roads. To conduct RSAs, NDOT identifies high crash locations

and invites stakeholders to participate. RSAs are typically

conducted during the scoping of safety projects. NDOT usually hires

consultants to lead the RSAs and provide recommendations to the

design team. NDOT funds and monitors implementation of the

recommendations stemming from RSAs. NDOT plans to do

before/after studies on implemented improvements to develop and

calibrate crash modification factors. NDOT is now expanding the

use of RSAs to support work zone safety and corridor studies.

Nevada also has a successful “Joining Forces” effort. This is a cross

jurisdictional law enforcement effort where agencies team up for

high visibility enforcement (HVE) campaigns. The HVE campaigns

are funded by OTS and DOT and have enjoyed considerable success

in the State.  

Tying the Regional Transportation Plan to the Nevada SHSP  

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Washoe County

serves as the county’s MPO and transit service provider and is

responsible for traffic management systems, as well as roadway

design, construction, and maintenance services. The RTC sits on the

SHSP team and the SHSP is integrated into the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).  

The RTP has a chapter related to the goal of improving safety which aligns with the SHSP critical emphasis areas of

Pedestrians and Intersections and states the vision of Zero Fatalities. The RTP also includes a number of safety

performance measures that are consistent with the SHSP. The RTP explains strategies to achieve the goal of improving

safety, including the use of RSAs and complete streets projects. Finally, the RTP includes safety factors in the project

selection process.

   

KEY POINTS  

Goal and Objective Setting

Louisiana  

 SHSP goals are set with local

stakeholder input, through safety

summits and other venues.

 LA DOTD works with MPOs to

identify safety goals, objectives

and performance measures and

linkage to SHSP safety goals.

Nevada  

 SHSP emphasis area teams have

members from local agencies and

they help establish and track

goals.

 Collaboration has led to “Joining

Forces,” a cross‐jurisdictional law

enforcement effort where

agencies team up for high visibility

enforcement campaigns.

 An RTC representative sits on the

Nevada SHSP team.

 RTP pedestrian and intersection

safety goals and performance

measures align with those

emphasis areas of the Nevada

SHSP.
8

KEY POINTS

Data and Data Analysis

Louisiana

 LA DOTD works with Louisiana

LTAP to provide local agencies

access to local crash data.

 Louisiana has published a

publicly‐accessible online SHSP

reporting dashboard.

Nevada

 NDOT helps locals identify high

crash locations and develop

treatment proposals

Data and Data Analysis

Louisiana Crash Data

LA DOTD uses crash data to allocate limited funds, target high crash locations, identify low cost systematic counter

measures, and inform the public. Louisiana State University manages a crash data repository and is developing internet

sites to access crash data and analysis.  

LA DOTD uses an application called CRASH1 to interface with crash data and provide access to our partners. Users can

run queries of Louisiana’s crash databases. Louisiana LTAP and local

agencies can access to local crash data through a separate interface

called CRASH3. CRASH3 provides the roadway name and intersecting

street rather than latitude and longitude of the crash location. Crash

data reports are publicly available through the internet

(http://datareports.lsu.edu/). LA DOTD does not publish location‐

specific data, but queries of the system can show crash data at the

Parish and Municipality level. Finally, LA DOTD produces SHSP reports

that are publicly available (http://lashspdata.lsu.edu). These reports

identify emphasis areas and report progress. The interface provides a

number of ways to query and analyze the available data.

Louisiana’s crash data have limitations that LADOT is working hard to

address. LA DOTD has identified common coding errors and seeks to

validate all crash locations and provide training to law enforcement to

improve crash reporting. Louisiana DOTD is also working through the

Traffic Records Coordinating Committee to improve the rate of electronic

crash reporting and provide hardware and software to local law enforcement.

Nevada Crash Data

NDOT is currently modernizing its data program by working with law

enforcement to improve the quality and timeliness of crash data.  

NDOT is also working to make crash data and data analysis more

accessible to regional and local agencies.  Currently, NDOT uses crash

data to prioritize high‐crash intersections. NDOT is working with local

agencies to identify high crash locations and develop treatment

proposals.  

Project Selection

Integrating MPOs into the Utah DOT Safety Process  

Currently, UDOT collects and evaluates crash, roadway and traffic data

through UDOT’s Central Office with input from four Regional Offices.

The Central Office is ultimately responsible for identifying and scoping

HSIP projects. To analyze projects for HSIP eligibility UDOT prepares three years of crash histories, identifies crash

characteristics and potential mitigation measures, and develops benefit cost ratios. UDOT has assessed the safety risk

of State‐owned road segments based on crash data and created color‐coded risk maps that are available online at

http://uplan.maps.arcgis.com/home. This process helps UDOT determine where the problem areas are and target HSIP

KEY POINTS

Integrating MPOS ‐ HSIP Process

Utah

 UDOT has assessed the safety risk

of State‐owned road segments

based on crash data and created

color‐coded risk maps that are

available online.  

 UDOT’s goal is to provide

analytical tools and training to

MPOs to allow them to screen

HSIP projects in their regions.  
9

projects. HSIP‐funded projects are prioritized based on their ability to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes, using a

benefit‐cost ratio. UDOT also considers the project completion timeline to understand how quickly the benefit will

accrue and to assess whether the project can be coordinated with other projects to get maximum benefit from all

funding sources. To track the results of the HSIP program and better assess safety projects, UDOT is preparing 3‐year

before/after crash histories for some HSIP projects.

UDOT is developing a three‐year program of HSIP projects that anticipates funding in out years. This will allow UDOT

regions to move projects ahead or back to coordinate with other projects and helps UDOT demonstrate to

stakeholders that safety issues will be addressed in the near future if not immediately.  

MPOs are responsible for a significant portion of Utah’s roads and UDOT is working to engage MPOs in the HSIP project

identification and selection process. UDOT has created and made available to MPOs county‐wide heat maps showing

crash frequencies and safety risk ratings of road segments. UDOT uses a model developed by Brigham Young University

and road data collected through a LiDAR‐based system to create a statistical analysis of safety risk. UDOT is working to

expand this approach beyond State roads to local and MPO roads.  

In the future, UDOT will focus on State routes and MPOs will focus on non‐State Federal‐Aid routes. UDOT is inviting

MPOs to participate in the HSIP process by soliciting applications from municipalities. UDOT’s goal is to build the

capacity of MPOs by providing them with analytical tools to screen and prioritize potential HSIP projects in their

respective regions.  

South Nevada Safety Plan and HSIP Project Selection

The South Nevada Regional Transportation Council (RTC) is the transit authority, traffic management systems, and

transportation planning agency, as well as roadway design, construction, and maintenance services. The RTC General

Manager serves on NECTS and participates on the Nevada Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. RTC has developed

a pedestrian safety action plan for Las Vegas and is implementing many of the strategies described in the plan. For

example, the RTC recently adopted Complete Street guidance. In

addition, RTC is funding a number of studies to identify projects for

bicycle improvements which will feed into the transportation planning

progress.

Through the unified planning work program, RTC is developing a

Southern Nevada Transportation Safety Plan. RTC is working with NDOT

to integrate HSIP funding in the MPO project selection process. RTC is

also working with NDOT developing a web‐based interface to analyze

safety improvements.

Monitoring & Evaluation

LA DOTD is working closely with Regional Safety Alliances to track

progress in implementing Regional Safety Plans and achieving safety

goals. Louisiana holds regular meetings to coordinate the monitoring and evaluation of the SHSP among stakeholders.

LADOTD provides data to all of the Regional Safety Alliances annually and they recently hired a coordinator to organize

meetings, take notes, distribute information, and track progress towards goals.  

LA DOTD has developed a simple Excel‐based tracking tool for tracking progress towards SHSP goals and

implementation of SHSP strategies. The tool allows users to track actions developed to achieve strategies in each

emphasis area. Regional Safety Alliances commit team members to collect implementation data. If data are not

KEY POINTS

HSIP Funding/Project Selection

Nevada

 Through the unified planning

work program, RTC is

developing a Southern Nevada

Transportation Safety Plan to

tailor SHSP to the needs of

Southern Nevada.  

 RTC is working with NDOT to

channel HSIP funding through

MPO process.  
10

available, LA DOTD encourages stakeholders to develop a data collection plan. LA DOTD uses the data collected by

Regional Safety Alliances to track SHSP implementation at the regional level and develops an annual report describing

progress toward SHSP goals.  

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

The table below highlights some of the most noteworthy safety planning coordination practices participants raised at

the Peer Exchange.

Stakeholder Coordination and Collaboration

Nevada Strategic

Communications Alliance

Established a strategic communications alliance to streamline and

coordinate SHSP marketing campaigns and assist local agencies with

SHSP‐related media events.

Louisiana Regional Safety Alliances DOTD provides assistance to Regional Safety Alliances that develop

regional safety plans aligned to the SHSP and conduct local

outreach efforts.

Coordinated Goal and Objective Setting

Utah, Nevada

and Louisiana

SHSP/LRTP Integration Utah, Nevada and Louisiana have all set versions of the goal

“Towards Zero Deaths” and use this goal to motivate stakeholders

to commit to safety goals and strategies.   

Utah Unified Transportation

Planning Process

Utah’s Unified Transportation Planning process ensures that the

State DOT and MPOs use the same crash data, forecasting

assumptions and analysis methodologies.

Performance Management

Louisiana SHSP Progress Reports LA DOTD produces SHSP reports that are publicly available

(http://lashspdata.lsu.edu). These reports identify emphasis areas

and report progress. The interface provides a number of ways to

query and analyze the available data.

Coordinated Data and Analysis

Louisiana Data Audits Louisiana plans to conduct an audit of available data to assess the

quality and timeliness of data sources and improve the coordination

of data analysis.

Louisiana and

Utah

Online Data Analysis

Tools

Louisiana and Utah provide access to crash data to regional and

local agencies through online crash analysis tools.

Coordinated Project Selection

Utah MPO Screening of HSIP

Projects

Utah DOT is working with MPOs to integrate them into the HSIP

project selection process. MPOs will review and prioritize HSIP

applications in their respective regions.

Coordinated Monitoring and Evaluation

Louisiana Tracking Tools Louisiana DOTD created a simple Excel‐based tracking tool to track

implementation of strategies and progress towards goals at the

State and Regional levels.
11

BREAKOUT GROUPS HIGHLIGHTS AND ACTION PLANS

After the peer presentations, the peers were broken up into smaller groups by State. The purpose was to have the

State and regional representatives explore strategies to improve regional and statewide coordination safety efforts

that they can pursue in their respective States, actions they will take, the resources they will need and the Champion

for that strategy/action. Below is a brief description of the small group discussions.

Utah  

In the first breakout group, Utah expressed interest in disseminating safety practices down to the local level. Some

strategies they discussed included:

 Coordinating more with MPOs by providing county level crash reports to MPOs.  

 Running the HSIP project selection process through MPOs to evaluate local roads.  

 Using the unified transportation planning process in Utah to develop safety performance measures and

targets collectively to ensure consistency.  

In the action planning breakouts, Utah developed more specific strategies and actions, and identified the needed

resources and Champion(s) to help them achieve their strategies.  

Nevada  

In the first breakout group, Nevada stakeholders expressed an interest in improving coordination and collaboration

among MPOs and NDOT. To increase MPO involvement in the safety project selection process NDOT plans to

document clear criteria for HSIP project ranking and establish a process for applying project funds through NDOT.

Nevada will use the SHSP as an umbrella plan to promote the development of local and regional safety plans that

establish regional safety goals and objectives tailored to local and regional needs. In the action planning breakouts,

Nevada developed more specific strategies and actions, and identified the needed resources and Champion(s) to help

them achieve their strategies.  

Louisiana  

In the first breakout group, Louisiana discussed establishing a communications alliance. Louisiana wants to bring data

to decision makers and engage stakeholders beyond traditional transportation stakeholders. They want to identify

champions at the regional level. Louisiana is also interested in forming a safety advisory council at the MPO‐level. Data

analysis is needed at the regional level. Louisiana is also interested in using Road Safety Audits (RSAs). They want to

adopt regional safety plan into long range transportation plan as well as the SHSP. These would be under the purview

of the regional safety committee.  Finally, Louisiana safety stakeholders would like to develop ways to evaluate

performance common to both the State and regional level. They plan to develop a common evaluation process for

candidate projects and coordinate how data is used at all levels. In the action planning breakouts, Louisiana developed

specific strategies and actions, and identified the needed resources and champions to help them achieve their

strategies.  

CLOSING

Improving the coordination and linkage between SHSPs and transportation planning documents, notably Statewide

and Metropolitan LRTPs, is a critical element of a comprehensive and holistic approach to transportation safety

planning.  As States adopt aggressive safety goals, such as Towards Zero Deaths, many are searching for new ways to

address safety issues across all elements of their transportation network. The States of Nevada, Louisiana and Utah are

committed to improving highway safety by establishing consistent data‐driven State and regional transportation
12

planning processes that integrate safety as a critical priority and are clearly linked to the SHSP.  Representatives from

each of these States shared the practices they found to work best to integrate safety into planning, such as setting

clear and aggressive safety goals, making quality safety data readily accessible, coordinating safety project selection

and funding processes, and closely monitoring progress towards safety goals.  State representatives were able to learn

from the differences in their approaches to integrating safety into transportation planning and incorporated many

“borrowed” ideas into their action plans for their respective States.  The passion and enthusiasm of the

representatives at the peer exchange was infectious and all participants took advantage of the opportunity to learn

from their peers in other States and to plan their next steps with peers from their own States.
13

APPENDIX A

COORDINATED STATE AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PLANNING 

PEER EXCHANGE PARTICIPANTS 

FHWA/Volpe  

Cassandra Allwell

Division Chief ‐ Organizational Performance

USDOT Volpe Center

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Business Phone Number: 617‐494‐3997

Business Email: cassandra.allwell@dot.gov

Michelle Noch

Community Planner  

FHWA Office of Planning

Washington DC

Business Phone Number: 202‐366‐9206

Business Email Address: michelle.noch@dot.gov

Fred  Bowers

Community Planner  

FHWA Office of Planning

Washington DC

Business Phone Number: 202‐366‐2374

Business Email: frederick.bowers@dot.gov

Jennifer Warren

Transportation Specialist

FHWA Office of Safety

Washington, DC   

Business Phone Number:  202‐366‐2157

Business Email:  jennifer.warren@dot.gov

Aaron Jette

Community Planner

USDOT Volpe Center

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Business Phone Number: 617‐494‐2335

Business Email Address: aaron.jette@dot.gov

LOUISIANA

Ahmed Abdel‐Khalek

Transportation Planner III

Capital Region Planning Commission  

New Orleans,  Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐383‐5203

Business Email: akhalek@brgov.com

Dwight Minton

Transportation Planner III

Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning and Development

Commission  

Lake Charles, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 337‐433‐1771

Business Email: dwight@imcal.org

Melanie Bordelon

Engineer II

Lafayette Metropolitan Planning Organization

Lafayette, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 337‐291‐8120

Business Email: mbordelon@lafayettela.gov

Karen Parsons

Principal Planner

Regional Planning Commission

New Orleans, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 504‐483‐8511

Business Email: kparsons@norpc.org

John Broemmelsiek

Traffic Ops/ITS Engineer

FHWA Louisiana Division

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐757‐7600

Business Email: john.broemmelsiek@dot.gov

Raju Porandla

Transportation Engineer/Planner V

Capital Region Planning Commission  

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐383‐5203

Business Email: rporandla@brgov.com

Dan Broussard

Statewide Planning Engineer

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐379‐1924

Business Email: Dan.Broussard@LA.gov

April Renard

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number:  225‐379‐1919                                   

Business Email: april.renard@la.gov

Brandon Buckner

Transportation Planner

FHWA Louisiana Division

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐757‐7600

Business Email: brandon.buckner@dot.gov

Joshua Manning

Transportation Planner II

South Central Planning and Development Commission

Houma, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 985‐851‐2900

Business Email: josh@scpdc.org
14

Rudynah Capone

Regional Transportation Safety Coordinator

South Central Planning and Development Commission

Houma, Louisiana   

Business Phone Number: 985‐851‐2900

Business Email: rudynah@scpdc.org

Jeff Roesel

Deputy Director

Regional Planning Commission

New Orleans, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 504‐483‐8528

Business Email: jroesel@norpc.org

Karla Courtade

Highway Safety Program Manager

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development

Baton Rouge, Louisiana  

Business Phone Number: 225‐379‐1928

Business Email: karla.courtade@la.gov

J Kent Rogers

Executive Director

NLCOG

Shreveport, Louisiana   

Business Phone Number: 318‐841‐5950

Business Email: kent.rogers@nlcog.org

Dennis Decker

Assistant Secretary

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development, Multimodal Planning

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐379‐1248

Business Email: dennis.decker@la.gov

Robin Romeo

Transportation Planning Administrator

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development   

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐379‐1208

Business Email: robin.romeo@la.gov

Autumn Goodfellow‐Thompson

Program Coordinator

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐379‐1838

Business Email: autumn.goodfellow‐thompson@la.gov

Jamie Setze

Planning Engineer

FHWA Louisiana Division

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐757‐7600

Business Email: jamie.setze@dot.gov

Matt Johns

Planner

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development

Baton Rouge, Louisiana  

Business Phone Number: 225‐379‐1787

Business Email: christopher.johns@la.gov

Steven Strength

District Traffic Operations Engineer

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development

New Orleans, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 504‐484‐0205

Business Email: steve.strength@la.gov

Jill Lavender

Transportation Planner II

IMCAL

Lake Charles, Louisiana  

Business Phone Number: 337‐433‐1771

Business Email: jill@imcal.org

Mary Stringfellow

Program Delivery Team Leader

FHWA LA Division

Baton Rouge, Louisiana  

Business Phone Number: 225‐757‐7610

Business Email: mary.stringfellow@dot.gov

Dan Magri

Highway Safety Administrator

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development   

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐379‐1871

Business Email: dan.magri@la.gov

Betsey Tramonte

Safety Programs Coordinator

FHWA Louisiana Division

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Business Phone Number: 225‐757‐7613

Business Email: betsey.tramonte@dot.gov

NEVADA

Juan Balbuena

Safety & LPA Engineer

FHWA Nevada Division

Carson City, Nevada

Business Phone Number: 775‐687‐1204

Business Email: juan.balbuena@dot.gov

Tom Greco

Assistant Director Planning

Nevada Department of Transportation

Carson City, Nevada

Business Phone Number: 775‐888‐7440

Business Email: tgreco@dot.state.nv.us
15

Mohammad  Farhan

Principal Transportation Planner  

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern  

Nevada

Las Vegas, Nevada

Business Phone Number: 702‐676‐1736

Business Email: farhanm@rtcsnv.com

Ken Mammen

Acting Chief Safety Engineer

Nevada Department of Transportation

Carson City, Nevada

Business Phone Number: 775‐888‐7459

Business Email: kmammen@dot.state.nv.us

Marchon Miller

Civil Engineer

Regional Transportation Commission

Reno, Nevada

Business Phone Number: 775‐348‐0171

Business Email: mmiller@rtcwashoe.com

UTAH

Robert Hull

Director of Traffic and Safety

Utah Department of Transportation

Salt Lake City, Utah

Business Phone Number: 801‐633‐6400

Business Email: rhull@utah.gov

Shawn Seager

Director of Regional Planning

Mountainland Association of Governments  

Orem, Utah

Business Phone Number: 801‐824‐1066

Business Email: sseager@mountainland.org

Angelo Papastamos

Planning Manager

Utah Department of Transportation

Salt Lake City, Utah

Business Phone Number: 801‐633‐7712

Business Email: apapastamos@utah.gov

Roland Stanger

Safety Operations Engineer

FHWA Utah Division

Salt Lake City, Utah

Business Phone Number: 801‐955‐3515

Business Email: roland.stanger@dot.gov

CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS

Susan Herbel  

Principal  

Cambridge Systematics

Washington, DC

Business Phone Number: 202‐494‐5539

Business Email: sherbel@camsys.com

Nicole Waldheim

Associate  

Cambridge Systematics

Washington, DC

Business Phone Number: 301‐347‐9132

Business Email: nwaldheim@camsys.com
16

APPENDIX B

COORDINATED STATE AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PLANNING 

THROUGH THE SHSP PROCESS PEER EXCHANGE 

AGENDA 

Goal of Peer Exchange: This peer exchange will be held with the States of Louisiana, Nevada and Utah. The goal is for the states to 

share successful practices and opportunities for coordinating state and regional safety planning efforts through the SHSP and other 

safety planning processes. 

Desired Outcome: The States will apply strategies and actions identified in the peer exchange to further their progress “Towards Zero 

Deaths.” 

May 22, 2013 Topic

7:30 - 8:30 am Registration 

8:30 - 8:50 am Welcoming Remarks 

 Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

 FHWA Louisiana Division Office 

8:50 - 9:25 am Introductions and Setting the Stage 

 Jennifer Warren - FHWA Office of Safety 

 Michelle Noch - FHWA Office of Planning

9:25 - 9:45 am Expectation of Peer Exchange 

 LA 

 UT 

 NV 

9:45 - 10:00 am Break 

10:00 -11:30 am Peer Presentation/Panel 

 Louisiana Experience and Q&A – Dan Magri

 Nevada Experience and Q&A – Ken Mammen

 Utah Experience and Q&A -Robert Hull 

11:30 -12:30 pm LUNCH 

12:30 – 12:45 pm Overview of Strategies for Improving Coordinated State and Regional 

Transportation Safety Planning and Strategy Discussions – Jennifer Warren 

12:45 pm-1:15 pm Strategy: Stakeholder Coordination and Collaboration

 Regional Coalitions – 

Rudynah Capone, Transportation Safety Coordinator – SCPDC (LA) 

 Executive Committee on Traffic Safety, Critical Emphasis Area Teams – Marchon 

Miller, 

RTC Washoe (NV) and Tom Greco, Nevada DOT

1:15 pm-1:45pm Strategy: Coordinated Goal and Objective Setting 

 Alignment of SHSP and regional goals and objectives – Karla Courtade, LA DOTD 

 Collaboration with SHSP to establish regional goals – Ken Mammen, Nevada DOT

1:45 pm-2:00 pm BREAK 

2:00 – 2:30 pm Strategy: Coordinated Performance Management

 RTC Washoe [plan] and direct ties to SHSP – Marchon Miller, RTC Washoe (NV)

2:30 – 2:45 pm STRETCH BREAK 

2:45 – 3:30 pm Breakout Groups 

3:30 – 3:45 pm Report Out 

3:45 – 4:25 pm Strategy: Coordinated Data and Analysis 

 Crash data to regional/local level - Dan Magri, LA DOTD

- Ken Mammen, Nevada DOT

4:25 - 4:30 pm Next Steps and Adjourn
17

May 23, 2013 Topic

8:00 – 8:15 am Recap of Previous Day and Overview of Day 2 Objectives and Format 

8:15 – 8:45 am Strategy: Coordinated Safety Project Selection

 MPO process that matches HSIP State process, re: safety project eligibility - Robert 

Hull, Utah DOT 

 South Nevada safety plan and HSIP funding/project selection - 

Mohammad Farhan, RTC Clark County (NV)

8:45 – 9:15 am Strategy: Coordinated Monitoring and Evaluation

 Tracking tool (State and regional level) - Karla Courtade and Autumn GoodfellowThompson - LA DOTD

9:15– 9:30 am BREAK 

9:30 - 10:30 am Breakout Groups 

10:30 - 10:45 am Report Out 

10:45-11:30 am Action Planning 

11:30 - 12:30 pm Closing and Next Steps and Adjourn

   
18

APPENDIX C ‐ DRAFT ACTION PLAN STRATEGIES

Nevada Strategies

Strategy 1: Establish regional goals and objectives that meet regional needs and support SHSP goals and objectives.

 Action 1.1: Determine which emphasis areas, strategies and goals are applicable from the SHSP.

 Action 1.2: Tie in regional goals to the project selection process.

Strategy 2: Coordinate RTP and SHSP performance measures.

 Action 2.1: Continue alignment of performance measures and adjust them based on MAP‐21 Guidance.

 Action 2.2: Include discussion of performance measures in County tours.

Strategy 3: Update/Reinstate CARE database/analysis tool and use the system to provide crash data to locals to

monitor system

 Action 3.1: Establish agreement with RTC Washoe and Southern Nevada to pay for it.

 Action 3.2: Track usage and identify opportunities for improving system.

Strategy 4: Identify opportunities to work with MPOs and locals to share safety studies and augment data analysis

(particularly with bicycle/pedestrian data)

 Action 4.1: Present analyses to RTC Board and State Transportation Technical Assistance Committee.

 Action 4.2: Check on scope of current and future studies to see if there is an opportunity to add a safety

element.

 Action 4.3: Consider amending the SHSP to include “vulnerable users” emphasis areas.

Strategy 5: Enhance local participation in safety project selection processes.

 Action 5.1: Develop and document project ranking methodology.

 Action 5.2: Establish process for applying for HSIP funds.

 Action 5.3: Train locals and implement process.

Utah Strategies

Strategy 1: UDOT will engage MPOs through presentations and reports to technical and policy committees.

 Action 1.1: Identify Zero Death champions on MPO Committees.

 Action 1.2: Provide regular safety status reports to MPO Committees.

 Action 1.3: Provide comprehensive in‐person briefings to MPOs on an annual basis.

 Action 1.4: Develop MPO‐specific crash dashboards.

Strategy 2: Use unified planning process to engage MPOs in developing consistent performance targets and project

prioritization methodologies

 Action 2.1: Ensure MPOs develop comprehensive safety sections in their Long Range Transportation Plans that

outline safety responsibilities and strategies.

 Action 2.2: Engage MPOs in setting statewide and MPO‐level targets for safety as required by MAP‐21.

 Action 2.3: UDOT will develop proposed processes for establishing metrics and targets.

Strategy 3: Ensure MPOs are using the same crash data, forecasting assumptions and analysis methodologies.

 Action 3.1: Document process UDOT is using to complete crash data analysis.

 Action 3.2: Evaluate MPO capacity to implement process.

 Action 3.3: Identify strategies to address gaps in MPO capacity.
19

Strategy 4: Engage MPOs in HSIP project selection process.

 Action 4.1: Modify existing statewide HSIP project selection process to be applicable at regional level.

 Action 4.2: Determine capacity of MPOs to manage MPO HSIP process and analyze projects.

 Action 4.3: Pilot the process with one MPO.

 Action 4.4: Ensure MPOs implement the process or, where necessary, provide resources to implement process.

Louisiana Strategies

Strategy 1. Improve stakeholder coordination and collaboration.

 Action 1.1: Implement a communication alliance.

 Action 1.2: Ensure safety is considered during updates of transportation plans.

 Action 1.3: Coordinate performance management.

Strategy 2. Develop a system of coordinated data and analysis  

 Action 2.1: Place an MPO representative on Traffic Records Coordinating Committee.

 Action 2.2: Audit what data are available and how they can be used.

 Action 2.3: Research whether it is feasible to acquire medical records from emergency responders and

hospitals.

 Action 2.4: Develop a strategic data business plan.

 Action 2.5: Ask NHTSA to help develop strategic plan for traffic records.

 Action 2.6: Document and provide training on the use of available data.  

 Action 2.7: Start a user work group to determine user requirements.

   

Strategy 3. Develop a coordinated safety project selection process  

 Action 3.1: Use safety summits around the State to provide training for MPOs on project selection processes at

planning association meeting.

 Action 3.2: Define the role of the MPOs and regional Alliances in project selection process.

Strategy 4. Develop a coordinated monitoring and evaluation process

 Action 4.1: Tie monitoring and evaluation into strategic data business plan.

 Action 4.2: Develop an evaluation plan and make results available to stakeholders.

Roadway Safety Professional

Capacity Building Program 

http://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov