HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Revisiting SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

About the HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

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

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

roads. Many states and local agencies are successfully implementing innovative approaches to HSIP 

planning, implementation, and evaluation. The HSIP Noteworthy Practices Series presents case 

studies of these successful practices organized by specific HSIP topics. The individual case studies 

provide summaries of each practice, key accomplishments, results, and contact information for those 

interested in learning more.

Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas

FHWA guidance suggested Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) emphasis areas be selected 

“that offer the greatest potential for reducing 

fatalities and injuries.” In developing their original SHSPs, most states began with the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) SHSP as a guide. States 

selected and prioritized from AASHTO’s 22 

emphasis areas based on data analysis using various combinations of fatality and serious injury 

data. Some states defined new emphasis areas 

(i.e., rockfall). Others combined crash categories 

into broader priority areas (i.e., vulnerable road 

users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists). A few states organized emphasis areas 

into tiers defined by expected benefits and levels 

of implementation effort. 

Safety priorities change as opportunities arise 

and/or barriers prevent progress. Some states 

defined review and update schedules and processes in their original SHSPs. Some initiated 

updates to improve their SHSPs after a few years 

of implementation effort demonstrated a need 

to revisit their emphasis areas. Others initiated 

updates to take advantage of lessons learned and 

experiences shared at the national level. A well 

organized update process helps states ensure 

the SHSP remains relevant and meaningful, 

and efforts continue to focus on areas with the 

greatest potential to improve safety.

Practices for revisiting emphasis areas range from 

simply reviewing updated data to reconfirm original emphasis area selections, to comprehensive 

data analysis and stakeholder outreach to take a 

fresh look at current and potential new emphasis areas. A number of states determined their 

first SHSP took on too much and decided to scale 

back to a more manageable number of emphasis areas. In such cases, fatality and injury data 

have been weighed against other factors such 

as available resources and levels of stakeholder 

cooperation. Some states actively track SHSP 

implementation and monitor performance measures on an ongoing basis as part of their review 

and update process.

For many states, developing the original SHSPs 

was a major undertaking. Not all are able to 

invest the same level of resources or maintain 

the same level of stakeholder interest in the 

update process. Some states opting to reduce the 

number of emphasis areas in their SHSPs have 

had difficulty determining the appropriate scope 

and selection criteria. Emerging topics, such as 

distracted driving, are also proving complicated 

to address in SHSPs when the science has not 

advanced far enough to allow for the same level 

of data analysis and countermeasure selection.

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas

Noteworthy Practices

The following cases demonstrate noteworthy practices three states are using in revisiting SHSP emphasis areas:

• West Virginia focused their update efforts on reducing SHSP emphasis areas to a more manageable number. The state reexamined the data seeking a noticeable break in the number of fatalities attributed to different contributing factors and were 

able to identify four emphasis areas accounting for the majority of fatalities. Cross analyzing the data confirmed those areas 

also encompassed the largest portions of other crash types. The process of paring down the number of emphasis areas has 

reinvigorated stakeholders and generated strong support from safety partners. (read more)

• Washington State’s Target Zero workgroup conducted an exhaustive analysis of 11 years of crash data to determine areas with 

the greatest potential to reduce deaths and disabling injuries. The resulting Target Zero update established four priority levels 

of emphasis areas. The four-tier structure helps to more effectively prioritize the traffic safety emphasis areas and apply the 

resources needed to address the Target Zero vision. In addition, the latest update includes county-level data analysis using the 

same four-tier priority level framework. (read more)

• Louisiana began the process of updating their SHSP with one of the primary objectives to “narrow the focus of the SHSP 

to the areas of greatest need and potential for success as identified through a detailed data analysis process.” Two of the 

original emphasis areas were aggressive driving and distracted driving. Data analysis confirmed these continue to be significant safety problems, but revealed difficulty in assessing the nature and true extent of the problems. The State elected to 

establish task forces to examine these issues in greater depth, define the issues, and identify strategies and actions with some 

promise before reinstating them as full SHSP emphasis areas. (read more)

To access these full case studies, click on the individual links above or visit the FHWA Office of Safety on-line at: 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

FHWA-SA-11-02

The Focus is Results
Focusing on Fewer 

Emphasis Areas

West Virginia

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

In September 2007, West Virginia released its first statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The 2007 

SHSP included nine emphasis areas established by the 

Highway Safety Management Team (HSMT)1

 based on 

analysis of six years of fatality, serious injury, and crash 

data, along with stakeholder input. Some emphasis areas 

included subareas. For example, at risk drivers and users 

included: suspended or revoked drivers, unlicensed drivers, multiple crash/citation drivers, uninsured drivers, 

younger drivers, older drivers, motorcycles, and ATV drivers. Including all subareas, the State was attempting to 

address 23 different areas within the purview of the SHSP.

After several years of attempting implementation, it 

became clear to the HSMT that the scope of the SHSP 

was unmanageable. Staff from the different agencies were 

stretched too thin. Having to participate in all the different areas but being unable to dedicate sufficient attention 

to individual areas stalled implementation and discouraged 

personnel. In attempting to address the priorities of every 

stakeholder who had come to the table, they had taken on 

too much.

Recognizing it was time to update their SHSP, the HSMT 

knew they wanted to take a different approach but did not 

have a clear plan of action until getting involved as one 

of the pilot states for the National SHSP Implementation 

Process Model (IPM). The pilot provided the opportunity 

to breathe new life into West Virginia’s SHSP. It offered 

new ideas through implementation strategies from the 

IPM as well as through regular discussions about experiences and lessons learned with other pilot states. Among 

other takeaways, involvement in the pilot convinced 

the HSMT that making their plan work would require 

reducing the number of emphasis areas. 

1 The HSMT is a group of representatives from many facets of state 

and Federal agencies which all have some area of highways safety 

responsibilities within their purview. Since the early to mid 1990s 

this group has existed either formally or informally and has strived 

to coordinate and effectively manage highway safety programs and 

initiatives in West Virginia.

The process began by focusing on the original goal of 

“Zero Fatalities...Saving One Life at a Time.” The goal 

had been buried on page five of the original SHSP but was 

brought front and center in the update and subsequent 

marketing campaigns. 

The HSMT took a new look at the data to determine which 

emphasis areas had the greatest potential for meeting the 

goal. They reevaluated the data seeking a noticeable break 

in the number of fatalities attributed to different contributing factors and were able to identify four emphasis areas 

accounting for the majority of fatalities on West Virginia 

roadways: roadway departure, occupant protection, 

impaired drivers, and at-risk driver age groups (ages 15 to 

20 and over 65). They further reinforced the selection 

by cross analyzing the data and finding these four areas 

encompassed large portions of other crash types (i.e., 

roadway departures crashes involved many of the heavy 

truck, wildlife, and speeding-related crashes). Stakeholders 

focusing on the other individual crash types were thus 

invited to participate in emphasis area teams to explore 

ways to collectively address common concerns. Finally, 

a fifth emphasis area, improving highway safety data, was 

added to the update acknowledging the importance of a 

data-driven approach to safety.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Narrowed SHSP emphasis areas down to a more

manageable number through a data-driven process.

•	 Provided a more focused scope for pursuing the

goal of “Zero Fatalities...Saving One Life at a Time.”

•	 Re-energized partners leading to more active

involvement in SHSP efforts.

Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas

Results

The updated SHSP is due for publication in the fall of 2010, but the process of paring down the number of emphasis areas has already reinvigorated stakeholders and generated strong support from safety partners. The HSMT is 

strong and active. With fewer emphasis areas, partners have been able to commit time to participate in meetings 

and collaborative efforts. Communications staff are now assigned to every team and are more prepared to answer 

questions from the public. Marketing efforts, both internally and externally, have been made easier with a more 

focused SHSP.

Contact

Donna Hardy

Regional Traffic Safety Engineer

West Virginia Department of Transportation

(302) 659-4060

Donna.J.Hardy@wv.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
Tiered Emphasis Areas for 

Statewide and County 

Safety Planning

Key Accomplishments

•	 Tiered priority-level emphasis areas provide clear

planning and resource allocation framework.

•	 County level data analysis and emphasis area

prioritization provides sound basis for local

level planning.

Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas

Washington

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

In 2000, prior to SAFETEA-LU, Washington State wrote 

Target Zero: A Strategic Plan for Highway Safety. The Target 

Zero Steering Committee, in cooperation with state, local, 

and private agencies, designed a plan to support a 30-year 

vision to achieve zero traffic deaths and disabling injuries. 

When SAFETEA-LU mandated states develop Strategic 

Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) in 2005, Washington State 

was well prepared to meet the challenge.

Previously, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission 

(WTSC), Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT), and other partners focused on trying to meet 

all traffic safety needs by spreading resources over a multitude of emphasis areas and projects. The analytic nature 

of the SHSP made it clear that a change in tactics and strategic planning was required to more effectively prioritize 

the traffic safety emphasis areas and apply the resources 

needed to address the Target Zero vision. 

The Target Zero workgroup conducted an exhaustive analysis of 11 years of crash and trend data to determine which 

emphasis areas had the greatest potential to reduce deaths 

and disabling injuries. Recognizing traffic collisions are 

often attributable to multiple factors, data analysis revealed 

impairment and speed were highly associated with every 

other category of crashes (e.g., impairment and/or 

speed accounted for over one-half of all run-off-theroad collisions) The Target Zero Committee concluded if 

Washington State can meaningfully reduce impaired driving and speeding, death rates will be cut across the board, 

therefore, they identified impaired driving and speed as 

the top priority areas. 

In setting priorities for the remaining traffic safety issue 

areas, the committee looked at the number of over-all 

traffic crashes, disabling injuries, and deaths; the ability of 

strategies to reduce disabling injuries and deaths; and the 

importance of the issue in promoting overall traffic safety 

(such as improving traffic data and EMS services). The 

resulting Target Zero update (published in February 2007) 

established four priority levels covering 22 emphasis areas 

to serve as a guide for related safety programs and for 

allocating limited safety resources. It also established 

a schedule of annual evaluation and revision every few 

years. Data analysis measuring progress and strategy 

effectiveness are the basis for revisiting emphasis areas 

and strategies.
Following that model, the process for updating Target Zero began again with intensive data analysis and review of 

traffic safety planning documents between June and November 2009. The 2010 Target Zero update maintains the 

four-tier priority structure for guiding resource allocation and implementation efforts, with changes made to address 

new trends in fatal and serious injury crashes:

• Run-off-the-road collisions have been moved to Priority Level One, based on their involvement in 42 percent 

of all fatalities between 2006 and 2008. The update continues to focus on behavioral aspects of run-off-theroad collisions maintaining impaired driving and speed as priority level one emphasis areas. However, it also 

acknowledges the importance of engineering strategies specifically to decrease the likelihood a vehicle will leave 

the roadway and minimize the consequences of leaving the road. 

• Distracted drivers have been separated from drowsy drivers and moved into Level Two priority based on their 

involvement in fatal collisions. (Drowsy drivers were moved to Level Four).

• Drivers without a valid license have been removed as a priority area. Recent analysis found that impairment, 

speeding, and distraction were the primary contributing factors in fatal crashes involving these drivers so focus 

will be on these factors. 

In addition to revising statewide emphasis areas, updating Target Zero included efforts to improve county level safety 

planning through use of a consistent framework. A review of data found prioritization of statewide emphasis areas 

was heavily influenced by the most populous counties and cities, which did not necessarily reflect the same priorities 

for all areas. To address these discrepancies, data analysis was conducted for each individual county and presented in 

the same four-tier priority level framework.

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas

Results

Washington’s SHSP defines the emphasis areas and the priorities the State has determined have the greatest potential to continue reductions toward the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2030. Fatalities in the State have 

steadily dropped since 2005, down 8.6 percent from 2007 to 2008, with preliminary figures for 2009 showing a 6.1 

percent decline in fatalities. The traffic fatality rate is also trending downwards dropping to 0.94 deaths per 100 

million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2008, the State’s lowest rate on record. 

Contact

Lowell Porter

Director

Washington Traffic Safety Commission

360-725-9899

LPorter@wtsc.wa.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
Speeding and Aggressive 

Driving and Distracted Driving 

Task Forces

Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas

Louisiana

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Louisiana published their original Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP) in September 2006. Using the American 

Association of State Highway Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) SHSP as a point of departure, the State examined data and identified 11 high-priority emphasis areas 

with the most promise for driving down the human and 

economic costs of crashes. In 2009 Louisiana began the 

process of updating the SHSP with one of the primary 

stated objectives to “narrow the focus of the SHSP to the 

areas of greatest need and potential for success as identified through a detailed data analysis process.”

The update process included examination of the data 

and outreach to safety stakeholders. While attempting 

to narrow the focus, a careful look at the data revealed 

some difficulties in assessing the nature and true extent 

of two of the original emphasis areas – speeding and 

aggressive driving, and distracted driving. Aggressive 

driving is a difficult concept to define and involves several typical violations associated with driver behavior. 

The most often cited violation in aggressive driving 

crashes is “careless operation.” The 2005 crash report 

form introduced a new variable addressing distracted 

driving. However, in many cases, looking closer at the 

data revealed the factors contributing to distraction were 

often recorded as “unknown.” 

The SHSP Implementation Team recognized aggressive driving and distracted driving represent significant 

safety problems. However, the Team believed a pragmatic and beneficial approach would be to establish 

task forces to examine these issues in greater depth 

before they could conduct the necessary emphasis area 

level analysis. This resulted in the creation of two Task 

Forces with the following roles: 

• Determine infraction definitions, i.e., develop a 

definition that can be used by law enforcement, the 

judiciary, etc.;

• Review the literature and research to identify 

effective countermeasures;

• Review current practice and laws to determine and 

propose changes;

• Participate in quarterly SHSP implementation team 

meetings; and

• Report findings to the Executive Committee and 

Implementation Team.

By establishing the task forces on aggressive driving and 

distracted driving, Louisiana maintained a data-driven 

approach to defining SHSP emphasis areas with the greatest potential to reduce fatalities and serious injuries while 

acknowledging the potential significance of such topics.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Maintained a data-driven approach to identifying

SHSP emphasis areas.

•	 Provided a framework for addressing significant

“developing” emphasis areas.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Results

To date, approximately 40 stakeholders representing the 4 Es of safety (engineering, enforcement, education, and 

EMS) have signed up for either the Distracted Task Force or the Aggressive Driving Task Force. The Task Forces 

are setting out to determine: 1) appropriate methods for analyzing the data to develop a clear picture of the 

problem; and 2) effective countermeasures. Once those tasks are accomplished, the intent is to transition the 

“developing” emphasis areas into full SHSP emphasis areas. 

Contact

Dan Magri

Highway Safety Administrator

Louisiana Department of Transportation 

and Development

225-379-1871

Dan.Magri@LA.GOV

Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Safety Data Collection, 

Analysis, and Sharing

About the HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

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

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

roads. Many states and local agencies are successfully implementing innovative approaches to HSIP 

planning, implementation, and evaluation. The HSIP Noteworthy Practices Series presents case 

studies of these successful practices organized by specific HSIP topics. The individual case studies 

provide summaries of each practice, key accomplishments, results, and contact information for those 

interested in learning more.

Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

provides a data-driven framework for highway 

safety stakeholders to identify key safety needs, 

guide investment decisions, and align and leverage collective resources. The purpose of a 

data-driven process is to direct resources to 

projects and programs with the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and serious injuries. 

The strength of the SHSP and other safety 

plans lies in a state’s ability to collect, analyze, 

and share safety data as appropriate. 

A variety of strategies can be employed to collect 

quality data, perform analysis, and ensure safety 

stakeholders can access the data and the analysis. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) section 408 grants provide funding to 

improve timeliness, accuracy, uniformity, completeness, integration, and accessibility of safety 

data. Projects to improve data collection and 

analysis may also be eligible for Federal HSIP 

funding. In some states, multiple agencies provide funding for data collection and management 

through interagency agreements.

Data are analyzed to identify and prioritize safety 

problems, establish goals and objectives, select 

strategies and countermeasures, and develop 

action plans. They are also analyzed to monitor and evaluate results, and provide feedback 

into the planning process. Analysis can involve 

simple statistical investigations of crash trends, 

types, and contributing factors, or sophisticated 

tools such as SafetyAnalyst and the Highway 

Safety Manual.

In many cases, safety data are unavailable or 

unknown. Information in police crash reports 

may vary among localities. Medical records, 

insurance records, and licensing information 

may not be available or linked to the crash 

data; and roadway inventory information may 

be limited and difficult to link to the crash data 

system. These and other data quality problems 

inhibit the effectiveness of efforts to improve 

transportation safety. However, access to timely 

and accurate safety data is critical for successful 

SHSP implementation.

A variety of programs and departments receive 

safety data from the state agency or department maintaining the data. Local governments, 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), 

advocacy groups, and private consultants generally request crash data to conduct various 

planning activities and projects. The agency 

maintaining the data may provide raw or filtered 

datasets that can be readily used by local agencies. Access to reliable data for all stakeholders 

enables them to more effectively address safety 

in their transportation and safety plans, and helps 

foster collaboration among stakeholders.

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing

Noteworthy Practices

The following cases demonstrate noteworthy practices several states are using to share SHSP data with stakeholders:

• The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD) is among the first DOTs to hire a Law 

Enforcement Expert (LEE) dedicated to working with law enforcement agencies on improving crash data collection. The 

LEE works statewide and reviews crash reports to identify and resolve potential issues with crash report completion in 

the various jurisdictions. Louisiana’s crash data accuracy and completeness has improved through the use of the LEE and 

has led to better informed decision-making in the State’s efforts to improve safety. The LEE is also involved with SHSP 

implementation and helps keep regional teams focused on the data driven approach for focusing on the emphasis areas and 

potential countermeasures and strategies. (read more)

• The Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) recently embarked on a statewide initiative to create a roadway safety plan for each of 

the State’s 87 counties. These plans build on the foundation established by Minnesota’s SHSP, but utilize a data analysis 

approach geared toward identifying a specific set of safety projects directly linked to the causation factors associated with 

the most severe crashes on each county’s highway system. The data driven process established for county safety plans has 

helped position counties to more effectively compete for safety funds and make improvements on local roadways with 

greater potential to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes. (read more)

• The New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) contracted with the Rutgers University Transportation Safety Resource Center (TSRC) to 

develop a roadway safety decision support tool for safety stakeholders. The web-based software tool supporting collection, 

analysis, and distribution of transportation safety data has been instrumental in the development and implementation of the 

SHSP. The approximately 500 agencies using the analysis software enjoy easy access to transportation safety data and can 

perform analyses to support their local safety initiatives as well as those at the state level. (read more)

To access these full case studies, click on the individual links above or visit the FHWA Office of Safety on-line at: 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

FHWA-SA-11-02

The Focus is Results
Law Enforcement Expert for 

Improved Data Collection

Louisiana

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development (LDOTD) is responsible for collecting 

motor vehicle crash data for the entire State of Louisiana, 

as well as maintaining the state crash database. This 

equates to about 165,000 crash reports a year from state, 

parish, and local law enforcement agencies. The accuracy 

and timeliness of this data are critical in prioritizing safety 

improvements for roadways and intersections. LDOTD 

has the responsibility to ensure prioritization of limited 

highway safety funds is based on the ability to reduce the 

most crashes, injuries, and fatalities relative to the initial 

construction cost and any associated increase in maintenance costs. LDOTD analyzes the entire state roadway 

system on a yearly basis and compiles a list of locations 

exceeding a threshold for crashes, injuries, and fatalities 

to allocate highway safety funds where the greatest safety 

benefit can be achieved.

LDOTD found incorrect and incomplete coding of the 

crash reports by law enforcement officers affected the 

quality and accuracy of the crash data. In addition, the 

Legislature designated LDOTD as the agency responsible 

for implementing and coordinating a Statewide Incident 

Management Program, which requires widespread statewide coordination between LDOTD, law enforcement 

agencies, and emergency response personnel. In 2008, the 

agency hired a Law Enforcement Expert (LEE) to help 

address data deficiencies and meet the new Legislative 

requirement. Given the responsibilities of the position 

and because the LEE would reach out to a wide variety 

of law enforcement officers, a decision was made to hire 

a person with significant leadership experience with the 

state police, i.e., a Captain or above. 

The LEE works statewide and reviews crash reports to 

identify trends or potential issues with crash report completion by the various jurisdictions. For example, the 

LEE might identify a disproportionately high number of 

crashes with the contributing factor marked as “failure to 

control” within a particular agency. When this type of 

situation arises, the LEE meets with the agency to identify any underlying reasons for the trend in reporting (e.g., 

training, edit checks, etc.). If there are issues, the LEE 

helps train the officers on proper procedures. Additional 

LEE responsibilities directly related to improving the 

quality and accuracy of crash data include: 

• Develop a student and train-the-trainer course in 

crash investigation to familiarize law enforcement 

personnel with the concepts and techniques of 

crash reconstruction.

• Schedule classes and train law enforcement academy 

instructors in crash investigation and reconstruction 

concepts and techniques (train-the-trainer course).

• Schedule classes and train students in crash investigation 

and in reconstruction concepts and techniques.

• Provide crash investigation and reconstruction services to the Highway Safety Section for the LDOTD 

Tort Reduction Program.

• Provide crash investigation and reconstruction 

expertise to the nine LDOTD Districts during their 

investigation of crash locations.

• Serve as a member on the statewide Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committee (TRCC) and the Subcommittee responsible for revising the State crash 

report to adhere to required Model Uniform Crash 

Criteria (MUCC). 

The LEE also assists with Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) implementation at both the local and regional level. 

Working with LDOTD and Louisiana State University, the 

LEE provides the SHSP regional coalitions with the data 

they need to develop and implement regional action plans, 

strategies, and performance measures. 

Key Accomplishments

•	 LDOTD is among the first DOTs to hire a Law

Enforcement Expert (LEE) dedicated to working

with law enforcement agencies on improving

crash data collection.

•	 Instituted a direct link between LDOTD (both

headquarters and District offices) and law

enforcement agencies around the State.

•	 Utilizing a former law enforcement officer has

facilitated communication and outreach to local

law enforcement agencies.

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing

Results

Louisiana’s crash data accuracy and completeness have been enhanced through the use of the LEE, which has led 

to better informed decision-making in the State’s efforts to improve safety. Training law enforcement agencies 

has greatly improved location data through better application of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. 

Educating local law enforcement officers on the electronic crash report form and increasing their awareness and 

understanding of the importance of accurate, complete data has resulted in more regular reporting of data elements 

previously often omitted, such as the manner of collision. Outreach to local law enforcement has also raised awareness of the availability of data from the state to guide local crash reduction programs.

Contact

Terri Monaghan

Highway Safety Manager

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

225-379-1941

Terri.Monaghan@la.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
Data Analysis for County 

Highway Safety Plans

Minnesota

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) 

has made $3.5 million available to develop Highway Safety 

Plans for each of the State’s 87 counties. The concept 

is to build on the foundation established by Minnesota’s 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), with the primary 

objective of identifying a specific set of safety projects 

directly linked to the causation factors associated with the 

most severe crashes on each county’s highway system.

The first step in developing each county plan has been 

to conduct a comprehensive crash analysis to disaggregate crashes by system (state or local), severity (serious 

injury, fatal), location type (urban or rural), and crash type. 

Through comprehensive crash analysis, MnDOT assisted 

counties with identifying whether the majority of the 

severe crashes are occurring on the state or local system 

and in urban or rural areas. This helps identify where the 

greatest proportion of crashes are occurring, as well as the 

primary crash types.

The counties have then disaggregated the crashes based 

on the 22 emphasis areas identified by the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Official’s (AASHTO) to identify the critical emphasis 

areas (e.g., young drivers, seat belt usage, road departure, 

intersections). The identified emphasis areas represent 

the greatest potential to significantly reduce the number 

of severe and fatal crashes in the corresponding county.

Once emphasis areas were identified, an initial list of 

potential safety countermeasures was compiled using the 

strategies included in the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program (NCHRP) 500 Series Reports – 

Guidance for Implementation of AASHTO’s SHSP. The 

county staff reviewed the initial list and eliminated strategies 

considered too expensive or experimental, and the remaining strategies were prioritized through a Safety Strategies 

Workshop, which included various safety partners in the 

county (e.g., public works, law enforcement, planning, public health, elected officials, MnDOT staff, etc.). During the 

workshop the results of the data driven analytical process 

were shared with the safety partners, who then discussed 

and prioritized the list of safety strategies.

Following the prioritization of safety strategies, a detailed 

crash analysis was conducted to identify contributing 

crash factors and characteristics based on the findings of 

the initial crash analysis. This analysis identified high risk 

locations (e.g., segments, horizontal curves, intersection) 

based on systemwide factors such as number of severe 

crashes, design features, traffic volumes, curve radius, etc.

In most cases the severe and fatal crashes have been 

spread over many miles of roadways, resulting in a low 

density of crashes. To address this issue, one of the key 

objectives of the county safety plans is to identify low-cost 

safety-related projects focused on the county’s identified 

emphasis areas to implement on a systematic basis. At 

this point in the process, projects were identified based on 

the results of the detailed crash analysis and the identified 

high-priority strategies. 

Some county lists of 

potential projects have 

included multiple years 

of projects – ultimately 

implementation will be 

dependent on securing 

HSIP funding or integration of these low 

cost measures into other 

programs such as 3R 

(Resurfacing, Restoring, 

Rehabilitation).

Key Accomplishments

•	 Established a process for developing data-driven

county safety plans.

•	 Provided data analysis support to counties for

improved problem and project identification.

•	 Established a better link between crash causation and implementation of safety strategies on

local roadways.

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing

Results

As of December 2010, 23 counties have developed safety plans. The data analysis used to develop the plans has 

helped position counties to more effectively identify projects eligible for future HSIP funding cycles and to make 

improvements on local roadways with greater potential to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes. 

The comprehensive data analysis has also positioned MnDOT to more subjectively quantify safety needs on the 

local roadways as part of the State’s systemic approach to safety improvements. Furthermore, through a process 

similar to the development of the statewide SHSP, development of county safety plans have fostered a greater safety 

culture among county stakeholders.

Contact

Brad Estochen

Minnesota Department of Transportation

651-234-7011 

bradley.estochen@dot.state.mn.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
Data Sharing and 

Decision Support Tool

New Jersey

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) 

recognized a need to provide transportation safety data 

in a more user-friendly format. Providing easier access 

to data and enhanced analytic capabilities would encourage participation by safety partners in the State’s various 

safety programs, including its SHSP efforts.

The State contracted with the Rutgers University 

Transportation Safety Resource Center (TSRC) to 

develop a roadway safety decision support tool. This 

software program enables users to quickly filter, analyze, 

and map crash records. The tool also allows merging 

of specialized data sources with crash records, enabling 

in-depth analysis.

The TSRC developed the software as a web-based application to enable public agency personnel to quickly 

analyze safety data. By hosting the tool on a platform 

of servers, large amounts of data can be accommodated 

with little effect on execution speed. The application 

processes queries submitted on-line, produces reports 

mapping crash location and severity, and identifies contributing factors. Users can access the software from any 

Internet-enabled computer without requiring a high level 

of computing power. The program is secured through 

the use of login IDs and passwords to protect content 

and allows users to save filters and preferences. The 

program enables network screening, economic analysis, 

and diagnosis. The network screening layer integrates 

methodologies currently used by safety engineers to 

locate high-crash intersections or segments. Crash rates 

can be calculated for any filter/query. The software also 

includes a model to predict crash frequencies and severity 

for selected roadways. Future elements will incorporate 

the safety performance function calculations from the 

new Highway Safety Manual into the program for all 

classifications of roadways to determine which locations 

have the greatest potential for safety improvement. 

The Center also provides engineering, planning, training, 

and outreach services to local governments and assists 

with crash data analysis to support SHSP implementation. 

NJDOT funds work of the TSRC through the HSIP.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Developed new system for on-line access to

transportation safety data enabling safety partners to make data-driven safety decisions.

•	 Enhanced capabilities to analyze data and tailor

reports to support safety initiatives.

•	 Distributed safety data broadly to encourage

greater SHSP participation.

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing

Results

The web-based software tool supporting collection, analysis, and distribution of transportation safety data has 

been instrumental in the development and implementation of the SHSP. The approximately 500 agencies using 

the analysis software enjoy easy access to transportation safety data and can perform analyses to support their local 

safety initiatives as well as those at the state level. Broad dissemination of safety data and the availability of this tool 

has encouraged participation in the SHSP by safety partners at all levels.

Contact

Patrick Szary

Associate Director

Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT)

732-445-0579, Ext. 106

szary@rci.rutgers.edu

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

HSIP Project 

Evaluation

About the HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

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

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

roads. Many states and local agencies are successfully implementing innovative approaches to HSIP 

planning, implementation, and evaluation. The HSIP Noteworthy Practices Series presents case 

studies of these successful practices organized by specific HSIP topics. The individual case studies 

provide summaries of each practice, key accomplishments, results, and contact information for those 

interested in learning more.

HSIP Project Evaluation

Evaluation is critical to determine if a project or 

group of projects is achieving the desired results 

and to ensure investments are cost-effective. 

Evaluation provides a quantitative estimate of 

the effects on safety, which is valuable information for future planning. Evaluation results 

enable a state to determine if appropriate countermeasures were used at particular locations, 

whether any adverse impacts occurred, if corrective action is necessary, and how effective those 

countermeasures would be for similar sites in 

the future. 

Various methods exist for evaluating projects, but 

any evaluation should consider a minimum of 

three to five years of before and after crash data, 

the target crash type of the improvement, and 

crash severity (a countermeasure may increase 

the total number of crashes, but reduce the crash 

severity). Ideally, project evaluation should incorporate more advanced techniques (e.g., safety 

performance functions (SPFs), Empirical Bayes 

(EB) method) to account for natural fluctuations 

in crashes from year to year and other changes 

potentially impacting evaluation results. 

The majority of states are conducting project 

evaluations based on a simple before-after analysis, and a few are using evaluation results to 

develop state-specific crash modification factors 

(CMFs) for various countermeasures. While 

simple before-after evaluations are rather easy 

to perform and may provide a basic understanding of safety changes, they assume any change 

was due solely to the safety improvement at the 

site and may misrepresent the true effectiveness 

of a project due to the effects of regression-tothe-mean.1

 The EB method can be incorporated 

into project evaluations to reduce the effects of 

regression-to-the-mean. However, very few 

states have been able to use the EB method since 

it requires calibrated SPFs. Many states do not 

have the training, resources, tools, manpower, or 

necessary data to calibrate SPFs.

Another challenge is that individual states may 

not have enough installations of a particular 

countermeasure to develop quality CMFs. The 

Evaluations of Low Cost Safety Improvements 

Pooled Fund Study (ELCSI PFS) combines the 

implementation efforts of multiple states to 

develop reliable estimates of countermeasure 

effectiveness. States can independently initiate 

similar efforts.

1 Regression-to-the-mean bias describes a situation in 

which crash rates are artificially high (or low) during the before period and would have decreased (or 

increased) even without an improvement to the site. 

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

Noteworthy Practices

The following cases demonstrate noteworthy practices four states are using in HSIP project evaluations:

• The Colorado DOT developed SPFs for all roadway facility and intersection types in the State, which enabled the DOT to 

institutionalize the EB method into all safety project evaluations and reduce the effects of regression-to-the-mean. (read more)

• The Florida DOT developed an on-line database application of safety improvement projects that automates the processes for conducting benefit-cost analysis to compare different countermeasures and for conducting safety project 

evaluations to develop crash reduction factors (CRF). The application has also enabled Florida to develop and continue 

to refine state-specific CRFs for several countermeasures based on the project evaluation results. (read more)

• The North Carolina DOT created a safety project evaluation group to conduct evaluations on all spot safety projects in the 

State. The project evaluations provided field engineers with valuable feedback on the effectiveness of safety projects and 

countermeasures. (read more)

• The University of Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory, under contract to Wisconsin DOT, developed a project evaluation process incorporating EB analysis into all HSIP project evaluations. The TOPS Laboratory 

compared benefit-cost analysis using simple before-after analysis results and EB to demonstrate the importance of using 

statistical evaluations to reduce the overestimation of safety benefits due to regression-to-the-mean. (read more)

To access these full case studies, click on the individual links above or visit the FHWA Office of Safety on-line at: 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

FHWA-SA-11-02

The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

Project Evaluations 

Using Empirical Bayes

Colorado

Incorporating the Empirical Bayes (EB) method into 

project evaluations reduces the potential overestimation 

of safety benefits due to regression-to-the-mean. While 

the EB method is not difficult in itself, it requires safety 

performance functions (SPF) for the type of facilities on 

which projects are being evaluated.

SPFs were originally developed by Colorado Department 

of Transportation (CDOT) for use in the network 

screening process. While crash rates are commonly used 

to measure safety, the crash rate implies a linear relationship between safety and exposure, which can often 

be misleading since rates change with Annual Average 

Daily Traffic (AADT). To capture how this rate change 

takes place, design engineers at the CDOT started to 

calibrate SPFs in the late 1990s, as part of the development of the Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) concept. 

LOSS is used to identify locations with potential for 

safety improvement and reflects how a roadway segment 

is performing in regard to its expected crash frequency 

and severity at a specific level of AADT, based on the 

SPF. By 2001, CDOT had calibrated SPFs for all public 

roadways (state and local) in Colorado, stratified by the 

number of lanes, terrain, environment, and functional 

classification. In 2009, CDOT in collaboration with 

consultants developed SPFs for all intersection types. 

The development of SPFs has not only advanced CDOT’s 

network screening process, it also has enabled CDOT to 

institutionalize the use of the EB method as a standard 

procedure for safety evaluation analysis. Colorado has 

traditionally used a simple spreadsheet with three to five 

years of before and after data to conduct project evaluations. CDOT is currently working on applying an EB 

correction to evaluate sites on an SPF graph as shown. 

The use of the EB method is particularly effective when 

it takes a long time for a few crashes to occur, as is often 

the case on Colorado rural roads.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Developed SPFs for all roadway facility and

intersection types in the state.

•	 Institutionalized the use of the Empirical

Bayes method as a standard procedure for

safety evaluation analysis to reduce effects of

regression-to-the-mean.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

Results

CDOT developed SPFs for all state and local roadway facilities and intersection types. The development of the 

SPFs has enabled CDOT to fully institutionalize the EB method for all safety analysis at CDOT and reduce the 

effects of regression-to-the-mean.

Contact

Brian Allery

Colorado Department of Transportation

303-757-9967

brian.allery@dot.state.co.us

Jake Kononov

Colorado Department of Transportation

303-757-9973

jake.kononov@dot.state.co.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

Crash Reduction 

Analysis System Hub

Florida

Crash reduction factors (CRF) provide agencies with an 

estimate of the expected crash reduction and/or benefits 

associated with various countermeasures. However, since 

local conditions (e.g., roadway, driver, traffic, weather, 

crash investigation techniques) may vary from agency to 

agency, state specific CRFs provide a more accurate indication of the effectiveness of various countermeasures. 

Prior to the development of the Crash Reduction Analysis 

System Hub (CRASH), the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) did not have a central database 

that combined crash data and safety project data to determine CRFs, or a mechanism in place to provide FHWA 

with a report on the effectiveness of safety projects in 

reducing crashes. The individual districts maintained 

the historical data for their safety improvement projects, 

which were in various formats and were not easily accessible for developing CRFs. In an effort to systematically 

maintain statewide safety improvement project data and 

facilitate a continual process of developing and updating 

state specific CRFs, the FDOT funded a research project 

with the Lehman Center for Transportation Research to 

develop the CRASH application. 

The CRASH application is a web database of safety 

improvement projects on the FDOT intranet. The 

District Safety Engineers (DSE) input all Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) funded projects into 

CRASH, which stores individual safety improvement 

projects and crash data. The application uses before and 

after crash counts to evaluate the CRFs for the countermeasures implemented in the safety improvement projects 

entered in the system. The State Safety Engineer (system 

administrator) updates the CRFs annually; although they 

can be updated at any time. The CRFs are typically calculated based on five years of before and after data, but 

the system administrator may specify a time period for 

the calculation.

The CRASH application enables the DSEs to easily evaluate different countermeasures and conduct 

a benefit-cost analysis by inputting project limits and 

selecting crash data years. CRASH currently includes 

135 different improvements types. When the user 

selects a proposed countermeasure, the application 

provides a range of CRFs for crashes in various categories based on historical crash reductions or increases 

associated with past projects. The user can select the 

standard CRF or input a user defined value in cases 

where no sufficient studies in Florida exist to develop 

a state specific CRF. 

The CRASH system enables easy performance tracking 

of safety efforts. It provides various functions for data 

retrieval and exportation for other analysis and reporting 

purposes, including the annual HSIP report.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Developed an online database of safety

improvement projects and state-specific CRFs.

•	 Automated processes for benefit-cost analysis

and safety project evaluations.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

Results

The CRASH application has enabled Florida to develop state-specific CRFs for several countermeasures based on 

the evaluation results of implemented HSIP projects. The system has also reduced the level of effort required to 

conduct benefit-cost analyses and project evaluations by automating the processes.

Contact

Joseph Santos

Transportation Safety Engineer

Florida Department of Transportation

850-245-1502

joseph.santos@dot.state.fl.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

Safety 

Evaluation Group

North Carolina

In 1999, the North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) created a permanent group of employees to 

focus on safety project evaluation. The purpose for the 

group was to establish a formal project evaluation process 

to verify the success of the state’s efforts in safety.

In the first four years following its formation, the group 

established a process for conducting project evaluation and 

identified what results would be most useful to the field 

engineers. The group’s initial efforts were more research 

and technically oriented but, to better serve the needs of 

the field engineers, the results of the evaluation studies 

were simplified (the field engineers were most interested 

in the before and after crash diagrams and changes in 

crash patterns). Originally, the group conducted about 

50 project evaluations a year with one supervisor and six 

engineers, but now the group completes approximately 

200 evaluations a year with reduced staff (one supervisor, 

four engineers, and one technician). 

The safety evaluation group conducts simple before-after 

studies on all spot safety projects once a minimum of three 

years of before and after data are available (the same time 

periods are used for both the before and after periods). 

For each project, the group prepares an evaluation report 

including before and after crash type and severity data, 

collision diagrams, photos, and discussion of the study 

results. After an evaluation report is completed, it is submitted to the field engineer who originally developed the 

project to provide feedback on whether the project successfully mitigated the previously identified safety issue. 

For projects unsuccessfully mitigating the safety issue or 

resulting in a different crash pattern, the evaluation report 

provides the field engineer with an opportunity to reassess 

the conditions and identify a different countermeasure. 

NCDOT is currently working on developing a process to 

track projects not successfully mitigating the safety issue 

they were intended to address.

The evaluation group compiles a spreadsheet of all the 

completed project evaluation studies. The spreadsheet 

provides the category of improvement, before and 

after traffic volumes, location, traffic control, geometry, etc., and provides a link to the detailed evaluation 

report. The spreadsheet is updated regularly and posted 

on the NCDOT web site (http://www.ncdot.org/doh/

preconstruct/traffic/safety/Reports/completed.html). It 

can be used by engineers to determine which treatments 

have worked in the past. 

The group also develops crash modification factors (CMF) 

using the Empirical Bayes (EB) method when enough 

sample sites and data are available. North Carolina specifically focuses on developing CMFs for countermeasures 

not already extensively researched. 

Key Accomplishments

•	 Established a group focused on safety project

evaluation.

•	 Promoted the use of effective countermeasures.

•	 Provided feedback to engineers on the effectiveness of their individual safety projects and various

countermeasures.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

In efforts to promote a particular countermeasure to the field engineers, NCDOT’s evaluation group has also conducted studies on well documented countermeasures to provide evidence of crash reduction effectiveness. One 

example is the use of four-way stop control. Although several studies document the effectiveness of this countermeasure, many field engineers in North Carolina did not consider it a viable countermeasure. The group evaluated 

over 50 intersections throughout the State and demonstrated four-way stop controls were effective. Study results 

were presented to field engineers in an effort to change their perspective. While field engineers were very receptive to 

the study results, it is too early to determine if it has increased the use of four-way stop control in the State.

Results

Since the establishment of the safety evaluation group, North Carolina has evaluated and documented the results of 

more than 600 projects. The evaluation reports provide field engineers with valuable feedback on the effectiveness 

of their safety projects, as well as various countermeasures, and promote the use of effective countermeasures.

Contact

Shawn Troy

North Carolina Department of Transportation

919-773-2897

stroy@ncdot.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

University Conducting HSIP 

Project Evaluations Using 

Empirical Bayes Wisconsin

Wisconsin DOT contracted with the University of 

Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety (TOPS) 

Laboratory to investigate multiple project evaluation 

methods through a research grant for HSIP evaluation 

support. Initial research efforts included project evaluations based on before and after collision maps using the 

software Intersection Magic and before-after evaluations 

using benefit-cost analysis. From the beginning of the 

research, the intent was to use Empirical Bayes (EB) analysis in the project evaluations, but Wisconsin did not have 

safety performance functions (SPFs), which are required 

for the EB method. However, once the State acquired the 

SafetyAnalyst software, the TOPS Laboratory was able to 

incorporate the EB method into the project evaluations by 

using the SPFs contained in SafetyAnalyst. The SPFs in 

SafetyAnalyst were developed using national data and are 

intended to be calibrated to local conditions. While it was 

not possible to calibrate the SPFs to Wisconsin conditions 

due to lack of data, the TOPS Laboratory uses the SPFs 

to provide a comparison of performance in Wisconsin to 

that of the nation.

The TOPS Laboratory developed a process to extract the 

appropriate crashes (by location, type, and year) from the 

Wisconsin crash database based on the project location 

and scheduled start and completion dates for evaluation 

purposes. HSIP projects are evaluated based on five years 

of before data and three years of after data. Fatal and 

injury crashes are the focus of the evaluation, but the analysis also considers target crash types based on the nature 

of the improvement. 

The TOPS Laboratory conducts a benefit-cost analysis 

based on results of both a simple before-after evaluation 

and an EB analysis to evaluate the projects from an economic perspective. This provides a simple comparison of 

the results of the two evaluation methods (as shown1

) and 

demonstrates how a simple before-after evaluation can 

overestimate the safety benefits.

1 In the table shown, “S. No.” refers to the site number for the project 

evaluated, and the “FOS (financial operating system) ID” is used by 

Wisconsin DOT as the specific project identifier.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Developed a project evaluation process incorporating Empirical Bayes analysis into all HSIP

project evaluations.

•	 Demonstrated the importance of using statistical

evaluations to reduce the overestimation of safety

benefits due to regression-to-the-mean bias.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Evaluation

Results

Originally, engineers in Wisconsin were reluctant to use EB. However, with the assistance of the TOPS Laboratory, 

the Wisconsin DOT was able to successfully implement a project evaluation process incorporating EB analysis and to 

receive buy-in at the regional level. The TOPS Laboratory demonstrated the importance of statistical EB techniques 

in project evaluations through a comparison benefit-cost analysis using simple before and after results to before 

and after using EB. The results demonstrate the EB analysis reduces the overestimation of safety benefits due to 

regression-to-the-mean bias.

Contact

Andrea Bill

Traffic Safety Engineering Research Program Manager

Traffic Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory

University of Wisconsin 

608-890-3425

bill@wisc.edu

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Use of the HSIP Flexible 

Funding Provision

About the HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

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

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

roads. Many states and local agencies are successfully implementing innovative approaches to HSIP 

planning, implementation, and evaluation. The HSIP Noteworthy Practices Series presents case 

studies of these successful practices organized by specific HSIP topics. The individual case studies 

provide summaries of each practice, key accomplishments, results, and contact information for those 

interested in learning more.

Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision

Highway safety funds should be spent where they 

will have the highest payoff in terms of saving 

lives and reducing serious injuries. Flexibility in 

the use of HSIP funds is an important tool in the 

delivery of an overall safety strategy. 

The HSIP, codified by SAFETEA-LU as section 148 of Title 23 U.S.C., apportions funds 

to states under section 104(b)(5) for a range 

of eligible safety activities focused primarily 

on infrastructure-related safety improvements. 

Section 148(e) addresses the opportunity to use 

these financial resources where they can make 

the greatest impact, as identified in a state’s 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). This 

provision allows a state department of transportation (DOT) to use up to 10 percent annually 

of its HSIP funds for other types of safety projects under Title 23, as long as the state meets 

certain conditions. 

To be eligible to use the 10 percent flexibility provision in a fiscal year a state must have an approved 

SHSP, certify it has met its railway-highway grade 

crossing and infrastructure safety needs, and submit a written request to the state Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Division Office.

FHWA has provided extensive guidance on 

the implementation of the flexibility provision, including details on the process to 

follow, implementation and project eligibility, 

financing, reporting, and subsequent fiscal year 

approvals. This information can be found at: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/gen_info.

A decision on whether to flex funds is something 

the state must decide based on its needs and circumstances. As with all HSIP projects, a guiding 

principle should be the potential to improve safety. 

Through collaboration with safety partners, the 

SHSP process identifies statewide emphasis areas 

with the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Linking HSIP projects, 

including flex funded activities, with the SHSP 

ensures the HSIP addresses priorities identified 

through the broader statewide strategic approach. 

States have used HSIP flex funds to support 

a range of enforcement and education strategies identified in the SHSP. Examples include 

overtime safety enforcement, ignition interlock programs, work zone safety messages, safe 

ride home programs to prevent impaired driving, and outreach programs on the use of car 

seats. Participation in the SHSP has also led 

states to multidisciplinary approaches to leverage 

resources, such as combining speed enforcement 

programs and infrastructure improvements for 

reducing roadway departure crashes.

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision

Noteworthy Practices

The following cases demonstrate noteworthy practices several states are using to apply the HSIP flexible funding provision:

• The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) flexed HSIP funds to pay for targeted enforcement efforts on the 

state highway system. ALDOT identified areas where fatal and serious injury crashes were occurring in a process aligned 

with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Agency staff identified major factors such as speeding and roadway departures, and provided crash maps to the state patrol. Flex funds were used to pay for overtime enforcement, with close 

coordination between the State Patrol and the DOT. (read more)

• The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) flexed HSIP funds for a statewide radio public service announcement (PSA) campaign on safe winter driving to reduce the number of winter weather-related crashes. The Ice and Snow, Take 

It Slow campaign focuses in part on speed reduction linking it to the speeding element identified in the State’s SHSP emphasis 

area on driver behavior and awareness. The program, based on an existing Clear Roads campaign, leveraged a partnership 

with the Michigan Association of Broadcasters. (read more)

• The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) used flex funding to expand and strengthen several behavioral safety 

programs linked to the SHSP critical emphasis areas. Activities included expanding existing seat belt and impaired driving 

campaigns, developing a comprehensive Latino highway safety awareness and education program, rolling out a statewide 

teen program on safe driving, developing educational tip cards on topics related to the SHSP emphasis areas, and conducting 

a program for safe rides home on New Year’s Eve and St. Patrick’s Day. (read more)

• The Utah DOT (UDOT) used HSIP flex funds to support education and outreach programs linked to Utah’s Comprehensive 

Safety Plan (the State’s strategic highway safety plan). Programs are managed by several partner agencies and include developing a teen memoriam yearbook, expanding the Safe Kids Campaign to increase the use of car seats and booster seats, and 

supporting a Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor position. (read more)

To access these full case studies, click on the individual links above or visit the FHWA Office of Safety on-line at: 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

FHWA-SA-11-02

The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Alabama Flexes HSIP Funds 

for Increased Enforcement

Alabama

Thirty percent of speeding crashes and 60 percent of 

roadway departure crashes occur on the 11,000 miles of 

Alabama’s state highway system. According to Wes Elrod, 

Transportation Planning and Modal Programs Assistant 

Bureau Chief, a review of the data and current countermeasures indicated a need for increased enforcement.

Until the flex funding option became available in FY 2006, 

the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) 

did not have a mechanism to provide direct financial 

assistance to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for 

increased enforcement on the state system. The Highway 

Safety Office (HSO) distributes a significant proportion 

of its National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) funds to local governments and only a limited 

amount to DPS. Recognizing limited resources for traffic 

enforcement, ALDOT used HSIP flex funds to increase 

enforcement strategies identified in the strategic highway 

safety plan (SHSP) addressing behavior to complement 

infrastructure improvements and more effectively reduce 

roadway departure crashes. ALDOT flexed between 

five and eight percent of its HSIP funds annually from 

FY 2007 to FY 2010, resulting in $1.5 to $2.8 million 

spent on noninfrastructure safety projects each of the 

past four years. 

The majority of the flex funds paid for overtime for 

state police troopers to conduct speed enforcement 

activities, which is a strategy in the state SHSP Risky 

Driving Emphasis Area. ALDOT worked with the state 

police to determine how much overtime enforcement 

they could handle given personnel levels and agreed on 

an appropriate amount of HSIP funds to flex each year. 

ALDOT identified fatal and serious injury crash locations 

and provided crash maps to the state police. Using the 

Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) crash 

records system ALDOT identified the time of day and 

the type of crashes. Troopers then focused their overtime efforts on those times and locations. ALDOT 

divided HSIP funds among the 12 state police trooper 

posts proportionally based on the number of high-crash 

corridors in each area. 

ALDOT closely monitored enforcement results and 

made adjustments as necessary. In quarterly reports, the 

state police provided the hours worked by each trooper 

and citations issued during overtime enforcement periods. ALDOT continuously evaluated results to ensure 

safety goals were met and whether the effort was a successful countermeasure for reducing both speeding and 

lane departure crashes. 

Key Accomplishments

•	 Strengthened the partnership with Department of

Public Safety, which is a member of the SHSP

Executive Committee.

•	 Implemented an enhanced data-driven program of

enforcement on the state highway system.

•	 Took advantage of joint crash data system to

provide crash maps and time of day information

to DPS.

•	 Increased the efficiency of state law enforcement

by funding improved radar and GPS devices.

Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision

Results

Flexing HSIP funds for use by DPS for enforcement has resulted in a strong partnership between the state police 

and ALDOT staff, while addressing noninfrastructure emphasis areas from the SHSP. This effort has resulted in 

increased deployment of enforcement resources on the state highway system based on crash data. From 2007 to 

2009 the number of fatal crashes involving speeding decreased 31 percent, from 369 in 2007 to 255 in 2009.

Contact

Waymon Benifield

Safety Management Section Administrator

Alabama DOT

Phone 334-353-6404

benifieldw@dot.state.al.us

Wes Elrod

Assistant Bureau Chief, Modal Programs

Alabama DOT

Phone: 334-353-6407

elrodw@dot.state.al.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Michigan Uses HSIP Flex 

Funds for Winter Safe 

Driving Campaign Michigan

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) 

flexed $45,000 of its Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) funds in FY 2008 to launch a radio 

public service announcement (PSA) campaign on safe 

winter driving, which was conducted from December 

2007 through March 2008. 

The MDOT Communications Department successfully used earned media (news coverage, editorials, etc.) 

to promote past campaigns, but the number of winter 

weather-related crashes and the launch of a new slogan 

and logo – Ice & Snow, Take It Slow – called for increased 

media exposure. The problem of winter-related crashes 

also resulted in support for the increased public outreach 

from the county road commissions around the State. 

The MDOT Communications Department oversaw the 

implementation of the Ice and Snow, Take It Slow campaign, 

which in the past was supported by state funds. Support 

for this type of program was in jeopardy based on efforts 

to direct all state funding toward matching Federal monies 

on construction projects. 

The Ice and Snow, Take It Slow campaign was developed by 

Clear Roads, a national winter maintenance program with 

14 member states. Public information officers from 12 of 

the state DOTs, including Michigan, contributed time and 

effort to develop the message based on four top winter 

safety issues:

• Speed reduction;

• Safe travel around snowplows;

• Safe driving maneuvers; and

• Trip preparedness. 

Speeding is part of Michigan’s Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP) emphasis area on driver behavior and awareness, providing an important link for the Ice and Snow, Take 

It Slow campaign. 

During the winter of 2008, MDOT, which designed the 

logo for use by 20 states, included the campaign tagline 

in all news releases, put winter driving safety tips on-line, 

displayed posters in all Michigan rest areas, and ran a statewide radio campaign. A partnership with the Michigan 

Association of Broadcasters enabled a wider distribution 

of the radio PSA, which resulted in securing more than 

four times the value of the media purchased and greatly 

extending the campaign’s reach throughout the State.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Used HSIP flex funds to conduct a radio PSA

campaign that focused on a high-crash situation,

i.e., winter driving.

•	 Leveraged a partnership with the Michigan

Association of Broadcasters for improved return

on investment.

•	 Took advantage of existing Clear Roads campaign.

Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision

Results

Because of the flex provision, Michigan has been able to sustain the campaign on safe winter driving, resulting in 

increased public awareness. Michigan fatal crashes in snow have decreased from a five-year rolling average of 77 in 

2005 to 63 in 2009. Serious injury crashes involving snow have decreased from a five-year rolling average of 537 

in 2005 to 413 in 2009. 

Contact

Mark Bott

Traffic Operations Engineer 

Michigan Department of Transportation

517-335-2625

bottm@michigan.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Nevada Funds Education and 

Outreach Programs with 

HSIP Flex Funds

Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision

Nevada

The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) 

flexed $800,000 of its Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) funds in FY 2009 (seven percent of the 

total) to fund a range of outreach and education campaigns linked to the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) emphasis areas. 

SHSP partners actively participated in identification of 

the flex projects. SHSP critical emphasis area (CEA) 

teams identified several projects focusing on seat belts, 

impaired driving, lane departures, intersections, and 

pedestrians. Other flex projects involving marketing and 

communications were identified by the Nevada Strategic 

Communications Alliance (SCA), comprised of public 

information officers from state agencies and private sector 

organizations with an interest in safety. The SCA manages communications and marketing related to the SHSP, 

and recommended strategies within the SHSP emphasis 

areas. The list of recommendations from the SCA and the 

CEA teams was reviewed by the SHSP Technical Working 

Group and then by the Nevada Executive Committee on 

Traffic Safety. 

The increased communications among partners from 

the SHSP process resulted in several key developments. 

The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) reported a reduction in funding for safety belt and impaired driving 

media campaigns. It is doubtful that without the SHSP 

forum NDOT and others would have been aware of 

this situation. The $300,000 in flex funds, which were 

used to increase media buys, extended these campaigns 

and augmented the outreach already underway. 

The creation of the SCA resulted in innovative programs 

receiving much-needed support and expansion of successful programs statewide. NDOT invested $114,000 

in flex funds in Nevada’s Prevent All Crashes Every Day

(PACE) program, which increases awareness of seatbelt 

use and the dangers of impaired and distracted driving 

among teens through presentations on the program at 

assemblies, teacher meetings, and other events. The flex 

funds enabled OTS to roll out the program beyond the 

Las Vegas area to other teens statewide. 

To reach the Latino population, NDOT invested $310,000 

to hire regional coordinators and develop a comprehensive Latino community highway safety awareness and 

education program. The objective was to engage Latino 

audiences, particularly first- and second-generation 

Latinos, through culturally responsive media campaigns, 

enforcement operations, and educational programming 

targeting highway safety messages in the areas of seat 

belts, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety. 

NDOT used $20,000 in flex funds to support the Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in publishing up 

to 150,000 educational tip cards on topics related to the 

SHSP emphasis areas, including teen driving, impaired 

driving, seat belts and child safety seats, pedestrian and 

bicycle safety, lane departures (move over law), and 

other new legislation. This project was an update and 

revitalization of the DMV’s existing “Quick Tip” series.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Used Emphasis Area teams to identify safety

projects for flex funding.

•	 Used HSIP flexible funding provision to expand

successful and proven programs.

•	 Initiated a new education program to reach the

Latino population.

•	 Strengthened relationships with safety partner

agencies.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision

NDOT allocated an additional $56,000 to the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Washoe County to 

provide and promote a “Safe Ride Home” with free public transportation on New Year’s Eve and St. Patrick’s Day in 

Reno/Sparks along with a “Don’t Drink and Drive/Safe Ride Home” education campaign. 

NDOT staff found the flex fund application process to be fairly simple since the agency met the requirement of 

obligating funds for the infrastructure projects it had identified for the year. Additionally, given the FHWA division office’s participation in SHSP implementation activities, the Nevada Division Office FHWA representative was 

familiar with the proposed projects. 

Performance measures and tracking mechanisms are included in funding agreements with each of the implementing agencies. For example, process measures for tracking successful implementation include, among others, 

the number of materials distributed, the number of active partners, and the number of news stories about the 

issue. Outcome measures include changes in target audience behavior and attitude on seat belts, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety.

Results

Flexing of HSIP funding enabled NDOT to support multiple education and outreach programs related to the SHSP 

that would not have received funding or support otherwise. Included with efforts targeting the general population 

are programs to reduce fatalities and serious injuries among two high-risk groups – young drivers and Latinos. The 

successful PACE program was expanded from just one area to students all over the State. The proven effective 

Click It or Ticket and Over the Limit Under Arrest campaigns were also expanded. The RTC free ride program provided 

7,326 rides between 7 p.m. and 4 a.m. on New Year’s Eve in 2009. While data is not available for the specific day, 

the number of crashes involving driving under the influence (DUI) in December 2009 was 30 percent lower than 

in December 2008. 

Contact

Chuck Reider

Chief Safety Engineer

Nevada DOT

775-888-7335

creider@dot.state.nv.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Utah Flexes HSIP Funds to 

Enhance Partners’ Safety 

Efforts Utah

Overall, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) 

spends about $20 million per year on roadway safety, onehalf of which is funded via a state funding mechanism and 

one-half via the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP). The State receives about $4 million per year in 

Federal highway safety grant funding (i.e., Sections 402, 

405, 408, 410, etc.). According to crash data, the majority of fatal and serious injury crashes in Utah are behavior 

related. However, the state funding mechanism is limited 

to infrastructure investments. Given the level of behavior 

related crashes, UDOT decided to take full advantage of 

the HSIP flexibility provision to fund noninfrastructure 

safety programs. “There is a lot of talk about an integrated 

approach to safety – the 4Es (enforcement, education, 

engineering, and emergency response). We are utilizing the 

flex funds to address the other Es beyond engineering,” 

said Utah Director of Traffic and Safety Robert Hull. 

UDOT has flexed approximately 10 percent of its HSIP 

funds each year for an annual investment of approximately 

$900,000 in safety funds for noninfrastructure programs 

between FY 2006 and FY 2009. This has enabled UDOT 

to support its overall safety program – Zero Fatalities – 

and reinforce partnerships with new and existing safety 

partners through support of their programs. Partners 

include the Department of Public Safety (DPS); Highway 

Safety Office (HSO); Utah Department of Health (DOH) 

Violence and Injury Prevention Program; Utah Safety 

Council (USC); and Utah Attorney General’s Office. 

Programs were identified by the partner agencies and 

then reviewed by UDOT as potential HSIP flex projects, 

considering their link to the Utah’s Comprehensive Safety 

Plan (the State’s strategic highway safety plan). 

UDOT used flex funds for informational safety and public 

outreach materials as well as to support the implementation of a multidisciplinary safety summit. One of the 

projects identified by DPS and DOH was a teen memoriam yearbook, which includes stories from families about 

teens that have died in crashes. Funding from UDOT 

pays for the creative development and production while 

the DOH and DPS work with the families to develop the 

stories. The book has been used in teen driver education 

classes for the past two years. 

Additional education and outreach programs supported 

by flex funds include the Operation Lifesaver program to 

reduce pedestrian crashes at rail crossings and support 

for USC’s Alive@25 program that promotes safe driving 

among youth. The 14 Safe Kids chapters across the State 

receive funding to buy car and booster seats that are given 

away during Safe Kids Week. 

UDOT also contributes flex funds to support a Traffic 

Safety Resource Prosecutor position. This attorney, who 

is housed in the Attorney General’s office, works with 

county and city prosecuting attorneys to help them handle 

impaired driving-related court cases. The resource prosecutor provides quarterly reports of their activities to 

ensure objectives of the program are met. 

“Applying for flex funds is not difficult given that all 

the data needed is assembled in other annual reports, 

including those on the HSIP program, railroad program, 

Safe Routes to School, and the 5% Report,” said Hull. 

Key Accomplishments

•	 Strengthened relationships in the safety community through funding partner programs.

•	 Enabled improved creativity in addressing safety

issues.

•	 Demonstrated greater levels of success through

collaboration.

Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision

Results

Since 2000 Utah has experienced a reduction in fatal crashes of 34 percent. In 2009, fatalities were the lowest in 

34 years. Overall, flex funding has been used to strengthen the Zero Fatalities Program, the overarching safety effort 

in Utah. Since Zero Fatalities was initiated in 2005, all of the safety campaigns in the State have been branded with 

the logo. The last market survey in 2009 showed that Utah residents had a 75 percent awareness rate of the Zero 

Fatalities campaign and the related safety programs. In addition, the flex funded Traffic Safety Prosecutor has helped 

cities and counties without experience in impaired driving-related court cases reduce the number of dismissals or 

reduced charges. 

Contact

Robert Hull

Director, Traffic and Safety Division

Utah DOT

801-965-4273

rhull@utah.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

HSIP Project 

Identification

About the HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

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

primary purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Many states and local agencies are successfully implementing innovative approaches to 

HSIP planning, implementation and evaluation. The HSIP Noteworthy Practices Series presents case 

studies of these successful practices organized by specific HSIP topics. The individual case studies 

provide summaries of each practice, key accomplishments, results, and contact information for those 

interested in learning more. 

HSIP Project Identification

States are required (23 U.S.C. 148) to perform 

safety project identification and analysis as part 

of the HSIP. However, the law does not specify 

the methodologies states shall use. The HSIP 

Manual (FHWA-SA-09-029) outlines the following steps for project identification: collect and 

analyze data; identify crash types and contributing factors; establish a crash pattern; conduct 

field reviews; identify countermeasures; assess 

countermeasure effectiveness; and use the current science (e.g., crash modification factors) to 

determine and prioritize project selection. The 

goal is to use data-driven decision making to 

identify and prioritize projects with the greatest 

potential for reducing deaths and serious injuries 

on all public roadways. 

In practice, methods used to identify candidate 

project locations vary significantly from state to 

state. Many states identify potential locations 

for safety improvements based on crash frequency or rate, while some have begun to use 

more advanced methods that incorporate safety 

performance functions (SPFs) or the Empirical 

Bayes (EB) method. In addition, some states are 

changing focus from “hot spot” improvements 

to a systemic approach. Qualitative information commonly used to identify candidate safety 

projects include panel reviews, input from public and law enforcement, field reviews, and road 

safety audits (RSA). 

Some state departments of transportation 

(DOT) select projects at the state level while 

others distribute funds to DOT District offices 

to use at each district’s discretion. Many states 

selecting projects at the state level solicit projects 

from DOT District offices and local agencies for 

consideration. States commonly conduct benefit-cost analyses to select and prioritize projects 

and rank them first using the highest benefit-cost 

ratio or net present value. 

One of the biggest challenges to effective project identification is the lack of data, particularly 

for local roadways. Even when quality data are 

available, many states do not have the training, 

resources, or tools to apply the more advanced 

and rigorous data analysis methods necessary to 

use them effectively. In addition, competing political or institutional realities could impose non-data 

driven factors on the decision-making process, 

making it difficult to select those HSIP projects 

with the greatest potential to improve safety. 

While many considerations enter into project 

selection, quantitative analysis should be used 

whenever possible in the prioritization process 

(e.g., comparing cost, effectiveness, and lifespan of the project). Quantitative information 

lends objectivity to the decision making process 

and helps maximize the safety benefit for the 

resources invested.

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Noteworthy Practices

The following cases demonstrate noteworthy practices several states are using in HSIP project identification:

• The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) developed four categories of safety warrants used in the network screening process 

to identify locations with severe crashes and crash patterns that can be addressed by engineering safety countermeasures. 

To provide a clear and consistent data-driven process, NCDOT developed a decision support tool to perform the initial 

prioritization of all candidate safety projects from across the state. (read more)

• The Missouri DOT (MoDOT) made the state’s HSIP more proactive through the systemwide implementation of engineering strategies described in Missouri’s Blueprint to Arrive Alive (Strategic Highway Safety Plan). Using HSIP funds, MoDOT 

incorporates the installation of rumble strips/stripes, improved signing and delineation, wider pavement markings, and 

improved shoulders into pavement resurfacing projects. Since 2007, almost two-thirds of MoDOT’s HSIP funds have been 

allocated to systemic improvements, resulting in a safer system overall. (read more)

• The Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) restructured its HSIP to provide funding for local agencies to address the large proportion of severe crashes occurring on local roadways, and developed funding goals for proactive and reactive improvements. 

MnDOT developed a “proactive spectrum” to establish safety funding goals for the Metropolitan District (Minneapolis/

St. Paul area) and rural districts. Minnesota has successfully increased the proportion of safety funding spent on proactive 

improvements. Almost 90 percent of projects programmed for fiscal year 2010-2011 are proactive. (read more)

• The Illinois DOT (IDOT), with the assistance of the University of Illinois, developed safety performance functions 

(SPFs) for all state routes and intersections using the Empirical Bayes (EB) method. IDOT uses the SPFs in the network 

screening process to identify locations with the highest potential for safety improvement. The use of SPFs in the network 

screening process enables the state to shift emphasis of the HSIP away from focusing on urban densely populated areas. 

The resulting broader focus includes low-cost safety improvements or systemic improvements that may not have been 

identified using previous screening methods. (read more)

• The Colorado DOT (CDOT) developed sophisticated predictive and diagnostic tools that incorporate calibrated SPFs for 

all public roadway types and intersections in the state. These tools enable CDOT to maximize potential crash reduction in 

the state within the constraints of available budgets. CDOT institutionalized the use of these tools by applying them to 

all CDOT projects. Over the seven years of applying these methods on all infrastructure projects, the state has achieved 

an unprecedented fatal crash reduction of 36 percent. (read more)

To access these full case studies, click on the individual links above or visit the FHWA Office of Safety on-line at: 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

FHWA-SA-11-02

The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Safety Warrants 

and Spot Safety Index

North Carolina

The North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) started to identify shortcomings in its problem 

identification method in the mid-1990s. The previous 

method focused on identifying locations with a potential safety issue based on factors such as crash frequency, 

crash rate, and crash severity. In many cases, the locations 

identified did not exhibit a correctable crash type and 

were congestion related issues. For example, NCDOT 

repeatedly identified signalized intersections exhibiting a 

high frequency of rear-end collisions, but attributed the 

collisions to congestion and driver inattention rather than 

a roadway factor. 

Beginning with the 1996 HSIP, a set of safety warrants was 

established for intersections and roadway segments to target locations exhibiting a pattern of correctable crash types 

or conditions, as well as locations with a significant increase 

in crash frequency during the past calendar year. NCDOT 

has continued to expand and modify the safety warrants 

throughout the years to improve the identification process.

NCDOT initially screens the network (including local 

roads) for potential safety improvement locations using 

four categories of safety warrants: intersections, sections, 

bridges, and bicycle and pedestrian intersections. The 

safety warrants are analyzed annually using 5 to 10 years 

of crash data by querying the crash database. The current 

warrant criteria are based on crash frequency, severity, 

conditions, and percentage of target crashes. When a 

location meets the warrant criteria, it is flagged. As an 

example, an interstate segment would be flagged based 

on run-off road crashes if a minimum of 30 total crashes 

occurred on the segment, the crash rate is greater than 

60 crashes per mile, and a minimum of 60 percent of 

the total crashes were run off the road. After a location is flagged, a weighting factor is calculated based on 

the warrant criteria. The weighting factors are summed 

for locations meeting multiple warrants and are used to 

rank locations to determine which will receive priority for 

further analysis and investigation by the corresponding 

Regional Traffic Engineering and Highway Division staff. 

The Regional Traffic Engineers are responsible for identifying potential countermeasures and developing projects.

Intersection Warrants:

I-1: Frontal Impa

I-2: Last Year Increa

I-3: Frequency with Severity Index M

I-4: Night Location without Streetlig

I-5: Chronic Patte

Section Warrants:

S-1: Run Off Road- Wet Conditio

S-2: Run Off Ro

S-3: Wet Road Conditio

S-4: Non-Intersection Night Loca

without Streetlight

Bridge Warrant:

B-1: Brid

Bike/Ped Intersection Warrants:

P-1: Last 3 Years (pedestrian

P-2: Darkness with Streetligh

P-3: Alcohol Involveme

P-4: Chronic Locati

X-1: Last 3 years (bicyclist

X-2: Darkness with Streetligh

X-3: Alcohol Involveme

X-4: Chronic Locati

Key Accomplishments

•	 Developed network screening method to identify locations with severe and correctable

crash patterns.

•	 Continued to update network screening process

to improve the identification of relevant safety

issues and locations.

•	 Developed systematic project prioritization

ranking method that considers benefit-cost

analysis, departmental and regional priorities,

and ease of constructability.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

All safety projects are submitted to North Carolina’s Safety Oversight Committee, which was established to help 

select projects to receive Spot Safety Program funding. To provide clear and consistent data-driven selection process, 

the Spot Safety Index (SSI) was developed as a decision support tool to perform an initial prioritization of all candidate projects from across the state. It ensures safety investments are focused on locations with the greatest need 

and potential for improvement. The SSI is calculated based on a 100-point scale and is composed of four parts: 

Safety Factor (60 points), Constructability (5 points – e.g., ROW acquisition needs), Department Goals (5 points) 

and Division/Region Priority (30 points). The Safety Factor is based on the benefit-cost ratio, Severity Index, and 

whether the project is identified in the HSIP List or identified through a Road Safety Audit (RSA). An initial list of 

prioritized projects is developed by ranking projects based on the SSI. However, the Committee must take other 

considerations into account to develop the final list, including distribution of funding to the 14 districts and the effectiveness of countermeasures identified in the projects based on results from the state’s evaluation group.

Results

The development of the safety warrants for use in the network screening process has enabled NCDOT to focus 

their analysis on the identification of locations with severe crashes and crash patterns correctable by infrastructure safety countermeasures. NCDOT also has successfully established a clear and consistent data-driven 

process for selecting and prioritizing projects for funding.

Contact

Stephen Lowry

Safety Improvement Engineer

North Carolina Department of Transportation

919-773-2892

slowry@ncdot.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Implementation of

Systemwide Improvements

Missouri

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) 

has been successfully shifting the focus of its Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) towards a more 

proactive approach through the implementation of systemwide improvements. Many of these efforts began 

through the implementation of the Smooth Roads 

Initiative in 2004. The original initiative included 2,200 

miles of resurfacing, installation of reflective pavement 

markings and signage, improved shoulders with rumble 

strips/stripes, and safer guardrails. Given the safety 

benefits realized through these improvements, the state 

incorporated many of them into Missouri’s Blueprint to 

Arrive Alive (the state’s strategic highway safety plan).

Missouri’s Blueprint is used to guide HSIP investments. 

The Blueprint identifies the state’s “Targeted 10” strategies in education, enforcement, engineering, and public 

policy areas. These strategies were selected based on documented evidence supporting their life-saving and injury 

reduction potential. Six of the strategies are engineering 

countermeasures being implemented on a systemwide 

basis, including: 

• Expand the installation of shoulder and centerline 

rumble strips/stripes;

• Expand, improve, and maintain roadway visibility 

features (pavement markings, signs, lighting, etc);

• Expand installation and maintenance of roadway 

shoulders;

• Remove and/or shield fixed objects along roadside 

right of way;

• Improve and expand intersection safety with the use 

of innovative engineering designs (e.g., J-turns, roundabouts); and

• Improve curve recognition through the use of signs, 

markings, and pavement treatments.

The state uses HSIP funding for many of these strategies proactively incorporating the installation of rumble 

strips/stripes, improved signing and delineation, wider 

pavement markings, and improved shoulders into pavement resurfacing projects. 

Currently the state focuses its funding on the state roadway system since, historically, 77 percent of the fatalities 

in Missouri occur on state roads. In order to achieve the 

greatest benefit for the funds invested, Missouri originally focused on incorporating the safety enhancements 

into resurfacing projects on major roadways (about 5,600 

centerline miles) experiencing a disproportionate 45 percent of all fatal crashes. Following positive results from 

those original efforts, MoDOT is currently considering 

incorporating two-foot shoulders into future resurfacing 

projects on less traveled roadways (e.g., minor arterials, 

major collectors). Missouri also has become a national 

leader in the installation of cable median barrier to reduce 

cross-median fatalities on the majority of the interstate 

system throughout the state.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Allocated almost two-thirds of HSIP funds to systemwide improvements.

•	 Created a safer roadway system overall.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Results

Since 2007, almost two-thirds of Missouri’s HSIP funds have been allocated to systemwide improvements. By 

focusing more on systemwide improvements, the state has been able to create a safer system overall. Between 2005 

and 2010, Missouri has seen a 30 percent drop in overall fatalities and a 41 percent reduction in lane departure fatalities. In addition, the installation of cable median barriers on the interstate system throughout the state resulted in 

an 80 percent reduction in cross median crash fatalities on Missouri freeways.

Contact

John Miller

Traffic Safety Engineer

Missouri Department of Transportation

573-526-1759

John.p.miller@modot.mo.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Funding Goals for

Proactive Improvements

Minnesota

The data analysis conducted for the development of 

Minnesota’s original Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) in 2004 indicated a large percentage of severe 

crashes were occurring on local roadways. All Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding was managed by eight Area Transportation Partnerships (ATP)1

, 

and a small portion of the funding was allocated to local 

road safety improvements. To ensure the state was using 

HSIP funding in the best way possible, Minnesota restructured the program to provide funding for local agencies in 

Greater Minnesota (areas not within the Minneapolis-St. 

Paul metro area) and developed funding goals for proactive and reactive improvements.

Minnesota distributes HSIP funding to each district 

based on the proportion of fatal and serious injury 

crashes occurring in the district. The district funds are 

then allocated to local roads and state highways based on 

the proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring on the corresponding roadways. The split ranges 

from 28 percent to state highways and 72 percent to local 

roadways in the Metropolitan District, to a 50/50 split in 

District 1 (average across districts is 35 percent to state 

highways and 65 percent to local roadways).

In Minnesota approximately 70 percent of all crashes 

occur in urban areas; however, approximately 70 percent 

of the fatal crashes occur in rural areas. To address the 

inherent differences in the safety issues of urban and 

rural areas, Minnesota has established two separate goals 

to guide safety investments: 

• Metropolitan District (Minneapolis/St. Paul area): at 

least 30 percent of the safety funds go towards proactive low-cost safety improvements, and 

• Greater Minnesota (8 Rural Districts): at least 70 

percent of the safety funds go towards the proactive 

deployment of low-cost strategies. 

Minnesota developed a “proactive spectrum” decision 

support tool for use in project selection, which has been 

in use since 2007. The spectrum ranges from proactive 

low-cost projects (e.g. pavement markings, rumble strips, 

lighting, sign enhancements, etc.) to reactive/high-cost 

improvements (e.g., interchanges, roadway realignments, 

etc.). The proactive improvements are focused on improving the safety of the system overall, rather than focusing 

on a high crash location.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Implemented proactive approach to the HSIP

project selection process.

•	 Shifted funding to local jurisdictions.

1 An ATP is a group of traditional and non-traditional transportation partners, including representatives from MnDOT, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 

Regional Development Commissions, counties, cities, tribal governments, special interests, and the public, with the responsibility of developing a regional transportation improvement program (TIP) for their area. 
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Projects are selected for funding through a competitive selection process. Proactive projects are prioritized using 

a point system based on factors such as whether the project meets the intent of the SHSP, fatal and serious injury 

crashes per mile, cost per mile or per intersection, and traffic levels. Additional points are awarded if the location 

was identified in the High Risk Rural Roads Program or the Five Percent report. Reactive projects are prioritized 

based on the project’s benefit-cost ratio and other factors. The objective of this process is to prioritize and fund 

safety projects with the greatest impact on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.

Results

Minnesota has successfully shifted the focus of its HSIP to a proactive approach through the development of the 

“Proactive Spectrum.” This enables the state to focus on projects with the greatest potential impact on safety. 

The proportion of funding spent on proactive improvements has been increasing over the last few years. Of the 

projects programmed for fiscal year 2010-2011, almost 90 percent were proactive. Since 2007, Minnesota has 

funded safety projects on local and state roads to implement over: 6,714 miles of 6-inch wide edge lines; 80 miles 

of edge line rumble strips; 594 miles of edge line rumble stripes; 236 rural intersections with street lighting; 1,347 

curves with chevron signing; and 230 miles of cable median barrier.

Contact

Julie Whitcher

Minnesota Department of Transportation

651-234-7019

julie.whitcher@state.mn.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Development of SPFs 

for All State Routes and 

Intersections Illinois

While the development of SafetyAnalyst and the 

Highway Safety Manual was still underway, Illinois 

decided to incorporate a new analysis technique to assist 

the state in moving forward with the implementation of 

SafetyAnalyst. Within a year, the Illinois Department 

of Transportation (IDOT), with the assistance of the 

University of Illinois, developed safety performance functions (SPF) for state routes and intersections throughout 

the state using the Empirical Bayes (EB) method. The 

SPFs have been used in the HSIP network screening process since 2008 to identify potential locations for safety 

improvement projects.

SPF equations were developed for 12 peer groups of roadway segments (e.g., rural two-lane highway, rural multilane 

undivided highway, rural multilane divided highway, etc.) 

and eight peer groups for intersections (e.g., rural minor 

leg stop control, rural all-way stop control, rural signalized, etc.). The SPFs are used in the network screening 

process to calculate a Potential for Safety Improvement 

(PSI) for all locations. The PSI is the difference between 

the corrected crash frequency (calculated using the EB 

method) and the expected crash experience (based on the 

SPF) for a given traffic volume within the peer group. 

Since the focus of the HSIP is to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries, the PSI calculation is weighted to emphasize the most 

severe crashes. The weighted PSI calculations are then ranked in ascending order 

by location and peer group to identify locations with the greatest safety need or highest 

PSI value. Once the sites with the greatest 

potential for safety improvement are identified, the IDOT Districts review the locations 

and make recommendations for improvement. Candidate HSIP projects on the state 

roadway system are selected by the District’s 

Safety Committee and submitted to the 

Bureau of Safety Engineering.

When the SPFs were originally developed, there was 

not enough data to develop SPFs for the local roadway 

system. Illinois has been expanding the crash database 

for local roadways and, in the near future, the state will 

begin discussions about the development of SPFs for 

local roadways, as well as updating the existing SPFs for 

state roadways. Currently, local roadways are evaluated 

using an aggregate level analysis to identify potential 

safety issues (e.g., counties with overrepresentation of 

a particular crash type, crash severity, behavioral issue, 

etc.). Local agencies can submit safety improvement 

projects to the State Safety Committee for funding consideration through the Local Road Program component 

of the HSIP.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Developed SPFs for state routes and intersections throughout the state.

•	 Expanded knowledge and acceptance of analysis

techniques.

•	 Provided data-driven safety decision making tools.
Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

The Focus is Results

Results

Incorporating SPFs into the network screening process for safety improvement projects has led to several positive outcomes. Although other factors may involved, Illinois has seen a significant reduction in fatalities. In 2009, 

Illinois had the lowest number of fatalities since 1921. Transportation professionals are embracing the analysis 

results and making data-driven safety decisions. Using SPFs has helped shift the focus of the state’s program 

away from the urban, densely populated areas and provided a broader focus for safety projects, including low-cost 

safety improvements or systemic improvements that may not have been identified using previous analysis methods. 

Engineers throughout the state have become more familiar and comfortable with the use of SPFs through the 

state’s efforts, leading to a greater acceptance of SPFs and appreciation for improved quantitative data.

Contact

Roseanne Nance

Illinois Department of Transportation

217-785-5875

nancer@dot.il.gov

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Level of Service of Safety 

and Diagnostic Analysis

Colorado

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 

uses two methods for identifying locations with potential for safety improvement: Level of Service of Safety 

(LOSS) and Diagnostic Analysis. LOSS is based on the 

concept of Safety Performance Functions (SPF), while 

Diagnostic Analysis is developed around the idea of statistical pattern recognition.

Design engineers at CDOT pioneered development of 

the LOSS concept to quantify the magnitude of the 

safety problem. A crash rate implies a linear relationship 

between safety and exposure. While crash rates are commonly used to measure safety, they are often misleading 

since rates change with Annual Average Daily Traffic 

(AADT). To capture how this rate change takes place, 

CDOT engineers began calibrating SPFs in the late 1990s 

based on the work of Dr. Ezra Hauer. By 2001, CDOT 

had calibrated SPFs for all public roadways in Colorado, 

which were stratified by the number of lanes, terrain, 

environment, and functional classification. In 2009, in 

collaboration with consultants, CDOT developed SPFs 

for all intersection types. 

Development of SPFs supports the conceptual formulation of the LOSS concept. It uses qualitative measures to 

characterize the safety of a roadway segment in reference 

to its expected performance. If the number of crashes 

predicted by the SPF represents normal or expected 

crash frequency at a specific level of AADT, then the 

degree of deviation from the norm can be stratified 

to represent specific levels of safety. To describe road 

safety from the frequency and severity standpoint, two 

different SPFs were calibrated: one for the total number of crashes and the other for injury and fatal crashes. 

When the magnitude of the safety problem is assessed, it 

is described from the frequency and severity standpoint. 

The figure (Kononov and Allery, 2003) illustrates the 

LOSS concept using an SPF calibrated for total crashes 

expected on the 6-lane urban freeways. The delineated 

boundary line is located 1.5 standard deviations from 

the mean, reflecting a Negative Binomial error structure. 

Four LOSS categories were introduced:

• LOSS-I - Indicates low potential for crash reduction;

• LOSS-II - Indicates low to moderate potential for 

crash reduction;

• LOSS-III - Indicates moderate to high potential for 

crash reduction; and

• LOSS-IV - Indicates high potential for crash 

reduction.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Calibrated SPFs for all highways.

•	 Developed sophisticated predictive and diagnostic tools to maximize crash reduction in the state

within budget constraints.

•	 Institutionalized use of these tools throughout the

state of Colorado.

•	 Achieved unprecedented fatal crash reduction

of 36 percent over the seven years of sustained

application of these advanced methods on all

infrastructure and behavioral projects at CDOT.

•	 Provided substantive conceptual and analytical

input for the development of the Highway Safety

Manual (HSM).
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

LOSS reflects how the roadway segment is performing in regard to its expected crash frequency and severity at a 

specific level of AADT. However, it only describes the magnitude of the safety problem; it does not provide any 

information related to the nature of the problem itself. To investigate the nature of the problem, Colorado uses 

Direct Diagnostics and Pattern Recognition techniques. 

A comprehensive methodology was developed to conduct diagnostic analyses of safety problems. The Direct 

Diagnostics and Pattern Recognition methods calculate a cumulative binomial probability of the crash types and 

related characteristics to identify overrepresented elements in the crash data (e.g., dark conditions, overturning vehicles) that may be related to abnormal crash patterns and crash causation. Direct Diagnostics is used for intersection 

analysis, and Pattern Recognition is used for roadway segments. 

CDOT initially used the combination of LOSS and Direct Diagnostics and Pattern Recognition to identify sites 

with potential for safety improvement only on safety motivated projects. Beginning in 2001, they are applied to all 

projects at CDOT, including resurfacing, reconstruction, realignment, widening, Environmental Assessments (EA) 

and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). CDOT conducts a statewide analysis using Direct Diagnostics and 

Pattern Recognition and recalibrates SPFs about every five years.

Results

CDOT developed sophisticated predictive and diagnostic tools to maximize potential crash reduction in the state 

within constraints of available budgets and institutionalized use of these tools throughout the state of Colorado. 

Over the seven years of application of the advanced methods on all infrastructure and behavioral projects at 

CDOT, the state has achieved an unprecedented fatal crash reduction of 36 percent, without reduction in travel or 

increase in safety expenditures. Additionally, these efforts provided substantive analytical and conceptual input for 

development of the Highway Safety Manual.

Contact

Bryan Allery

Colorado Department of Transportation

303-757-9967

bryan.allery@dot.state.co.us

Jake Kononov

Colorado Department of Transportation

303-757-9973

jake.kononov@dot.state.co.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

SHSP Stakeholder 

Involvement

About the HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

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

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

roads. Many states and local agencies are successfully implementing innovative approaches to HSIP 

planning, implementation, and evaluation. The HSIP Noteworthy Practices Series presents case 

studies of these successful practices organized by specific HSIP topics. The individual case studies 

provide summaries of each practice, key accomplishments, results, and contact information for those 

interested in learning more.

SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

Legislation (23 U.S.C. 148) and Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) guidance is quite 

specific as to the recommended stakeholder 

representatives for developing a statewide 

strategic highway safety plan (SHSP). Those 

recommendations include the state department of transportation (DOT), the Governor’s 

Representative for Highway Safety, metropolitan planning organizations, regional planning 

organizations, representatives of the major 

modes of transportation, state and local traffic 

enforcement officials, persons responsible for 

administering 23 USC Section 130 (Highway Rail 

Grade Crossing Program), Operation Lifesaver, 

motor carrier safety, and other major state and 

local safety stakeholders.

Stakeholder involvement is necessary for an 

effective SHSP process because of the wide 

range of programs and disciplines necessary for 

improving transportation safety on all public 

roads. Establishing collaborative arrangements 

where partners regularly work together builds 

trust, understanding, and coordinated solutions. Working together to examine data and 

identify appropriate safety improvement strategies can help break down jurisdictional and 

programmatic barriers and foster widespread 

understanding and support for common safety 

priorities. Collaboration among a wide variety 

of stakeholders results in a wiser use of limited 

resources and provides opportunities to leverage 

resources to achieve a broader range of program objectives. Collaboration can also result 

in new and innovative safety strategies that may 

not otherwise be realized through the traditional 

program silos.

For many states, developing the original SHSP 

involved broad-based collaboration among 

safety agencies and organizations engaged 

in safety. States have established a myriad of 

ways to implement their SHSPs in partnership 

with these stakeholders, and in some cases have 

reached out to new participants. Some local 

entities have also developed and are implementing safety plans akin to statewide SHSPs. 

Agencies facilitate internal collaboration through 

policies and procedures and support external 

collaboration through a variety of interagency 

communication strategies and organizational 

frameworks. Combinations of various practices 

have proven most effective at garnering and 

maintaining SHSP stakeholder involvement. 

However, following the heightened levels of 

enthusiasm during the initial SHSP development phase, some states have found it difficult to 

maintain or broaden stakeholder involvement on 

a regular basis while implementing and updating 

their plans. 

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

Noteworthy Practices

The following cases demonstrate noteworthy practices several states are using in revisiting SHSP emphasis areas:

• A key element of Missouri’s SHSP, titled Blueprint for Safer Roadways (now the Blueprint to Arrive Alive) involved organizing 

10 regional safety coalitions designed to work in concert with the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS) to deploy 

targeted strategies at both the state and regional level. Together, the MCRS and Regional Coalitions have embraced the elements of the Blueprint and implemented a comprehensive, coordinated, and focused effort to reduce fatalities and disabling 

injuries on Missouri roads. Regional Coalitions have expanded the number of partners and the regional safety plans include 

a wider variety of localized safety programs. (read more)

• In April 2010, the Nevada Departments of Transportation and Public Safety conducted a series of road show meetings across 

the state in an effort to further engage safety stakeholders and educate them about the SHSP, provide an opportunity for 

input into the SHSP update, and market the October SHSP Summit. Combined, the four road show meetings engaged over 

100 stakeholders representing different disciplines and levels of government. Participants learned about the SHSP process, 

their interest was piqued, and it created opportunities for potential synergies among the various safety groups. (read more)

• Washington State actively engaged tribes in discussions and safety planning, which has resulted in explicit consideration of 

Native American traffic safety issues in the update of Washington State’s Target Zero SHSP. The State held a Tribal Traffic 

Safety Summit, carried summit results forward in the SHSP update process, included strategies from the national Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan for Indian Lands, and consulted tribes to develop and review the draft Target Zero update. (read more)

• The Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in Wyoming independently developed and is implementing 

a Transportation Safety Management Plan (TSMP) akin to statewide SHSPs. The MPO has built and sustained safety 

stakeholder engagement in the process through MPO leadership, identifying and funding safety projects, and working 

with partners on project implementation. Safety stakeholders have been involved in six emphasis areas, a law enforcement 

summit, a legislative briefing, and other projects. (read more)

To access these full case studies, click on the individual links above or visit the FHWA Office of Safety on-line at: 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

FHWA-SA-11-02

The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

Statewide and 

Regional SHSP Coalitions

Missouri

In November 2004, Missouri’s SHSP, titled Blueprint for 

Safer Roadways, was developed in consultation with many 

safety advocates, including engineers, law enforcement, 

educators, and emergency responders. Prior to the 

Blueprint, Missouri never had a statewide safety goal. The 

Blueprint established the fatality reduction goal of 1,000 or 

fewer fatalities by 2008. 

One of the key principles guiding development of the 

2004 Blueprint was deploying targeted strategies at both 

the state and regional level. The document outlined a 

strategy to organize 10 regional safety coalitions designed 

to work in concert with the Missouri Coalition for 

Roadway Safety (MCRS). As soon as the Blueprint was 

published, champions pushed very hard to sell the goal 

and promote shared responsibility through individual 

meetings within each region. Presentations promoted 

the “Essential Eight” strategies Missouri must implement 

to make significant progress in reaching the projected 

goal. The Champions helped establish regional coalitions 

and provided the coalitions with safety planning toolkits, including data packages, copies of the Blueprint, and 

copies of the National Cooperative Research Program 

(NCHRP) 500 Series. 

Before the Blueprint, no forum existed for regional multidisciplinary discussions on safety. Purpose and procedural 

guidelines now document the organizational structure 

and activities of the MCRS and Regional Coalitions. The 

10 regional coalitions are charged to: 

• Assist with the implementation of the Blueprint;

• Conduct regional data analysis to guide highway 

safety activities;

• Expand regional safety network and partnerships; 

• Actively participate in MCRS meetings, campaigns, 

and promotions;

• Develop a localized safety plan for the region; and

• Facilitate the expenditure of allocated funds.

Participation in the coalitions is open to any national, state, 

regional, or local organization and any individual. The 

MCRS includes an Executive Committee with representatives from over a dozen agencies and organizations, and is 

presided over by a chair and vice chair. Nine subcommittees 

were also established to effectively address the mission of 

the Coalition on a statewide level, including: Commercial 

Motor Vehicle, Elder Mobility and Safety, Enforcement, 

Impaired Driving, Infrastructure, Legislative, Public 

Information, Strategic Planning and Implementation, and 

Traffic Records Coordinating.

In each regional coalition, the corresponding Missouri 

Department of Transportation (MoDOT) district office 

and Missouri State Highway Patrol troop help facilitate 

meetings, expand coalition membership, develop and 

implement regional strategic highway safety plans, and 

distribute funding. In addition, MoDOT trained a representative from each district to provide data analysis 

support to each regional coalition. 

Two-million dollars of state road funds are offered each 

year to support regional safety plans activities. Annual grant 

applications are submitted to MoDOT for enforcement 

and education programs supporting Blueprint priorities. 

Previously, such programs had been supported exclusively 

through Federal Section 402 funds with project selection 

by the MoDOT Highway Safety Office. Regional safety 

plans developed by local stakeholders can provide more 

targeted programs. MoDOT also utilizes district safety 

funds to support regional engineering projects.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Established collaborative, multidisciplinary, regional

partnerships pursuing common safety goals.

•	 Funded localized safety programs addressing

Blueprint priorities via 10 annual regional

safety plans.

SHSP Stakeholder Involvement
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

The MCRS meets quarterly, including an Executive 

Committee meeting and discussion with regional coalition 

contacts before an afternoon meeting with the broader 

statewide coalition. Every other year the MCRS holds a 

Blueprint Conference and uses state funds to bring up to 

10 representatives from each regional coalition. The conferences combine presentations with participatory working 

groups. Statewide and regional coalition members played an 

active role in the 2008 update, Blueprint to Arrive Alive, which, 

among other changes, expanded the original “Essential 

Eight” to the “Targeted Ten” strategies to improve safety. 

The Blueprint appendices include data for each coalition, 

which are updated annually. MCRS also sends out a weekly 

e-mail with updated statewide and regional fatality counts. 

All of the above activities are designed to keep safety on 

the forefront and to maintain regular communication and 

collaboration among safety stakeholders.

Results

Together, the MCRS and Regional Coalitions have embraced the elements of the Blueprint and implemented a comprehensive, coordinated, and focused effort to reduce fatalities and disabling injuries on Missouri roads. Missouri’s 

original fatality reduction goal of 1,000 or fewer fatalities by 2008 was met one year early. Regional Coalitions have 

expanded their number of partners and regional safety plans include a wider variety of localized safety programs.

Contact

Leanna Depue, Ph.D.

Highway Safety Director

Missouri Department of Transportation 

573-751-7643

leanna.depue@modot.mo.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

SHSP 

Road Shows

Nevada

The Nevada Departments of Transportation and Public 

Safety published the State’s first Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP) in September 2006. In April 2010, the 

Departments conducted a series of road show meetings 

across the state in an effort to further engage safety stakeholders and educate them about the SHSP, provide an 

opportunity for input into the SHSP update, and market 

the October 2010 SHSP Summit.

Nevada has created a master SHSP e-mail list that 

includes engineers, law enforcement officers, transportation planners, education specialists, health care 

providers, injury prevention practitioners, emergency 

responders, citizen activists, and anyone else concerned 

about traffic safety. In April 2010, more than 100 people attended the meetings held in four locations. The 

format for each of the Road Show meetings involved 

presentations from the two state leaders of the SHSP 

and a facilitated discussion with participants.

During the meetings, Road Show participants learned 

about Nevada’s new zero fatality goal. They were also 

given an opportunity to describe existing programs that 

address the critical emphasis areas of the SHSP. This 

exercise in enumerating programs was also used as an 

opportunity to promote the Nevada Big Book of Safety 

and identify programs not documented in this clearinghouse for Nevada’s traffic safety-related projects 

and programs. The Big Book of Safety is on-line and 

intended to be a quick-access, searchable list for agencies and the public to use as-needed for research, contact 

information, and details on Nevada’s traffic safety initiatives. The Big Book is a living document and will be 

updated as feedback is received from participating agencies and stakeholders about program details, additions, 

removals, or corrections.

Road Show participants provided ideas and suggestions 

for safety programs and activities that could be included 

in the SHSP update. Finally, participants heard about 

funding and other resource opportunities. 

Key Accomplishments

•	 Engaged over 100 stakeholders representing 4Es

of safety and different levels of government.

•	 Held 4 road show meetings to collect stakeholder

input to inform SHSP update process.

•	 Renewed enthusiasm for the statewide safety

efforts.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

Results

Presenters and attendees agreed the meetings were a success and accomplished the objectives – stakeholders 

learned about the SHSP process, their interest was piqued, and it created opportunities for potential synergies 

among the various safety groups. It was also a good way to get people energized and interested in the upcoming 

Traffic Safety Summit. Not one of the meetings ended early and most people wanted to continue to talk. The 

press attended two meetings, including a local Las Vegas television station.

Contact

Chuck Reider

Chief Safety Engineer

Nevada DOT

775-888-7335

creider@dot.state.nv.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

Engaging Native American 

Tribes in the SHSP

Washington

Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) and 

Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

have led the development, implementation, and update 

of Washington’s SHSP (Target Zero) in collaboration 

with Washington State Patrol (WSP), the Department 

of Licensing, and others state and local agencies. More 

recently, these SHSP leaders have made efforts to garner 

additional participation from more local agencies, private 

industry, nonprofit groups, and Native American Tribes.

There are 29 Federally Recognized Tribes located within 

the borders of Washington State. The fatality rate for 

Native Americans in the State is 3.3 times higher than 

for non-Native Americans and data from 1999 through 

2008 shows Native American fatalities are high across 

all types of motor vehicle crashes. Native American reservations in Washington often include a mix of Tribal, 

state, county, and city roads, which creates jurisdictional 

complexities with law enforcement, collision reporting, 

road maintenance, and capital safety projects. 

Several steps led to increased attention on these Tribal 

safety issues in the most recent update of Target Zero. 

Through the annual Centennial Accord (CA), the State 

of Washington and Tribes have formally committed to 

working together on a government-to-government basis. 

Issues addressed by the CA include transportation. 

During the October 2008 Tribal/State Transportation 

Conference, Tribal planners and representatives of 

WSDOT and WTSC discussed traffic safety concerns 

and partnership opportunities. This led to a larger role 

for tribes in the update of Target Zero than they had in 

previous editions.

In May 2009, the state held the Tribal Traffic Safety 

Summit (sponsored by the FHWA Office of Federal Lands 

Highway), where WSDOT, WTSC, FHWA, Washington 

State Patrol (WSP), Northwest Tribal Technical Assistance 

Program (TTAP), Tribal Transportation Planning 

Organization (TTPO), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) joined many tribes to discuss reducing traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries on reservation roads and 

among Native Americans in the state. During this summit, 

tribal, state, Federal staff, and partners focused on the 4 Es 

of traffic safety (engineering, enforcement, education, and 

emergency response) and made recommendations on how 

to elevate Native American priorities within the Target Zero

process, as well as recommendations for immediate next 

steps at the tribal level for stakeholders to take charge of 

safety issues. 

Key Accomplishments

•	 Held a Tribal Traffic Safety Summit.

•	 Reinforced relationship between State of

Washington and Tribes provides context for

addressing critical safety data challenges.

•	 SHSP Target Zero explicitly addresses tribal traffic

safety issues.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

Leadership involved in the summit carried forward the results from that discussion for consideration during the 

annual CA on June 23, 2009. Four CA action items resulted, including focusing efforts of WTSC and TTAP 

to increase tribal involvement in the update and implementation of Target Zero. In addition to carrying forward 

recommendations from the summit, the new Target Zero update includes strategies from the national Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan for Indian Lands. 

WSDOT circulated draft Target Zero strategies to tribal transportation planners in January 2010 for comment. 

WSDOT and WTSC then released a preliminary version of the plan in April 2010 for formal tribal consultation, 

before presenting it to the Governor’s office in May 2010. 

Results

Actively engaging tribes in discussions and planning has resulted in explicit consideration of Native American 

traffic safety issues in the update of Washington State’s Target Zero SHSP. The new plan includes an entire section focused specifically on Native American Tribes. In addition, some recommended strategies from the Tribal 

Traffic Safety Summit are included under the respective emphasis area sections. WSDOT has also offered to 

collaborate with tribes on the reauthorization of the Federal surface transportation act.

Contact

Lowell Porter

Director

Washington Traffic Safety Commission

360-725-9899

LPorter@wtsc.wa.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

MPO Safety Management 

Planning

Cheyenne, Wyoming

In 2008, the Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) completed its first Transportation 

Safety Management Plan (TSMP), an MPO level plan 

akin to statewide SHSPs. The MPO has successfully 

engaged partners in developing and implementing the 

TSMP through a combination of activities.

As part of plan development, the MPO convened the 

first safety summit in the region, involving 60 stakeholders from multiple disciplines. The TSMP defined six 

emphasis areas requiring focus in the region: impaired 

driving, occupant protection, distracted driving, older 

drivers, younger drivers, and intersections. The plan 

also identified strategies in each area. 

Following completion of the TSMP, the MPO developed 

grant applications seeking funding from the Wyoming 

Highway Safety Office (HSO) for two safety strategies: 

a summit for law enforcement personnel to increase 

enforcement of the secondary occupant protection 

statute, and development of an intersection safety analysis. These efforts maintained engagement of the law 

enforcement community in preparation for the summit 

and the engineering community as they completed the 

safety study. The MPO submitted a second round of 

grant applications to the HSO for FY 2010. Activities 

proposed included a briefing of state legislators on 

safety issues and a Battle of the Belts competition to 

increase safety belt use among teens. 

In the fall of 2009, the MPO convened meetings of all 

six emphasis area teams, inviting individuals who had 

participated in the summit as well as new stakeholders. 

Each team reviewed the strategies in the TSMP, identified new ideas, and discussed implementation of the 

two planned efforts for FY 2010. The MPO convened a 

second set of team meetings in the spring of 2010. The 

teams developed action plans that are updated on an 

ongoing basis. HSO staff frequently attend events and 

are represented on most of the emphasis area teams. 

The legislative briefing addressed issues from three of the 

emphasis areas and engaged a number of stakeholders 

in its planning. Specifically, the briefing addressed a primary safety belt law, alternative transportation to reduce 

DUI, and a medical advisory board. Organization of 

the briefing resulted in engaging a new safety stakeholder, the Wyoming Seatbelt Coalition, which helped 

the group frame the case for a primary safety belt law 

at the legislative summit. The MPO has been invited 

to serve as a member of the coalition, ensuring ongoing communication about the issue. A private sector 

company in favor of a safety belt law was engaged for 

the legislative briefing to present the economic benefits 

of increasing safety belt use through passing a primary 

safety belt law and demonstrate support for such a 

change. The American Association of Retired Persons 

(AARP) served as a speaker given their support of the 

Medical Advisory Board proposal. A public safety officer from the Casper Police Department, which started 

a successful alternative transportation program, also 

served as a speaker and became engaged in sharing 

information with the Cheyenne Police Department on 

how to start such a program.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Engaged safety stakeholders in six emphasis

areas, a law enforcement summit, a legislative

briefing, and other projects.

•	 Implemented four major safety projects in under

two years with help from new stakeholders.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series SHSP Stakeholder Involvement

A second effort undertaken in the community in May 2010 was Battle of the Belts, a campaign to increase the 

rates of safety belt use in high schools. Each school held a contest to increase safety belt use and the winning 

school received a cash prize. Planning this event engaged members of the younger driver and occupant protection teams. The students on the Mayor’s Youth Council became highly involved in event planning and promotion 

of the competition at their schools. The project allowed the MPO to develop a strong relationship with the principals of the three high schools in town. The Wyoming Safety Council became involved by delivering Alive@25 

assemblies at the schools to kickoff the program. Community businesses donated prizes that were distributed to 

students during the week of the event to reward those students wearing safety belts. The Mayor and Police Chief 

presented the award to the winning school demonstrating their support of these efforts and helping to continue 

to build a culture of safety in Cheyenne. 

Plans for FY 2011 involve developing a year-round alternative transportation program. This effort will involve 

the Cheyenne Regional Medical Center’s Injury Prevention Program and the Cheyenne Police Department, which 

is in the initial stages of configuring an alternative transportation program in Cheyenne. 

Moving forward, the MPO is developing grant applications for safety projects to be conducted in FY 2012 based 

on ideas developed by the emphasis area teams. Smaller-scale safety efforts are also implemented on an ongoing 

basis, such as developing a fact sheet for law enforcement on the importance of issuing citations for violations 

by older drivers instead of warnings to ensure an accurate driving record is captured. 

Results

In Cheyenne, safety stakeholder engagement has been built and sustained through MPO leadership – identifying 

and funding safety projects and working with partners on project implementation. Based on the needs of each 

project, new safety stakeholders become engaged in the process. Stakeholder interest is sustained when partners 

have been involved hands-on in implementing a project and see the results. Safety belt use among high school 

students increased by 10 to 15 percent at each of the schools with the Battle of the Belts Program. An eight-fold 

increase in citations for nonuse of safety belts followed the safety belt law enforcement summit.

Contact

Sreyoshi Chakraborty

Transportation Planner

Cheyenne MPO 

307-638-4384

schakraborty@cheyennecity.org

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results