http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov 

FHWA Safety Program 

PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURE: 

Systemic Application of 

Multiple Low-Cost Countermeasures 

for Stop-Controlled Intersections 
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. 

Cover image sources: Lef - Getty Images, Top right - Pennsylvania DOT, Bottom right - Adobe Stock Images 
Systemic Application of 

Multiple Low-Cost Countermeasures 

at Stop-Controlled Intersections 

What is it? 

Systemic application of multiple low-cost countermeasures for stop-controlled intersections 

involves systemically deploying a group of low-cost treatments at a large number of stop-controlled 

intersections throughout a jurisdiction. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) promotes the systemic approach as a complementary 

technique to the traditional, site-based “hot spot” approach. Where the traditional approach is 

reactive and typically involves higher average cost per site, the systemic approach is more proactive 

and involves lower average cost per site. The premise behind the systemic approach is simple: it is not 

possible to predict exactly where crashes will occur, but it is possible to use the roadway characteristics 

associated with severe crash types to determine the locations that have a greater risk of experiencing 

a fatal or severe crash. 

Overall, the systemic approach to safety has three components: 

1. Analyze systemwide 

data to identify focus 

crash types 

2. Look for similar risk 

factors present in 

severe crashes within 

the focus type 

3. Deploy on a large scale those 

low-cost countermeasures 

that address the risk factors 

contributing to crashes 

What are the low-cost treatments included in this proven safety countermeasure? 

They include: 

▪ Pavement markings. 

▪ Signing. 

▪ Visibility and sight distance improvements. 

Source: Missouri DOT 

1 
FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURE 

These low-cost strategies increase driver awareness and recognition of intersections and potential 

conflicts. Below are examples of the basic improvement package. 

Countermeasures for Through Approach(es) 

▪ Doubled up (lef and right), oversized advance

intersection warning signs,

with street name sign plaques.

▪ Retroreflective sheeting on sign posts.

▪ Enhanced pavement markings that

delineate through lane edge lines.

In addition to the basic treatments, South Carolina DOT (SCDOT) 

chose to also install flashing beacons and speed limit warning signs to 

create more awareness of the upcoming intersection. 

Countermeasures for Stop Approach(es) 

▪ Doubled up (lef and right), oversized advance

“Stop Ahead” intersection warning signs.

▪ Doubled up (lef and right), oversized

Stop signs.

▪ Retroreflective sheeting on sign posts.

▪ Stop bar placed at optimal location.

▪ Removal of any vegetation, parking, or

physical obstruction that limits sight distance.

▪ Double arrow warning sign at stem of

T-intersections.

Countermeasure

s for the Through 

Approach 

Countermeasures 

for the Stop 

Approach 

Oversized advance “Stop Ahead” signs with reflective sheeting 

on the posts. 

Basic plan that shows low-cost countermeasures at a stop-controlled 

T-intersection. (Source: FHWA) 

Source: Pennsylvania DOT Source: SCDOT 

2 
INTERSECTIONS 

South Carolina implements 

countermeasure for 

400+ 

45

FATAL AND INJURY CRASHES 

PREVENTED ANNUALLY 

Safety Evaluation of Multiple Strategies at StopControlled Intersections (FHWA-HRT-17-087) 

3

▪

▪

▪

▪

TRADITIONAL vs. SYSTEMIC 

Approach & Benefit

SYSTEMIC APPLICATION OF MULTIPLE LOW-COST COUNTERMEASURES FOR STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 

What are the Benefits? 

Systemically applying multiple low-cost countermeasures at stop-controlled intersections ofers 

valuable benefits to transportation agencies, enabling them to: 

es due t w cost of the treatments. 

Treat and improve a large number of intersections throughout their road network. 

▪ Maximiz Maximize r e resour esourcces due to the g o the gener enerally lo ally low 

cost of the treatments. 

▪ Reduce injury and fatality crashes by 10 

percent and nighttime crashes by 15 percent.1 

Reduce injury and fatality crashes by 10 percent and nighttime crashes by 15 percent. ▪ Treat and improve a large number of ▪ Advance safety cost-effectively by using a 1

intersections throughout their road network. treatment package with an average benefit-cost 

Advance safety cost-efectively by using a treatment package with an average benefit-cost ratio ratio of 26:1—and perhaps as high as 36:1.2 

of 26:1—and perhaps as high as 36:1.2 

$3 Million 

Budget 

Construct 3 Roundabouts 

$1M/intersection 

24 75 

$6K/intersection 

Minor improvements at 

500 intersections 

crashes reduced/yr*

*40% reduction in total crashes; 20 crashes/intersection/year before treatment 

** 5% reduction in total crashes; 3 crashes/intersection/year before treatment 

crashes reduced/yr** 

3X the benefit in

crash reduction 

Traditional vs. Systemic 

Example 

Louisiana sees impressive safety results 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

(LaDOTD) installed low-cost safety treatments at 89 stopcontrolled intersections. Researchers conducted a safety 

evaluation to assess the efectiveness of the treatments 

implemented at the rural stop-controlled intersections. 

Fatal and Injury Crash Reductions at Intersections 

56% 64%

Three-legged Four-legged

Delta Region Transportation Development Program: Rural Safety 

Innovation Program Evaluation (FHWA-SA-14-029) 

1 US DOT, FHWA, Safety Evaluation of Multiple Strategies at Stop-Controlled Intersections, FHWA-HRT-17-087 (Dec 2017). 

Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/17087/17087.pdf. 

2 Ibid. (Note: B/C ratios listed based on 7-year service life.) 

3 
Ohio 

INTERSECTION SAFETY 

2003-2013 (5 year rolling average) 

FATALITY REDUCTION 

23% 14% 

SERIOUS INJURY REDUCTION 

FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURE 

What Do I Need To Know To Apply this Countermeasure? 

The Systemic Approach and Intersection Safety Improvement 

Plans The systemic approach is the basis of this proven safety “A systemic approach to safety involves 

widely implemented improvements 

based on high-risk roadway features 

correlated with specific severe crash 

types. The approach helps agencies 

broaden their traffic safety efforts at 

little extra cost.” 

countermeasure. FHWA ofers a multitude of resources to 

assist transportation practitioners in applying this safety 

approach; for example, the Systemic Safety Project Selection 

Tool provides a step-by-step process for agencies to use 

in order to plan, implement, and evaluate systemic safety 

improvement projects. 

Between 2008-2013, FHWA collaborated with 

Learn more at: FHWA Ofice of Safety’s 

Systemic Approach to Safety Website approximately 20 States to help them develop Intersection 

Safety Improvement Plans (ISIPs) that used the systemic 

approach. Many of these plans included recommendations 

for systemic application of multiple low-cost countermeasures at stop-controlled intersections 

for both State and local agency facilities. Each plan was customized to the specific State to be 

consistent with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) resources or other safety funding. 

The most notable success story for this proven safety countermeasures comes from South Carolina 

DOT (SCDOT). SCDOT identified more than 2,200 intersections for improvement in the South Carolina 

ISIP in 2008, resulting in the installation of systemic improvements—primarily signing and pavement 

marking enhancements—beginning in 2009. SCDOT’s experience is well documented on FHWA’s 

website, including the complete case study, process, lessons learned, and safety study results. 

As a result of their ISIP implementation eforts, Missouri DOT (MoDOT), Ohio DOT (ODOT), 

Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT), and LaDOTD, to name a few, have also successfully installed multiple 

low-cost sign and pavement marking improvements at stop-controlled intersections. Although Ohio 

DOT has not performed an analysis on the exact locations improved through their ISIP, it has found 

that the 5-year rolling averages from 2003 to 2013 have shown a 23 percent reduction in fatalities 

and a 14 percent reduction in serious injuries at all intersections.3 In 2018-19, MoDOT has plans to 

complete a before and afer assessment for stop-controlled intersections that received systemic 

improvements through the State’s ISIP. 

3 US DOT, FHWA, Improving Safety through Ohio’s Intersection Safety Implementation Plan, FHWA-SA-16-081 (June 2016). Available at: 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/other_topics/isip/Improving_Safety_Ohio’s_ISIP.pdf. 

4 
STOP-CONTROLLED 

INTERSECTIONS IMPROVED 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

PER INTERSECTION 

800$6K

PER INTERSECTION 

$10K 89 

LOUISIANA 

4

SYSTEMIC APPLICATION OF MULTIPLE LOW-COST COUNTERMEASURES FOR STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 

Data Source: FHWA-SA-12-021 and FHWA-SA-14-029 

Funding

Many States cited above were able to 

accomplish such widespread success with these 

countermeasures by leveraging the connection 

between their Strategic Highway Safety Plans 

(SHSP), ISIPs, and HSIP. The consistency between a 

State’s SHSP and ISIP, and the identification of the 

projects through a systematic, data-driven process, 

allows for projects on all public roads to be 

eligible for HSIP funds. FHWA’s Intersection Safety 

Implementation Plan Process Guide notes available 

HSIP resources may not be suficient to fund all 

of the improvements, but States can supplement 

funds with other Federal-aid, State, or local funds. 

Specially trained Local Technical Assistance 

Program (LTAP) safety engineers or consultants 

can also be engaged to provide support for these 

improvements. 

Implementation

Transportation agencies can take diferent approaches when installing countermeasures 

systemically. SCDOT, for example, used a single, statewide, low-bid contract for signing and 

pavement marking enhancements. The agency chose to issue a single contract instead of several 

smaller contracts to ensure administrative eficiencies, uniformity of implementation statewide, 

and lower pricing through economies of scale. More than 800 stop-controlled intersections were 

improved for approximately $6,000 per intersection.4 

Agencies can issue a Request for Qualifications or Request for Proposals to determine the technical 

qualifications of engineering services contractors before going through the low-bid process. 

Because of the complexity of the project and the design-build elements it entails, a hybrid 

approach that combines low-bid contracts awarded to pre-qualified contractors with pre-qualified 

engineering services subcontractors may be preferred, rather than strictly using a low-bid process. 

ODOT used a diferent method, distributing HSIP funds to the districts to improve signing at 

stop-controlled intersections. The agency gave the districts a list of potential intersections, 

a standardized sign order form, and implementation guidance on rural intersection signing 

improvements. The ODOT sign shop produced the signs while district maintenance forces 

installed the devices. 

US DOT, FHWA, Safety Evaluation of Multiple Strategies at Stop-Controlled Intersections, FHWA-HRT-17-087 (Dec 2017). Available at: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/17087/17087.pdf. 

5 

4 
FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURE 

Agencies can also incorporate this basic pavement marking and signing package into their policies 

or standards for all stop-controlled intersections. Then, as resurfacings and other projects occur, 

these low-cost improvements can be implemented seamlessly per policy. 

Innovative Approach 

Using crash data, MoDOT’s St. Louis District identified 

locations throughout their jurisdiction, including 

intersections, with the highest safety concerns and 

chose teams comprising nationally known trafic 

and safety experts and contractors to deliver safety 

proposals. The teams competed in a unique designbuild procurement that emphasized implementing 

the most cost-efective safety treatments based on 

an analysis using Highway Safety Manual methods. A 

fixed-price, variable-scope contract encouraged teams 

to provide the maximum safety benefit within the 

funding available. 

MoDOT won a 2017 National Roadway Safety Award for this efort. For more information, visit the project website. 

Source: MoDOT 

Outreach and Communication 

Typically, projects involving the installation of this proven safety countermeasure require minimal 

public outreach eforts. These low-cost improvements only require a short-term work zone to 

implement, so trafic impacts are negligible. Residents in the area where these intersection 

improvements are taking place may comment on the additional brighter signing, or “sign clutter,” 

so transportation agencies should educate the community on the expected safety benefits of the 

projects. It may be necessary to conduct extra outreach in certain locations, such as historical 

neighborhoods, to address potential concerns. 

If the systemic safety approach is a new concept to an agency, practitioners may need to educate 

internal management or decision makers on the benefits. In the past, the agency may have chosen 

projects purely using a traditional hot-spot approach, and it may be challenging to shif their 

mindset to the proactive, systemic method. 

Due to the characteristics of implementing this type of large-scale project, with intersections spread 

around a State or jurisdiction, internal communication is vital. Regular meetings and site visits are 

recommended during implementation to ensure proper installation and determine if any alterations 

are necessary. 

6 
lv i t

i fe and fi e s visi

SYSTEMIC APPLICATION OF MULTIPLE LOW-COST COUNTERMEASURES FOR STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 

What Else Can I Learn from Others? 

A Plan for Deployment

Virginia DOT (VDOT) deployed systemic safety countermeasures at signalized intersections across the 

State, and they plan to continue using the systemic approach for their stop-controlled intersections. In 

2018, they completed a safety improvement plan for unsignalized intersections using systemic lowcost countermeasures. VDOT’s study team analyzed the State’s 80,000 unsignalized intersections by 

assessing crashes over a 5-year period to determine predominant crash trends and crash types. The 

team then assessed the risk factors that may afect the focus crash types and developed a tiered list of 

countermeasures. VDOT used their Virginia-specific safety performance functions and calculated the 

potential for safety improvement for the sites. These results were used to prioritize and narrow down 

the candidate sites to a manageable number. VDOT plans to have trafic engineering staf conduct 

studies at the recommended sites to finalize the safety improvement plan. The plan will be used as a 

guide for systemically deploying safety treatments at stop-controlled intersections within the State. 

For more information, see Systemic Low-Cost Countermeasures for an Unsignalized Intersection Safety 

Improvement Plan for Virginia. 

Stop-Controlled Intersection Safety Review 

In 2018, Alabama DOT (ALDOT) initiated a safety review of the State’s 500+ stop-controlled 

intersections. The review consists of completing a crash data analysis, crash diagrams, desk and field 

reviews of the intersections, and a report that includes intersection location, existing safety features, 

map, crash summary, trafic data, and recommended short-, mid-, and long-term strategies. Although 

some of the intersections may need more complex improvements, the recommendations are 

primarily low-cost pavement marking and signing improvements, as well as ensuring sight distance 

is adequate. When complete, ALDOT plans to provide the intersection documents to the regions for 

programming and implementation. 

Noteworthy Practices from Pennsylvania DOT

PennDOT developed a brief guide to help its Districts successfully implement 

its ISIP.5

 The guide outlined each countermeasure category (which included 

signing and marking improvements at stop-controlled intersections) along 

with the basic implementation steps and responsible organization. In the 

guide, PennDOT also described their process for tracking the projects. 

Their Safety Management Division tracked the implementation of the 

countermeasures being deployed at the recommended locations. To facilitate 

the tracking, the agency developed a standard form for the Districts to record 

the pertinent information for each project, such as location details, project 

description, cost, and crash history. The information in the tracking forms 

2012 

Pennsy an a Depar ment of Transportation

H ghway Sa ty Traf c Op ration Di on

8/1/2012

District Guidance for Intersection

Safety Implementation Plan

Source: PennDOT 

serves as a valuable resource as PennDOT evaluates the efectiveness of the ISIP countermeasures. 

PennDOT Highway Safety and Trafic Operations Division, 2012 District Guidance for Intersection Safety Implementation Plan. Available at: 

https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/Safety/Documents/District%20Intersection%20Safety%20Implementation%20Plan%20Guidance.pdf. 

7 

5 
 

FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURE 

Lesson Learned on Developing Plans 

When SCDOT first began its implementation, in-house designers provided sitespecific drawings for each intersection, but then switched to four consulting 

firms because of the large level of efort. The plans provided enough detail to 

be considered a construction drawing, but revisions and adjustments were 

typically necessary once installation actually took place in the field. SCDOT 

indicated that it may be more eficient to have a single firm develop all the 

plans to avoid discrepancies and ensure better consistency. Read about South 

Carolina’s experience and lessons learned in FHWA’s South Carolina Case 

Study: Systemic Intersection Improvements. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov 

South Carolina Case Study:

Systematic Intersection Improvements 

FHWA Safety Program 

Cover Photo Credits: Mike Farmer, 3M Corporation 

Source: FHWA 

Helping Local Agencies Implement this Low-Cost Systemic Strategy

Ohio DOT uses the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) to promote this systemic proven 

safety countermeasure. Using Ohio’s ISIP as a guide, ODOT has implemented low-cost systemic 

countermeasures at more than 1,000 intersections throughout the State. ODOT has not only 

focused on State-owned intersections, it has pushed the low-cost systemic approach down to 

the local agencies using LTAP. In 2013, the LTAP started a township signage program for its 1,100 

townships in Ohio. Since its inception, 100 townships each year receive funds to install intersection 

signing. The process uses crash data to determine the prioritized list of townships, and then, the 

next 100 townships on the list are targeted the following year, and so on. 

For more information, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/. 

8 

For More Information: 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ 

Updated July 2020

FHWA-SA-18-047