Notice

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

of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government 

assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

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

or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes 

public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize 

the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Background photo courtesy of Molly O’Brien, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

Other photos courtesy of Getty Images.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-20-025

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan 

5. Report Date

July 2020

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Pamela M. Beer, Cambridge Systematics 

Molly O’Brien, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

Tracy Shandor, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Cambridge Systematics

101 Station Landing, Suite 410 

Medford, MA 02155 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-16-D00051L/693JJ319F000190

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

July 2019-July 2020

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Technical Project Manager: Rosemarie Anderson, Office of Safety

Karen Scurry, FHWA Office of Safety; Adam Larsen, FHWA, Office of Tribal Transportation

Technical Oversight Working Group: Andrew Avery, Chemung County Department of Public Works; 

Bahram Dariush, Arizona DOT; Matthew Enders, Washington State DOT; Mark Henige, Arizona DOT; 

Brian Keierleber, Buchanan County, IA; Derek Leuer, Minnesota DOT; Darryl Lutz, Butler County, KS; 

Joseph Marek, Clackamas County, OR; Stephen McCall, Champaign County, OH; Robert Peterson, 

California Department of Transportation; Chris Poole, Iowa DOT; Rick West, Otter Tail County, MN 

16. Abstract

A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing 

roadway safety improvements on local roads. While several jurisdictions have adopted this approach 

as a tool to improve safety on their local roads, a large number are finding it difficult to go from 

development of the plan to implementation. This report documents the difficulties experienced 

when moving plans through to implementation and strategies jurisdictions and States have used 

to overcome those barriers and challenges to achieve reductions in fatalities and serious injuries on 

local roadways. The report details several steps for successful LRSP implementation. For each step 

the report describes the challenges and roadblocks that States and localities face in implementing 

the step, how various States and localities have addressed those challenges, and recommendations 

for future action. 

17. Key Words

Local Road Safety Plans, 

implementation, development, 

fatalities and serious injuries

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

56

22. Price

N/A

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

IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) proven safety countermeasure1

 that provides a framework for identifying, 

analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads. While several States and local 

agencies have adopted this approach as a tool to 

improve safety on their local roads, many are finding 

it difficult to go from development to implementation. This report provides strategies local agencies 

and States have used to overcome barriers and challenges to successfully implement their plans. 

Successful LRSP implementation starts during the 

plan development process. The LRSP development 

process can help make the implementation process 

more successful, and the following items should be 

considered when putting together a LRSP: 

• Obtain support and buy-in from officials and 

stakeholders that represent the 4Es of safety 

(engineering, enforcement, education, emergency medical services) from outside the 

local agency (e.g., local elected officials, State Department of Transportation (DOT) 

officials) and individuals in the local agency (e.g., agency or organization heads, other 

divisions such as maintenance). 

• Identify funding mechanisms so the local agency or State knows what funding is 

available which will help when it comes time to prioritize projects and strategies for 

implementation. 

• Determine the level of project development so LRSP owners know what is appropriate for 

the projects identified in the LRSP. 

• Find a champion who was involved in the development of the LRSP and can advocate for 

implementation of the LRSP. 

• Develop a clear vision and mission to unite all stakeholders with a common goal.

If a LRSP already exists, recommendations include actions that build on what was accomplished in the development process including: 

• Strengthen support and buy-in from officials and 4E stakeholders by providing information 

on what the locality/State will be doing in implementation.

• Review the projects in the LRSP to remind those who will be implementing the projects in 

the plan what level of project development is required.

• Provide support to the champion so they understand what is involved in implementation. 

1 FHWA, Office of Safety, Proven Countermeasures, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/local_road/.

Photo courtesy of Molly O’Brien, 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 
Executive Summary

ES-2

Research conducted for the report also identified differences in LRSPs and how that impacts 

implementation. The research did not reveal a correlation between how LRSP development 

was funded and implementation of the projects in the LRSP. Who develops the LRSP (consultants or agency staff), does not necessarily impact implementation either. In States the use 

of a single consultant to prepare LRSPs for multiple local agencies using a consistent methodology can result in an easier project selection process by the State DOT when the local 

agency applies for funding to implement projects. 

The geographic area (single agency or region) also does not impact implementation but 

there are pros and cons for both. For instance, coordination and buy in may be easier in a 

single agency plan. However, there are finite resources in a single agency and because of 

the size of the community, there are fewer stakeholders who may be able to participate 

given their current workload. Regional plans lend themselves to a systemic safety approach 

(systemic safety can also be done in a local area), and there can be more stakeholders who 

participate and are active. A larger group of stakeholders, however, can make reaching 

consensus more challenging and different agencies may have different priorities. The way 

projects are selected also varies and it is important to consider how the local agency plans 

to obtain funding, and the requirements of that funding mechanism. There should also be a 

clear understanding of the level of project development that is required to obtain the funding 

for projects that will be implemented. 

When it comes to implementation there are several key steps that will ensure the effort is 

successful including the following: 

MAINTAIN BUY-IN AND SUPPORT 

Maintain buy-in and support from key officials in the agency and those outside the 

agency, (e.g., elected officials) which can be 

accomplished by meeting with any agency or 

elected officials that have changed since the 

plan was developed; conducting on-going, 

regular meetings for stakeholders to keep 

them informed; developing a fact sheet on 

the LRSP; conducting briefings and presentations at board and agency meetings; collecting and sharing important information on a 

regular basis; and bringing in other offices in the local agency that may be able to help such 

as maintenance. 

Part of maintaining buy-in and support is to identify a champion. A champion is the individual who speaks about the plan at meetings, promotes the plan at meetings with State 

officials, and becomes the public face of the LRSP to officials and stakeholders. Having a 

champion who can articulate what is being implemented can make the process of confirming 

or obtaining support from key individuals easier. That champion can be a local person or 

someone at the State level. In most locations with LRSPs, the champion is the county engineer, county supervisor, or city engineer. 

Photo courtesy of Brian Keierleber, Buchanan County, IA
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

ES-3

In Washington State, the champion comes from the State DOT (Local Technical Assistance 

Program (LTAP)) and is the person who oversees all local road safety initiatives. The 

Washington State DOT felt this gave the individual perspective on the issues and the knowledge and authority to address related problems. The individual initially met with all the 

counties and got many to agree to develop and implement the LRSP. This champion provides 

a consistent message, helps initiate conversations with other agencies, and generates insight 

for improving the process overall. While several LRSPs were started with support and involvement from the DOT, other efforts were generated locally. 

IDENTIFY FUNDING MECHANISMS 

Identify funding mechanisms by meeting with the local agency manager or the Executive 

Directors of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in the area to find out what 

funding is available locally for safety projects. It is also a good idea to meet with the relevant 

personnel at the DOT who administers the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

funding to find out the requirements and application process. Review the current list of 

capital improvement projects to determine where recommendations from the LRSP overlap 

with future planned projects and determine whether it is possible to fund portions of the 

LRSP through public/private partnerships. While HSIP is the mechanism used most often 

to fund LRSP projects, there are other sources including bicycle/pedestrian improvement 

funding; sign replacement programs; MPO funding; Tribal transportation safety funding; 

specialty bond programs; Active Transportation Program; and inclusion of the LRSP in the 

county budget. 

IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE PROJECTS 

Identify and prioritize projects based on potential effectiveness and available resources 

(funding, staff). While identification of projects usually takes place during development, there 

may be a need to further identify projects during implementation which can be done through 

network screening and the systemic safety analysis process. Methods of project prioritization can include data analysis that selects projects based on crash histories or risk factors; 

regional safety prioritization which links to other plans in a region like Safe Routes to Schools; 

benefit-cost analysis which prioritizes projects based on those with the highest benefit when 

compared to the cost; and other methods such as field visits to review site conditions, selection based on the number of risk factors, and the ability to piggyback on already planned 

projects or for a policy or political reason. 

Steps for Successful LRSP Implementation

1. MAINTAIN BUY-IN AND SUPPORT

2. IDENTIFY FUNDING MECHANISMS 

3. IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE PROJECTS 

4. DETERMINE PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS 

5. EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 

6. CONTINUE COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION 
Executive Summary

ES-4

DETERMINE PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS

Determine project delivery methods which is what occurs after all necessary funding has 

been secured. Project delivery usually starts with the design of a project and in some cases 

can be a design-build effort where the design and construction happen simultaneously. 

Project bundling where multiple projects of the same type are bundled together or where 

multiple agencies bundle projects can lessen the financial and management burden, and 

on-going maintenance can be utilized for project implementation. For instance, integrating 

the LRSP projects with pavement resurfacing, restoration, and preservation efforts. 

EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 

Evaluate the plan’s effectiveness in reducing fatalities and serious injuries after implementation. There are several ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the LRSP. The first is to compare 

the number of fatalities and serious injuries before the plan projects were implemented and 

after implementation. Benefit-cost analysis can also determine if a project is effective but it 

can also be the number of local agencies who make the LRSP part of their daily business, and 

the number of projects that were implemented or the number of applications for funding 

that were received. Evaluation can take place when a LRSP is updated either because conditions change or on an update schedule. LRSP owners can also identify metrics that track 

progress such as the number of miles of rumble strips that have been installed. Expanding 

stakeholders is another way to continue the effectiveness of the effort by bringing in new 

voices and ideas. 

CONTINUE COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION 

Continue active communications and coordination with agency colleagues, partner agencies, and the public by ensuring stakeholders are all on board for implementation; by aligning 

messaging across communication channels and programs; meeting with elected officials and attending committee and board meetings and workshops; hosting conferences/

webinars to keep a focus/awareness on local road safety; and developing and distributing 

newsletters or other regular communication. Other ideas include conducting regular presentations to the county, city, or regional board or council, posting photographs and information 

on social media; and scheduling a meeting with key officials if you know a project may 

generate some opposition. 

LRSPs have been developed throughout the U.S. at the county, city, Tribal, or regional 

level (State DOT district or region, MPO). While development of LRSPs is widespread and 

continuing to grow, implementation of LRSPs has been challenging for some agencies. A 

plan cannot reach the goal of reducing traffic related fatalities and serious injuries if it is not 

implemented. Recognizing the challenges State, local, Tribal and regional agencies face, this 

report provides guidance and examples of how to successfully address and accomplish LRSP 

implementation. Whether the issue is funding, lack of support, or an uncertainty on how to 

move forward, there are a number of localities and States that are achieving implementation 

success. Their experience, coupled with what the research indicates are effective approaches, 

provide a road map on how to move forward from development to execution. Achieving 

success takes hard work and effort, but the results are worth it when considering the goal is 

to save lives and prevent injuries. 
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. LRSP Development ............................................................................................ 4

The Relationship Between LRSP Development and Implementation ........................ 5

Existing LRSPs .......................................................................................................... 6

Differences in LRSP Development............................................................................. 7

3. Steps for Successful Implementation................................................................11

Step 1 – Maintain Buy-in and Support/Champion .....................................................12

Step 2 – Identify Funding Mechanisms .....................................................................15

Step 3 – Identify and Prioritize Projects................................................................... 20

Step 4 – Deliver Projects ......................................................................................... 24

Step 5 – Evaluate Implementation............................................................................27

Step 6 – Continue Communication and Coordination.............................................. 29

4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 33

5. Results of Implementation............................................................................... 36

Thurston County, WA ..............................................................................................37

St. Louis County, MN............................................................................................... 38

Appendix.............................................................................................................40

Resources............................................................................................................... 40

Research Methodology .......................................................................................... 42
ii

List of Acronyms

LIST OF ACRONYMS

4Es Engineering, Education, Emergency Response, and Enforcement

DOT Department of Transportation 

DOTD Department of Transportation and Development 

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

CMAQ Congestion Management and Air Quality

CMF Crash Modification Factor 

EMS Emergency Medical Services 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

GCAT GIS Crash Analysis Tool

GIS Geographic Information System 

HFST High Friction Surface Treatment

HRRR High Risk Rural Roads

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program 

HSM Highway Safety Manual 

LPA Local Public Agency 

LRSP Local Road Safety Plan 

LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NJTPA North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority

NOACA Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 

RSA Road Safety Audit

SHSO State Highway Safety Office 

SJTPO South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization 

SSARP Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

SMS Safety Management Systems 

TAP Transportation Alternatives Program

TRIS Transportation Research Information Services 

TZD Toward Zero Deaths 
1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Local roads have a fatality crash rate that is 75 percent higher than interstates (1.02 per 

hundred million vehicle miles traveled on local roads versus 0.58 on interstates).2 While not all 

roads in rural areas are local, a number of them are, and according to the Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety, in 2018 rural areas accounted for 46 percent of all fatalities.

3

 In addition, 

the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in rural areas in 2017 was two times 

higher than in urban areas.4 To address this issue and other safety concerns, many States 

and local jurisdictions have developed LRSPs. LRSPs provide local agencies with a strategy to 

improve local road safety for all road users and support the goals of the State’s overall Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). These plans provide a way for Federal, State, and local agencies 

to have a positive impact in areas where a significant amount of fatalities and serious injuries 

occur by identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads. 

2 Highway Statistics, 2018. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2018/fi30.cfm.

3 December 2019. Fatality Facts 2018. Urban/Rural Comparison, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban-rural-comparison.

4 June 2019. Traffic Safety Facts 2017, Rural/Urban Comparison of Traffic Fatalities, NHTSA, DOT, HS, 812 741, Washington, DC, 

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812741.

Photo courtesy of Getty Images.
Introduction

2

While a growing number of jurisdictions have developed a LRSP, many struggle to implement their plan and measure results. LRSPs can help localities or States identify local road 

safety needs and determine, through data analysis, the most effective way of addressing 

those needs. LRSPs can have a positive impact on local road safety, but only if they are 

implemented. Despite intensive technical assistance and widespread information about the 

success of the LRSP approach, implementation has proven to be difficult for many. This report 

is designed to address this situation through a focus on noteworthy practices and strategies 

for implementing recommendations included within LRSPs. 

Research conducted for this report 

examined a variety of implementation 

approaches to determine elements that 

lead to successful plan implementation 

and reviewed ways to overcome challenges 

and barriers associated with implementing 

a LRSP’s recommendations. This report 

takes findings from a literature search as 

well as information gathered from State 

and local LRSP practitioners and details 

the challenges local and regional agencies 

face when implementing their LRSP; what 

steps can result in successful implementation; and innovative and noteworthy implementation strategies. At the outset, it is helpful to identify what successful implementation entails. 

Successful implementation includes the following elements: 

• Approval of an implementation plan from the county 

board or city council.

• Execution of identified safety projects/programs.

• Deployment of proven countermeasures.

• Integration of solutions across the 4Es of safety (engineering, education, enforcement, emergency response).

• Positive changes in an agency’s policies and practices 

that increase support for safety. 

• A reduction in fatalities and serious injuries.

These are just some elements of successful implementation; however, successful implementation will likely vary 

by jurisdiction. The important aspects are to get approval 

for implementation, determine what to implement based 

on a review of the data, available funding and resources, 

execute/construct projects, evaluate the effectiveness 

of LRSP implementation, and continue marketing and 

communication on the benefits of the plan. Several States 

and jurisdictions are already experiencing positive improvements from LRSP implementation.

Photo courtesy of Molly O’Brien,

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

The 4 Es of Safety

Engineering

Education

Enforcement

Emergency Medical 

Services
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

3

Thurston County, WA prioritized 270 signed curves, applied systemic measures, and saw a 

35 percent reduction in target crashes. 

Implementation of LRSPs in Minnesota resulted in a shift in safety emphasis from reacting to 

fatalities and serious injuries in spot locations to a proactive, system-wide approach. The State 

has also seen decreases in fatalities and serious injuries in several counties that have implemented a LRSP. 

Washington State experienced a

20%reduction in 

horizontal curve crashes

30%reduction in 

overturn crashes

13%reduction in 

angle crashes on county roads
CHAPTER 2

4

LRSP DEVELOPMENT

Successful LRSP implementation 

starts at LRSP development. The 

following sections discuss how the 

LRSP development process can help 

the implementation process and how 

the differences in LRSP development 

impact implementation. These recommendations also apply if there is an 

existing LRSP, but the jurisdiction or 

region is finding it difficult to move 

forward on implementation. Revisiting 

the steps taken during development 

and strengthening or enhancing what 

was previously accomplished can help 

to remind those involved in implementing the plan why it is important. 

Photo courtesy of Neil Hetherington WTI-MSU.

Photo courtesy of Getty Images.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

5

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LRSP 

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 

How a LRSP is developed plays a large part in the ability of a jurisdiction or region to successfully implement their plan. Factors like who is involved, the level of data analysis, and the 

types of projects and programs that are selected have a major impact on a LRSP’s success. 

Support from key officials and data analysis that correctly identifies the right projects and 

programs goes a long way to setting the framework for successful LRSP implementation. 

The following development activities can make the transition to implementation easier and 

more successful: 

• Obtain support and buy-in from officials and 

stakeholders that represent the 4Es of safety 

(engineering, enforcement, education, emergency 

response) by providing information on the purpose 

of the LRSP, the benefits, and the role of officials 

and stakeholders. Support and active engagement of State DOT officials) and individuals in the 

local agency (e.g., agency or organization heads, 

other divisions such as maintenance) is needed 

throughout the LRSP development process and 

into implementation. Continue to cultivate their 

interest during implementation by providing information on what is being implemented and any 

results or success stories. The LRSP owners should 

foster open and frequent communication with 

stakeholders, community partners and citizens.

• Find a champion: A champion who was involved 

in the development of the LRSP and can advocate 

for implementation of the LRSP will make it easier 

to transition to implementation. This individual can 

be a member of the jurisdiction’s board, another 

elected official, the jurisdiction’s engineer, or 

someone at the State DOT level. 

• Conduct data collection and analysis: Data is the foundation of the LRSP. It is used to 

identify problem areas, to determine appropriate solutions, and to monitor progress 

towards the plan’s goals. Obtaining as much accurate data as possible during the development process allows for implementation to be targeted at locations that will be the 

most effective at reducing fatalities and serious injuries. 

• Identify funding mechanisms and allocate appropriate resources: Knowing how the local 

agency or State intends to fund the projects identified in the LRSP will help when it comes 

time to prioritize projects and strategies for implementation. It will also be important to 

determine what manpower and management are needed to ensure the plan’s success.

How LRSP Development Can 

Impact Implementation

Obtain support and buy in from 

officials and stakeholders.

Find a champion. 

Conduct data collection and 

analysis.

Identify funding mechanisms 

and allocate appropriate 

resources. 

Determine the level of project 

detail that is needed to obtain 

funding. 

Develop a clear vision and 

mission. 
LRSP Development

6

• Determine the level of project detail that is needed to obtain funding: LRSP owners 

should know what level of project detail (e.g., concept drawings, project description, 

preliminary design) is needed for the projects identified in the LRSP. This could be project 

sheets that mirror the funding application or a plan that will support project development. 

• Develop a clear vision and mission: A strategic vision and mission unite all stakeholders 

with a common goal.5

By ensuring the development process includes the elements which can pave the way for 

successful implementation, States or localities are in a better position to achieve the goal 

of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on local roads. It is also important to keep in mind 

that local transportation agencies face many challenges daily which place a strain on limited 

funding and resources. It may be necessary to continually promote the LRSP to local officials 

and demonstrate how it is improving traffic safety, which is why obtaining and analyzing data 

is critical throughout the process

EXISTING LRSPS 

If a LRSP already exists for your agency and you 

are ready to move into implementation or if 

there are struggles with moving into implementation, the following actions may help jump start 

the process: 

• Reaffirm support from the champion(s) 

identified during the development process 

and re-engage them and make sure they 

understand the LRSP is moving into implementation. Review the recommendations 

and projects in the plan so they are familiar 

with what needs to be completed and how 

the projects accomplish the goal of reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries. 

• Strengthen support and buy-in from officials and 4E stakeholders by providing information 

on what the locality will be doing in implementation. This information can be a review of 

why the LRSP was developed, e.g., a review of the fatality and serious injury data and what is 

planned for implementation. Implementation also offers an opportunity to brief 4E partners. 

In Michigan where the DOT oversees 12 regional plans, some held implementation meetings 

where individuals involved in development were brought up to date on what was planned for 

implementation. Participants included representatives from the counties, cities, and villages in 

the plan area, county engineers, commissioners, and others. 

5 March 2012. Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-12-

017, page 9, Washington, DC, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/.

Photo courtesy of Neil Hetherington WTI-MSU .
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

7

• Engage with others to implement behavioral safety countermeasures. LRSPs can 

include both infrastructure and behavioral countermeasures. Some plans may just focus 

on infrastructure improvements while others determined, through data analysis, that 

a number of their problems are caused by road user behavior. That is why they include 

behavioral countermeasures such as increased enforcement and education to influence 

that behavior. If the LRSP does include behavioral countermeasures, it is a good opportunity to reach out to additional 4E stakeholders at the start of the implementation process. 

These 4E stakeholders include law enforcement agencies, education and prevention 

specialists, and other highway safety community leaders. These individuals can be helpful 

in implementing the behavioral countermeasures. 

• Clarify funding requirements and allocate appropriate resources. Be prepared with information on what level of funding is needed, where it will be spent, and the benefits of using 

the funds for this purpose. Knowing how the local agency or State intends to fund the projects identified in the LRSP will help when it comes time to prioritizing recommendations 

and to obtain approval for the submitted list of projects. The local agency seeking Federal/

State funds to implement projects should determine the eligibility criteria of whatever 

funding sources were identified and know what the requirements are for the applications. 

• Review the level of project detail so projects in the LRSP are ready to be submitted for 

funding. This will make it quicker and easier to start implementation. Project development 

starts with planning and programming what projects will be implemented, pre-design and 

scoping, design, and then implementation. In some cases a project can be implemented 

as part of a larger construction project, as part of maintenance, or through dedicated 

funding streams. In other cases it may be filling out a project sheet that mirrors the 

funding application or providing detail in a plan that will support project development. 

DIFFERENCES IN LRSP DEVELOPMENT

LRSPs are as varied as the characteristics of the communities they serve. It is important to 

know there are different types of plans and the size of the plan and its components may vary. 

Several areas of differences in LRSP development include: 

• Funding of LRSP development.

• Who develops the LRSP.

• Area covered by the LRSP.

• Project selection.

• Level of project development.

Funding of LRSP Development

There are a variety of ways agencies fund LRSP development. Some States fully fund LRSP 

development for their local jurisdictions, other States fund a significant portion of the LRSP 

development but require a local match. LRSP could also be developed and fully funded by a 

local agency. Research did not reveal a correlation between how the LRSP development was 

funded and implementation of the LRSP.
LRSP Development

8

Who Develops the LRSP

LRSPs are developed by the local agencies in house, regional planning agencies or consultants 

procured at the State level, local level, or by the FHWA. In States where LRSPs are fully funded 

by the State, the State DOT typically procures and selects a consultant to prepare the LRSPs 

for multiple jurisdictions. This results in a consistent methodology applied across all plans and 

oftentimes the DOT has set aside funding for identified projects which results in an easier 

project selection process by the DOT when the local agency applies for funding.

Area Covered by the LRSP

LRSPs can be prepared for a county, city, MPO, Tribal area, or another region (State DOT 

district or region). When determining the area to be covered by the LRSP, agencies should 

consider how they will implement projects and what arrangement will result in the highest 

level of implementation for their area. While the geographic area covered by an LRSP does not 

impact implementation, there are some pros and cons associated with doing a county plan as 

opposed to a regional plan that may include several counties. 

SINGLE AGENCY (CITY OR COUNTY) PLAN – PROS

Coordination and buy in may be easier in a single agency plan since it generally involves one local agency and 

maybe the State DOT. 

Stakeholders within the jurisdiction are likely familiar with each other. This may make it easier in the decision-making process since the parties are familiar with each other’s needs. 

SINGLE AGENCY (CITY OR COUNTY) PLAN – CONS

There is a finite amount of resources available within a single agency such as staff and funding.

Because there are fewer stakeholders involved, it may be difficult for these individuals to devote the time and 

other resources needed to develop and implement the LRSP. Additionally, they may not have all the required 

safety expertise involved.

REGIONAL PLANS – PROS

Because the systemic safety approach focuses on evaluating a roadway network and looks at crash history on 

an aggregate basis to identify high-risk roadway characteristics, a regional approach may lend itself more to a 

systemic safety approach. This can also be true at the local level for a local road network. 

There is always strength in numbers and a regional plan can result in more stakeholders being active in the LRSP 

development and eventually implementation, which can increase the chances of success. It also means a smaller 

number of plans need to be developed in the State and the larger crash area increases the crash sample size. 

Regional plans provide a greater opportunity to leverage resources for implementation and they also provide a 

more diverse and interdisciplinary group of stakeholders. 

REGIONAL PLANS – CONS

Because there are more stakeholders it may be difficult to obtain buy-in from everyone and to effectively coordinate the implementation process among a larger group of individuals. 

Different agencies within a region may have different priorities and it may be difficult to reach consensus on 

what projects should be included in the LRSP and when it comes time for implementation which projects should 

be implemented and where. 

Multiple agencies may have a large number of tasks to address and safety may not be the number one priority. 

This can make it difficult to elevate safety as a prime concern.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

9

Project Selection

Agencies use three major project selection methodologies in LRSP development: risk factor 

analysis, high-crash locations, or a combination of risk factor analysis and high-crash locations. Projects can be identified through a systemic safety analysis using a risk factor analysis 

to identify locations with a high potential for crashes, and not necessarily a history of crashes. 

Since fatalities and serious injuries can be random in nature and spread throughout a local 

roadway system, this methodology allows for a proactive approach to reducing fatalities and 

serious injuries based on roadway, intersection, or curve features along the system.

Projects can also be identified through identification of high-crash locations or a “hot spot” 

analysis. This methodology is reactionary in nature and can result in improving locations 

where crashes have occurred in the past, as opposed to where they might occur in the future. 

A combination of risk factor analysis and high-crash locations can be utilized for project selection. For HSIP projects, they must be reflected in the State’s SHSP to be funded.

When developing the LRSP, consideration should be given to how the local agency plans to 

obtain funding, and the requirements of that funding mechanism. Projects should be selected 

with the methodology that is anticipated to result in successful funding applications that 

foster implementation of the LRSP.

If the LRSP contains behavioral safety projects or programs, funding for these must be 

obtained from the State Highway Safety Office (SHSO). These offices provide opportunities 

for agencies and other organizations to apply for grant funds on a yearly basis. Information 

on how to apply for these grants can be found on your State SHSO web site. A listing of State 

SHSOs is available at www.ghsa.org. 

Level of Project Detail 

Once the projects have been identified, it is necessary to determine what level of detail or 

effort is needed to move a project from concept to actual implementation. There may be a 

gap between the information on the project in the plan and what is actually needed to submit 

it for funding, scoping/design, and construction. The level of effort or detail varies from 

agency to agency. In some cases, it may be possible to implement a project as part of a larger 

effort such as a maintenance project like pavement preservation. If it is a pedestrian/bicycle 

safety project, dedicated funding for active transportation projects may be available or there 

may be resources including funding that are available from the local or regional agency. 

For counties in Minnesota, Iowa, and Kansas that have LRSPs, project sheets are included for 

“top scoring” locations that mirror the HSIP application in their State for improvements such 

as wider edge lines, rumble strips, safety edge, destination lighting, and chevrons. The project 

sheets are submitted as part of or in lieu of the HSIP application. This helps streamline the 

implementation process, and projects move into design phase if funding is received. 
LRSP Development

10

As part of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Systemic Safety Analysis 

Report Program (SSARP), one or more HSIP applications are prepared for the local agency by 

the consultant. The Caltrans HSIP application is far more detailed than applications in some 

other States. Having the application completed as part of the SSARP helps streamline the 

application process for agencies. 

When developing the LRSP, there should be a clear understanding of the level of project 

development that is required to implement projects. States have varying levels of application processes. In some States with simpler applications, the LRSPs contain a project sheet 

that outlines the information that is needed for funding applications to ease the process for 

agencies to apply for funding after their LRSP is completed. Other States have more extensive 

funding applications that require preliminary design of the project, more detailed cost estimates, and/or benefit-cost analysis. In cases where more extensive information is required for 

funding applications, the agency may plan to have the application completed as part of their 

LRSP. Agencies can also plan to develop a project through another means such as through 

maintenance or pavement preservation. 

Summary

Research and interviews did not necessarily determine that differences in LRSP development had a 

major impact on implementation. However, to be 

successful in implementation of a LRSP, there are 

items for local agencies to consider when preparing 

a LRSP. They include the availability of funding, 

how compatible are the projects in the LRSP with 

the State SHSP if seeking HSIP funds for implementation, whether the plan will be implemented 

at the county or regional level, how projects were 

selected, and if any work was done developing projects prior to implementation. 

Photo courtesy of Getty Images. 
11

CHAPTER 3

STEPS FOR SUCCESSFUL 

IMPLEMENTATION

The development of a LRSP usually generates a 

good deal of interest, but the really challenging 

work happens in implementation, where identified strategies/projects are executed. It involves 

finding the funding or means to implement 

projects, prioritizing projects based on available resources, implementing the projects and 

determining their effectiveness, and making 

sure key individuals and the public remain interested and committed to the goals of the plan. 

In conducting research for this report, several Photo courtesy of Getty Images. 

Photo courtesy of Getty Images.
Steps for Successful Implementation

12

steps surfaced that helped localities successfully implement their LRSPs. They include the 

following: 

• Maintain buy-in and support from key stakeholders in the agency and those outside the 

agency (e.g., elected officials), and ensure someone is available to champion the plan 

throughout implementation. 

• Identify funding mechanisms.

• Identify and prioritize projects based on potential effectiveness and available resources 

(funding, staff).

• Determine project delivery methods.

• Evaluate the project’s effectiveness in reducing fatalities and serious injuries after 

implementation.

• Continue active communications and coordination with agency colleagues, partner agencies, and the public. 

The following sections provide a more thorough discussion of each of these steps. 

Steps for Successful LRSP Implementation

1. MAINTAIN BUY-IN AND SUPPORT

2. IDENTIFY FUNDING MECHANISMS 

3. IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE PROJECTS 

4. DETERMINE PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS 

5. EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS 

6. CONTINUE COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION 

STEP 1 – MAINTAIN BUY-IN AND SUPPORT

It is essential to have buy-in and support for implementation from local elected officials, 

officials within the county and local agency implementing the plan, and key partners. Just 

because support was forthcoming during development does not mean it will continue during 

implementation specifically if there is a lag between development and implementation. 

Safety is just one priority facing a local agency; there may be other priorities that arise; therefore, it is important to continue to market the plan to ensure support for implementation. In 

addition, it is important to remember that elected officials change, so when there are new 

elected officials or new hires in the local agency, bring them up to speed on the LRSP, its 

purpose, benefits, and current implementation efforts.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

13

Inform Leaders and Stakeholders 

Keeping leaders and stakeholders informed on the LRSP is as important in implementation 

as it was during development. Once officials approve the LRSP and stakeholders participate 

in the identification of strategies and countermeasures, information sharing does not end. It 

is important to keep leaders and stakeholders informed about the implementation progress, 

achievements, and challenges on a regular basis. At the outset, remind officials and stakeholders what projects are in the plan; what funding is being sought to fund the projects; and 

how projects will be prioritized. 

When briefing these individuals, describe the improvement and show photos or other 

graphics to illustrate the problem the project will address. This keeps stakeholders interested 

and actively involved. To keep leadership and stakeholders informed, a LRSP manager might 

develop and distribute an e-newsletter that provides information on current projects, success 

stories, and upcoming events. An annual ride along showcasing safety projects can also be 

conducted to inform leadership and stakeholders on the implementation progress. 

The South Central Regional Safety Coalition in Louisiana, which has a regional LRSP, provides 

periodic updates via presentations to the area MPO board, along with information on current 

safety trends in the region. This helps elected officials understand safety problems in their 

area, which can increase buy-in for LRSP implementation. 

In St. Louis County, MN the plan developer delivered an hour and a half presentation to the 

county board that included information on crash rates and the low-cost improvements identified in the LRSP to address those crashes. 

Once implementation has occurred collect and analyze data at the location to show the 

impact on the traffic safety crash problem before and after implementation to show whether 

the project reduced those crashes.

Address Citizen Complaints/Concerns 

As implementation moves forward, there may be objections or concerns raised about a 

particular project. The official can provide information on the benefits of a particular project 

or approach in a written or oral communication such as a letter, email, or phone call; they can 

provide general information on the improvements and why they are being done in a constituent newsletter or speak about the improvements at a community or other meeting. 

In Otter Tail County, MN, for instance, citizens complained when the county installed edgeline 

rumble strips as part of the LRSP because they felt the rumble strips were noisy. Another criticism occurred when the county, after conducting systemic safety analysis, installed lighting 

in a remote area that had not experienced a severe crash problem. The county engineer 

was able to indicate county and agency officials supported the improvements, which helped 

alleviate some of the concern. Elected and agency officials in the county were fully informed 

about the benefits of both the edgeline rumble strips and the systemic safety approach and 

were able to provide information to the individuals who raised concerns.
Steps for Successful Implementation

14

Identify a Champion

A champion is someone who takes a leadership role in planning, promoting, and implementing the LRSP. This person is usually the individual who speaks about the plan at 

meetings, promotes the plan to State officials, and becomes the public face of the LRSP to 

officials and stakeholders. Having a champion who can articulate what is being implemented 

can make the process of confirming or obtaining support from key individuals easier. That 

champion can be a local person or someone at the State level. In most locations with LRSPs, 

the champion is the county engineer, county supervisor, or city engineer. 

In Washington State, the champion comes from the State DOT (LTAP) and is the person 

who oversees all local road safety initiatives. The Washington State DOT felt this gave the 

individual perspective on the issues and the knowledge and authority to address related problems. The individual initially met with all the counties and got many to agree to develop and 

implement the LRSP. This champion provided a consistent message, helped initiate conversations with other agencies, and generated insight for improving the process overall. While 

several LRSPs were started with support and involvement from the DOT, other efforts were 

generated locally. 

Obtain Support from Colleagues 

In addition to backing from officials at the agency or board/county level, successful implementation also requires buy-in and support from colleagues within the local agency. The 

research revealed several suggestions, including maintenance, design, and construction. In 

each of these instances, individuals can incorporate projects from the LRSP into their work 

plan. For instance, maintenance can install new signage, design can include a safety edge on 

a local roadway, and construction personnel can install curve improvements. 

In Clackamas County, OR, after the plan was developed and implementation was started, the 

county engineer encountered resistance for safety improvements from the maintenance crew, 

so maintenance was brought into discussions on project implementation. 

Step 1 Recommendations 

Following are recommendations that will help to maintain support and buy-in for implementation of the LRSP. 

• Reach out to current and any new agency or elected officials that have changed since the 

plan was developed. Schedule and conduct a meeting with these individuals, if possible, 

or send them the LRSP document and other related information about the plan.

• Conduct on-going, regular meetings for stakeholders to keep them informed on implementation plans and progress. 
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

15

• Develop a one- to two-page fact sheet on the LRSP that 

includes why the plan was developed (data on the traffic crash 

problem and the number of fatalities and serious injuries), and 

what type of projects are planned to address the problem. 

• Request a briefing or presentation to the agency board and 

a meeting with the local agency officials to describe what is 

planned for implementation. In some cases, it may be necessary to explain why certain projects were selected. 

• Collect information throughout implementation on results 

of implementation and make sure to share information with 

officials and stakeholders on a regular basis. This can be as 

simple as a quick email message or an e-newsletter. 

• Determine where other offices within the local agency can 

be of assistance such as maintenance and bring them into the implementation process in 

the beginning so they can offer suggestions on where they can help. In fact, it may be a 

good idea to bring in maintenance staff during the development process since they may 

have ideas on what projects would fit in with their work plan. 

Maintaining buy-in and support from officials and stakeholders during implementation is not a 

one-time activity. It is an ongoing process that needs to be maintained throughout so individuals understand what is being accomplished. 

STEP 2 – IDENTIFY FUNDING MECHANISMS

A LRSP will not have the desired effect if funding is unavailable for the plan’s identified 

programs and projects. In some cases, the State does not provide funding to localities for 

safety improvements; in others, local agencies cannot afford to meet the funding match 

requirements for Federal or State safety funds; in other cases, the jurisdiction does not have 

the staff or resources to apply for Federal and/or State funds or cannot meet those requirements if funded. Following is a description of the various funding mechanisms and how 

several localities and States utilized each method.

HSIP Funding

Research found that HSIP funds are sought for implementation of most projects in the LRSPs. While some local entities 

have been successful in obtaining this funding, there are 

challenges for local entities to apply for and obtain the financial support. Some of the key challenges associated with 

HSIP funding include the following:

• The State’s HSIP application process.

• HSIP funding availability for local agencies.

• Perception that the administrative burden associated 

with HSIP funding is difficult to manage.

Photo courtesy of Molly O’Brien, 

Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. 
Steps for Successful Implementation

16

HSIP APPLICATION PROCESS

The HSIP application process can sometimes be difficult to navigate for local agencies who 

are not familiar with applying for HSIP funding. To encourage local agencies to apply for 

funding, some States have developed guidelines for the application process, while other 

States have had their LRSPs include HSIP applications or project sheets that mirror the HSIP 

application.

Florida DOT’s District 7 developed a “Local Agency Funding Guide for the Off-System 

Roadway” that served as a guide for the HSIP application process. This enhanced local awareness and increased the application of safety projects from three applications per year to 50+ 

applications.6

Caltrans developed the “Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners,”7

which included guidance on the HSIP application process and the types of safety improvements that could be funded under HSIP and local match requirements. To further encourage 

local agencies to apply for HSIP funds, Caltrans then developed SSARP to address local agency 

reluctance to apply for HSIP funding because it was tied to Federal funding requirements and 

they did not have the resources to meet those requirements. The SSARP assisted local agencies with the information needed for their HSIP application. 

HSIP FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR LOCAL AGENCIES

How a State allocates HSIP funding to local agencies can vary significantly. Some States utilize 

HSIP funding exclusively for State-maintained roads, while other States utilize a portion for 

local roads, and in others the State and local agencies compete.

In the past, the Arizona DOT spent 80 percent of HSIP funds on State roadway projects and 20 

percent on local projects. However, a review of the crash data showed there were more fatalities on local roads than State-maintained roads, so the Arizona DOT shifted to a competitive 

funding process and the 80/20 State-local funding split was eliminated. Now all HSIP funding 

requests are evaluated based on a benefit-cost ratio for all public roads including State, local, 

and Tribal. After shifting to a competitive funding process based on a benefit-cost ratio, the 

Arizona DOT increased the number of HSIP applications. After an eligibility review, 47 HSIP 

applications were approved for funding. Currently the split of HSIP funds is 60 percent local, 30 

percent State, and 10 percent set aside for emergencies. 

6 2013. FHWA Safety, Safety Summit Yields Tenfold Increase in Number of Safety Applications Submitted by Local Agencies – 

Florida, 2013; https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/html/localrural_fl1.aspx?id=96.

7 2020. Caltrans, Local Roadway Safety A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners – California, 2020; https://dot.ca.gov/-/

media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

17

North Dakota DOT offers half of the HSIP funds they receive annually to the local public agencies 

(LPAs) and Tribal governments to do safety improvements within their jurisdiction out of the 

LRSPs and Tribal Safety Plans. Projects included in the local agency’s LRSP are pre-approved 

for HSIP funding. The LTAP advises the LPAs and Tribal governments of the available North 

Dakota DOT funds. The local agency only needs to send in the application from their LRSP 

when they are ready to move forward with the project. This makes it easy for an agency to 

apply for the funding without having to fill out the application and submit the necessary data 

because that work was completed during the LRSP development. LTAP also conducts roadway 

safety training and reminds agencies to look at and use their LRSP. 

PERCEPTION OF HSIP FUNDING BEING DIFFICULT TO UTILIZE

HSIP funding is a common form of funding for safety improvements; however, many local 

agencies perceive Federal funding to be more difficult to utilize than local funds for various 

reasons (i.e., administrative burden, limits on items the funding covers, difficulty in applying 

for the funds, and match requirement). In addition, they often have limited local funds to 

utilize as a funding match towards safety improvements when required. As such, safety projects identified in LRSPs are sometimes not implemented.

The Iowa DOT has implemented a swap of Federal funds for State funds for their HSIP 

secondary funding. (This is the name Iowa gives to HSIP funding which is spent on county 

roads. HSIP secondary funding is available for county-maintained roads.) The Iowa DOT notified counties of the change in the funding source for HSIP secondary funding and the benefits 

it would have for the counties. Since the swap of Federal funds for State funds has taken place, 

more counties are applying for HSIP secondary funding using the project sheets developed as 

part of their LRSP.

Behavioral Safety Funding

Some LRSPs include recommendations for both engineering and behavioral safety countermeasures within 

their plan. Based on a review of their data, these States 

and localities identify trends in crashes related to driver 

behavior, such as impaired or distracted driving, speeding, 

and lack of seat belt use. NHTSA provides highway safety 

grants to States to implement behavioral safety countermeasures through the SHSO. Following is a description of 

available NHTSA grant programs. 

• “Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety 

Grant Program – Section 402 provides grants to States 

Photo courtesy of Brian Keierleber, 

Buchanan County, IA. 
Steps for Successful Implementation

18

to improve driver behavior and reduce fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle-related 

crashes in the areas of impaired driving, speeding, occupant protection, motorcycle 

safety, pedestrian and bicycle safety, school buses, enforcement of traffic laws, traffic 

records, emergency services, commercial vehicle safety, and driver’s education. 

• Section 405 National Priority Safety Programs – Section 405 provides grant funding to 

address selected national priorities for reducing highway deaths and injuries including 

occupant protection, State traffic safety information system improvements, impaired 

driving countermeasures, distracted driving, and motorcyclist safety. 

• Section 154 Open Container Provision – Section 154 encourages States to enact an open 

container law. Although originally a transfer program, subsequent legislation amended the 

penalty provisions that apply to non-compliant States. Under current law, noncompliance 

results in reservation of the funds rather than an immediate transfer to other programs.

• Section 164 Repeat Offender Provision – Section 164 encourages States to enact a repeat 

offender law that provides specific minimum penalties to individuals convicted of a second 

or subsequent impaired driving offence. States that fail to comply with these minimum 

requirements have a portion of their highway funds reserved. 

• Section 1906 Racial Profiling Prohibition Grants – Section 1906 provides grants to 

encourage States to maintain and allow public inspection of statistical information on the 

race and ethnicity of the driver for all motor vehicle stops made on all public roads except 

local or minor rural roads.”8

Behavioral safety funding is also available from private sector sources. The Allstate 

Foundation and the National Safety Council, for instance, sponsor and support Teen Safe 

Driving Coalitions in 10 States. These coalitions seek to establish a culture of teen safe driving 

based on the principles of graduated driver licensing. The Ford Motor Company’s Driving Skills 

for Life program helps teach newly licensed teens and their parents the necessary skills for 

safe driving beyond what they learn in standard driver education programs. 

Other Funding Sources

While HSIP is a common funding source for LRSPs, the 

research identified other funding sources including: 

• Bicycle/pedestrian improvement funding which is 

provided through the Active Transportation Program 

(ATP), which consolidates existing Federal and State 

transportation programs and funding to encourage an 

increased use of active modes of transportation, such as 

biking and walking (California). 

• Sign replacement programs such as the Sign 

Replacement Program for Cities and Counties (SRPFCC) 

which is conducted by the Iowa DOT’s Traffic and Safety 

8 Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), Federal Grant Programs, https://www.ghsa.org/about/federal-grant-programs.

Photo courtesy of Brian Keierleber, 

Buchanan County, IA.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

19

Bureau. The program funds the replacement of damaged, worn out, obsolete or substandard signs and signposts (Iowa DOT). 

• Funding from an MPO (Louisiana). 

• Supplementing Tribal transportation safety funding (Nevada).

• Specialty bond programs such as Corridors of Commerce and Transportation Economic 

Development funding (Minnesota). 

• Inclusion of the LRSP into the county’s annual budget request to ensure funding is available for implementation (Chemung County, NY). 

• Local agency force account (i.e., agency staff provide the labor while Federal funds cover 

the materials for pedestrian signal projects) (California). 

States and local agencies can also use funds from the following sources:

• Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) – CMAQ is a flexible funding source 

available to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help 

meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and 

improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former 

nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). Traffic crashes and 

the resulting delay contribute to congestion and poor air quality. 

• Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) – TAP is a reimbursable Federal aid funding 

program for transportation-related community projects that strengthen the intermodal 

transportation system. TAP funds projects that create bicycle and pedestrian facilities and 

convert abandoned railway corridors to pedestrian trails. Ensuring these facilities and corridors are safe could be part of a LRSP project. 

Step 2 Recommendations

When identifying funding, consider the following recommendations:

• Meet with your local agency manager or the Executive Directors of MPOs in your area to 

find out what funding is available locally for safety projects. For instance, there may be a 

Vision Zero program that has funding for pedestrian improvements. It is also a good idea 

to meet with that program manager to see where project and program implementation 

efforts match those in the LRSP. 

• Meet with the relevant personnel at the DOT who administers the HSIP funding. It may 

be the safety engineer, but it also may be someone else. Ask the safety engineer who to 

contact and meet with them to discuss available funding. While HSIP will most likely be 

the major source of funding, there may be Federal and State funding that can be used. 

Familiarize yourself with these funding streams and learn what requirements are involved. 

• Review the current list of capital improvement projects to determine where recommendations from the LRSP overlap with future planned projects and determine if it is possible 

to include the projects within the existing funding or whether budgets can be increased or 

modified to include the recommended safety improvements.
Steps for Successful Implementation

20

• Determine whether it is possible to fund portions of 

the LRSP through public/private partnerships. These 

partnerships have been utilized on the State and local 

level. Check with the head of your public works or 

transportation department, county or city manager, or 

State DOT safety engineer to determine whether this 

is something to pursue. 

Being informed about available funding is not a one-time 

activity. As implementation of the LRSP moves forward it 

will be necessary to keep up to date on funding opportunities so there is no break in programs and projects getting 

off the ground. 

STEP 3 – IDENTIFY AND 

PRIORITIZE PROJECTS

Identification of LRSP projects usually takes place during the LRSP development. However, 

there may be a need to further identify projects during implementation which can be done 

through network screening and the systemic safety analysis process. Since funding and 

resources for implementation of LRSP projects is often limited, it is necessary to prioritize 

those efforts. Project prioritization makes implementation easier and helps localities determine what to submit during funding cycles. Determining what to implement is also a good 

opportunity to involve other stakeholders who have a unique perspective on traffic safety. 

Project prioritization is integral for effective LRSP implementation given the complexity of the 

data and limited staff and financial resources in many local jurisdictions. It may not be possible 

to implement every safety solution, so agencies need to prioritize projects to effectively 

improve safety. There are a variety of ways that projects can be identified and prioritized:

• Network screening.

• Systemic safety analysis process.

• Data analysis.

• Benefit-cost analysis.

• Cross-jurisdictional ownership.

• Link with priorities in other plans. 

• Other approaches (piggy back on planned projects or policy/political reasons).

Methods of Project Identification 

NETWORK SCREENING

A network screening process is used to identify sites for further investigation and potential treatment. The intent of the process is to identify sites expected to benefit the most 

from targeted, cost-effective treatments. Two approaches to network screening are general 

Photo courtesy of Brian Keierleber, 

Buchanan County, IA. 
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

21

utilized: a crash-based approach and a systemic approach. When using a systemic safety 

analysis process to complete network screening, site-specific geometric and operational attributes sites are used to select and treat sites.

Arizona DOT used a network screening process to identify the top 5 or 10 locations in each 

of their counties. The counties reviewed that information and decided where to implement 

projects from their plan. Prioritization was as simple as identifying the low hanging fruit first or 

projects that were easy to complete such as striping, signage and fixing sight distance issues. 

In fact, many LRSPs identified and implemented mainly low-cost safety improvements, (e.g., 

rumble strips, tree removal, signage improvements) because it enabled them to get projects 

implemented quickly and show how the improvements made a difference in safety. 

St. Louis County, MN identified the three crash types that produced the most fatalities and 

serious injuries and then implemented the solutions. This allowed the county to see quick 

results and report success back to the county board. 

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS PROCESS

The systemic approach to safety involves improvements that are widely implemented based 

on high-risk roadway features correlated with particular severe crash types. The key to the 

systemic approach is evaluating an entire system using a defined set of criteria, which results 

in an inferred prioritization that indicates some elements of the system are better candidates 

for safety investment than others.

The system-based approach acknowledges that crashes alone are not always sufficient 

to establish an implementation prioritization of countermeasures across a system. This is 

particularly true for many local and/or rural streets and highways with low volumes where 

crash densities tend to be extremely low and there are few high crash locations, and for 

crashes in urban areas where vehicles interact with vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcycles).

Determining the right projects that would yield results at the local level was a key concern of 

the Washington State DOT. The DOT was highly supportive of the LRSP process but wanted 

to ensure counties in the State had enough knowledge and information to select and implement cost-effective projects. The DOT provided each county with crash statistics, conducted 

training on the systemic safety analysis process and a workshop on project prioritization. 

Cowlitz County, WA, one of the first counties in the State to develop a LRSP, developed a list 

of prioritized projects based on the crash data and information gained through the workshop 

and training. They also provided an estimated cost for each project. This list was submitted to 

the DOT and the DOT made the final decision on what was implemented in the county.
Steps for Successful Implementation

22

Methods of Project Prioritization

Local agencies should consider the HSIP or other funding application processes prior to determining how projects are prioritized. The following sections describe how different agencies 

have prioritized projects in LRSPs.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis is not only used to identify project locations and appropriate countermeasures 

during the development of the LRSP, but it can also be used as a way to prioritize projects. 

Minnesota LRSPs included a list of prioritized projects using data to determine what projects 

would address the most severe crash types and locations with high-risk roadway features. 

Butler County, KS used data to identify high-profile intersections where there was a crash 

history. The fact that these locations scored the highest in the plan provided the confidence 

that these were the right places for a higher type of intersection control (flashing LED beacons 

on stop signs, advanced intersection warning signage). 

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

According to the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), “benefit-cost analysis compares all the benefits associated with a countermeasure (e.g., crash reduction,), expressed in monetary terms, 

to the cost of implementing the countermeasure. A benefit-cost analysis provides a quantitative measure to help safety professionals prioritize countermeasures or projects and optimize 

the return on investment.”9

The Caltrans HSIP application requires projects to have a high benefit-cost ratio to be competitive in the application process. As such, projects are prioritized in SSARP based on benefit-cost 

analysis to be competitive for funding.

CROSS JURISDICTIONAL OWNERSHIP

One problem that can arise in implementation is cross-jurisdictional ownership. This usually 

occurs at an intersection where one roadway is owned by the local agency and the other by 

the State. While the LRSP may have made safety improvements at the intersection a priority, it 

may not be a priority for the State. 

In Minnesota, several intersections were owned by both State and local agencies making it 

difficult to coordinate improvements when the two entities had different needs and priorities. 

The solution was to work with the State DOT to provide reasons why the local recommended 

improvement should be made such as addressing a high crash location for the local area. 

9 January 2010. Highway Safety Manual, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-09-029, Washington, DC, Section 4.2, 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec4.cfm.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

23

LINK WITH PRIORITIES IN OTHER PLANS 

There may be other plans that have prioritized projects. The State’s SHSP will have identified 

specific emphasis areas that the data show are the most serious traffic safety problems. In 

some cases, the SHSP may have prioritized projects and programs in each emphasis area 

which can help guide what could be prioritized in the LRSP. 

In Louisiana, the nine regional safety plans use the State SHSP as a guide when they develop 

and implement their plans. In Northeast Ohio, the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating 

Agency (NOACA) has a plan called “SAVE: NOACA’s Plan for Transportation Safety (SAVE 

Plan),” which acts as the strategic plan for roadway safety in the five county Northeast region. 

A prioritized list of projects is included and the plan connects with other transportation plans 

including Safe Routes to Schools. 

OTHER APPROACHES 

The FHWA HSIP Manual includes “other considerations” for project prioritization which include 

the ability to piggyback on already planned projects such as repaving, project readiness, and 

in some cases, there may be a policy or political reason to prioritize a location. 

King County, WA uses crash frequency as a minimum threshold to create a list of candidate 

locations with point density analysis or heat maps on their GIS system. Locations are then 

selected based on high crash rates. In the field at each site, county personnel review signing, 

markings, operations, and evidence of vehicle collisions (tire rubs on curbs, vehicle debris, 

damaged fixed objects, broken curb, etc.). Radar is also used to evaluate travel speed. The 

county then determines if there is a common crash pattern to see if the problem can benefit 

from an engineering solution. 

Arizona DOT used road safety audits (RSAs) to identify two projects which they combined. 

For more systemic plans, projects are implemented in those locations with the highest “star” 

ranking or those that have the highest risk factor score. 

The Michigan DOT educates individuals who manage the regional plans in the State on what 

to look for when identifying systemic safety locations and to prioritize those projects based on 

the risk factors identified for the State. 
Steps for Successful Implementation

24

Step 3 Recommendations 

Following are recommendations that will help identify and 

prioritize projects in the LRSP. 

• Utilize the appropriate methods to identify projects 

including network screening and systemic safety 

analysis. These methods can be used individually or in 

combination which will ensure an examination of the 

whole local road system. 

• Refer to the data to identify what projects would 

address the most serious traffic safety problems. 

• Use other methods to determine the advantages of 

implementing one project over another such as benefit-cost analysis and select those that have a higher 

benefit (crash reduction) in relation to the cost of implementation. 

• Have a clear understanding of the funding requirements to prioritize their projects and 

position them for successful funding applications.

• Determine if project prioritization has already been accomplished in other safety plans 

including the SHSP. 

STEP 4 – DELIVER PROJECTS

After a project has secured all the necessary funding, the next step in implementing a LRSP 

project is project delivery. These are the steps where a locality or State takes a project from 

concept to completion, and then determines the impact. It is also where all requirements, 

particularly for Federally funded projects, are identified. Often the project delivery process 

for LRSP projects takes time and patience. For Otter Tail, MN it took years to go from the idea 

to develop a LRSP to realizing the safety benefits after implementation. It is important to 

commit to being in the process for the long haul. Many localities start with the low hanging 

fruit and low-cost safety improvements. This can lead to some quick results, which can be 

helpful early in the implementation process. While implementing low-cost improvements 

initially is a good approach, individuals who have implemented a LRSP recommend balancing 

those improvements with more costly projects. This can be especially important after there 

has been several years of LRSP implementation. 

Several States have offered support to local agencies with respect to design services and 

design build assistance to aid in implementation. Other locations have utilized project 

bundling or incorporation of safety projects into on-going maintenance efforts to implement 

the projects in their LRSPs.

Design

While some local agencies have staff and resources to design recommended improvements 

from their LRSP in-house or with consultants, other agencies lack the resources to prepare 

design documents. 

Photo courtesy of Molly O’Brien, 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

25

The Minnesota DOT felt it would be difficult for each county in the State to implement the 

improvements identified in their LRSP without outside help, so the DOT provided preliminary engineering assistance from an outside contractor to counties who requested help in implementation.

To get projects off the ground and implemented, the South Jersey Transportation Planning 

Organization (SJTPO) offered final design assistance and served as project managers for consultant-led design services after selecting and approving projects for the local safety program. 

Applicants could request assistance by checking a box as part of their HSIP application. The North 

Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) also provided design assistance and support for 

the construction authorization process in their local safety program.10

Design Build

Design-build is when a locality or State will design and build a project concurrently, which 

consolidates the process. While this approach can be more economical and get the project 

constructed faster, it can be challenging for a locality that may not have the personnel to 

manage this task. 

Florida DOT’s District 7, in collaboration with FHWA Florida Division, developed a Design-Build 

Push Button framework that allowed the local agencies to request the use of a contractor to 

install preapproved safety measures. The contractor expedited the construction of simple or 

low-cost safety improvement projects and reduced the potential fatalities or serious injuries 

during the implementation period.11

Project Bundling

One approach that can lessen the financial and management burden for local agencies is 

project bundling. Project bundling can occur in several different ways: multiple projects of 

the same type within one agency can be bundled together or multiple agencies can bundle 

projects together. Project bundling is a way for multiple local agencies or the State and a local 

agency to come together and implement similar projects on roadways across multiple jurisdictions. For instance, a jurisdiction could make their project part of a larger State effort such 

as a pavement marking or rumble strip installation. 

Keokuk County, IA used project bundling to complete multiple projects that were similar in 

nature and near each other. These were mainly low-cost safety improvements such as clearing 

and grubbing the clear zone, wider edge lines, and rumble strips. Lee County in Iowa utilized 

their top 10 scoring intersections identified in their LRSP, based on a risk factor ranking, and 

bundled them together as one project.

10 North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Engineering Assistance, https://www.njtpa.org/Projects-Programs/LocalPrograms/Engineering-Assistance.aspx.

11 2013. FHWA Safety, Design-Build Push Button Contract Significantly Reduces the Time It Takes to Implement Safety 

Improvements – Florida, 2013; https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/html/localrural_fl2.aspx?id=97.
Steps for Successful Implementation

26

In Minnesota, adjacent counties partnered to submit projects across their roadway network. 

St. Louis County, MN used project bundling to reduce unit costs, which provided treatment for 

more miles of roadways at a lesser cost. The Minnesota DOT recently received an application 

that included implementation of destination lighting at 300 intersections. Usually the agency 

with more experience and the agency that can handle the cash flow and engineering takes 

the lead on implementation, making it easier for localities without the same resources or 

confidence to implement the project. The Minnesota DOT is receiving one to two applications 

including project bundling each year. 

San Diego, CA is completing a project where they bundled 60 to 70 intersections together to 

implement leading pedestrian intervals as a result of the SSARP.

On-Going Maintenance

On-going maintenance can be utilized for project implementation. Maintenance crews generally possess detailed knowledge of every section of the local agency’s roads, including current 

problem areas and those likely to be problematic in the future. While maintenance crews have 

an extensive knowledge of the agency’s system, there sometimes might not be a clear line 

of communication between engineering and maintenance. A LRSP can provide an avenue for 

open dialog between the county engineer and maintenance staff and can lead to implementation of safety projects. 

Projects can be implemented by integrating them with resurfacing, restoration, and preservation efforts. As noted in the publication “Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing 

and Restoration Projects,” State and local transportation agencies have ongoing programs 

to improve safety and preserve the serviceability of pavement surfaces. Integrating safety 

improvements into resurfacing is a resource-efficient method of pursuing infrastructure and 

safety goals.12

In Keokuk County, IA, individuals leading the LRSP got the maintenance staff involved in 

the implementation process by selecting projects that could be completed through regular 

maintenance. The LRSP provided an opportunity to talk to maintenance staff about the 

recommendations and how a lot of what they are already doing is for safety. Maintenance 

staff can also use the opportunity to talk about areas of concern that they have within the 

county and discuss potential safety improvements. 

One of the recommendations in the Otter Tail County, MN safety plan was increasing the 

edgeline to a 6-inch edgeline. A 6-inch wide edge line is now standard practice for all on-going 

striping projects. In addition, Safety Edge is being implemented as part of all paving contracts. 

None of this would have been possible without maintenance support. 

12 December 2006. Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects, Federal Highway 

Administration, FHWA-SA-07-001, Washington, DC, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/strat_approach/fhwasa07001/
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

27

Other Project Delivery Methods

Other project delivery methods that have been successfully utilized for implementation include: 

• The State DOT completes projects identified in the LRSPs that intersect with State roadways so local agencies and Tribal governments do not have to implement them (North 

Dakota).

• The local public agency delivers a project using force accounts (Mississippi).

• State DOT funds the replacement of signs that are damaged, worn out, obsolete or 

substandard (Iowa).

Step 4 Recommendations

There are several creative ways that LRSP 

projects can be implemented through 

different project delivery methods 

including the following:

• State DOTs assist local agencies with 

design help (either in-house or from 

consultants) or by offering design build 

assistance to aid in a more streamlined 

way to implement projects. 

• Project bundling is an innovative way 

to implement projects from the LRSPs. Some agencies bundle similar projects or projects 

near each other, while other agencies have bundled projects across multiple jurisdictions. 

• On-going maintenance is utilized for completing projects and recommendations that can 

be completed as part of routine maintenance projects. 

Agencies should also consider the project delivery methods identified to aid with implementation of their LRSPs. 

STEP 5 – EVALUATE IMPLEMENTATION

Outcome and Output Evaluation 

It would be difficult to determine if funds were invested in the right projects at the right places 

without evaluating the effectiveness of safety projects after completion. Data is used to track 

the effectiveness and to monitor progress in implementing the LRSP. For example, a plan may 

have established specific fatality and serious injury objectives and data are used to determine 

whether those objectives are being met. In this instance, the objective may be to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries by two percent per year during the life of the LRSP. Data is then 

used to compare the objectives to the actual numbers. If objectives are not in the LRSP, data 

can also be used to determine progress and whether there has been reductions in crashes. 

It usually takes some time for the impact of engineering and behavioral improvements to 

Photo courtesy of Getty Images. 
Steps for Successful Implementation

28

have an impact but when viewed over a period of several years, trends can show whether 

reductions in fatalities or serious injuries have occurred after the implementation of the plan 

started. This information can then be used to educate State and local officials as well as the 

public on the value of the LRSP and how it is making a difference. This return on investment is 

important to local elected and agency officials.

Existing conditions data analysis and collection happens during the LRSP development 

process. However, a lack of comprehensive local road crash data along with an inability to 

adequately analyze that data make it difficult for localities to evaluate the effectiveness of 

projects implemented as part of their LRSP. For most localities, this could involve project-level 

evaluation using a simple before-after analysis. Before implementing a project, agencies 

obtain data on the crash problem (usually fatalities and serious injuries) and after the project 

is implemented, they collect data again to determine if there was an impact on the safety 

problem. This simple before-after analysis can help the jurisdiction determine the crash modification factors for the identified location. 

King County, WA uses a benefit-cost analysis to determine the effectiveness of the LRSP 

projects. During development, projects were identified based on crash rate history. The county 

publishes a report every four years, with a two-year supplement in between that matches the 

county budget cycle to show progress. 

There are other ways to evaluate the success of the LRSP effort. Iowa DOT believes one of 

their accomplishments is the number of counties that are implementing elements of their 

LRSP as part of their daily business. The DOT feels this makes the plan worthwhile because the 

county has taken the initiative to implement best practices and safety improvements as part 

of their future projects and on-going maintenance. 

In Minnesota, the DOT has defined success as the 85-90 percent of the counties that have implemented a project from the LRSP. The DOT receives over 100 applications for funding each year. 

Process Evaluation 

Evaluation can also identify potential opportunities and inform future decision making, which 

can lead to process changes. Local agencies respond to citizen complaints, but it is important 

to have data on hand to show that what the agency is implementing will have a lasting and 

beneficial impact on safety. A citizen might complain about a “dangerous” intersection, but an 

examination of the data could reveal the location was not an issue from a crash perspective. 
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

29

Step 5 Recommendations

Conducting an evaluation on projects after they are implemented can be valuable to 

educate and obtain support from the community for implementation of future projects. 

Additionally, the evaluation results can help agencies determine what types of projects to 

focus on for future efforts. 

• Update the Plan: As conditions in a county or region change, it will be necessary to 

change the LRSP. In Minnesota, several counties are already looking to revise their plans 

because they have implemented most projects. Establishing a regular update process may 

be worthwhile. The average number for most other safety plans is five years. 

• Identify Metrics: There should be some way to measure the impact of the LRSP. 

Reductions in fatalities and serious injuries are the major metric that indicates whether the 

plan is successful, but there may be other ways to determine success. Identifying output 

measures, for instance, that indicate the level of activity such as the miles of rumbled strips 

installed or the number of curves that have been modified are ways to show progress. 

• Expand stakeholders: It will always be necessary to update the stakeholders who are 

involved in the LRSP. In addition to replacing stakeholders who have retired or moved to 

other jobs, look to include people who have not been involved previously. For instance, 

it may be a good idea to involve law enforcement or representatives from the SHSO as 

implementation moves forward.13

STEP 6 – CONTINUE COMMUNICATION 

AND COORDINATION

Implementation requires greater emphasis on 

marketing and communication to keep interest 

in the LRSP active and alive. This activity can be 

regular email communications updating officials 

on the progress on implementation or a more 

formal newsletter that highlights progress on 

implementation. 

Coordination with DOT 

and LTAP

Marketing and outreach should occur throughout 

LRSP development and implementation process. 

However, it was apparent from the research that 

several localities are expanding their efforts and 

reaching out more often to their partners. Often 

localities that have developed and are now implementing LRSPs have close working relationships 

with the DOT and the LTAP. 

13 Practical Tips & Tools for Developing a Local Road Safety Plan, National Center on Rural Road Safety, Winter 2019.

Marketing Ideas

Market the benefits of the plan 

and its implementation. 

Inform people how data-driven 

analysis is used to target the 

right locations.

Use data to highlight how the 

plan is improving safety. 

Let people know how funding is 

allocated to support projects like 

wider shoulders and rumble strips. 

Revisit the LRSP’s vision 

and mission. 
Steps for Successful Implementation

30

In North Dakota, the LTAP advised local agencies on available funding and provided roadway 

safety training to help with implementation. In Louisiana, the LTAP assisted with the road 

safety assessments and provided technical assistance to identify and implement infrastructure 

improvement projects.14

In Wisconsin the LTAP provided technical support to local agencies on project applications, 

coordinated data collection and analysis, and helped local agencies make informed decision 

about safety projects. In Michigan, the LTAP provided free technical support in coordinating 

safety projects with the State.15

Outreach to Other Stakeholders

Several localities are looking to other stakeholders such as law enforcement and behavioral 

highway safety specialists to broaden implementation of the LRSP by bringing in different 

perspectives on highway safety problems. Examples of this different perspective can be information on what law enforcement sees as they travel the roadways or what they have found 

when investigating a crash. Behavioral safety specialists may have ideas on how the LRSP can 

help change the safety culture in the locality or region by also focusing on road user behavior 

issues. Data analysis completed as part of development of the LRSP will reveal trends in 

crashes related to driver behavior. In addition to specific behavioral countermeasures such as 

law enforcement, engineering improvements can also help change behavior, such as installing 

rumble strips to help drivers stay focused, and engineering can reduce the severity of a crash 

when it happens, i.e., removing trees and other obstacles. 

Champaign County, OH used a unique way to reach out to stakeholders called the 

C-H-A-R-M process: 

C – Communicate with phone, emails, announcements; follow-up with thank you and outcomes.

H – Help, ask for it.

A – Activist – actively participate and volunteer for other groups.

R – Relationships – know who you are talking to and make a connection with them.

M – Motivate – make it personal.

14 2013. FHWA Safety, Louisiana DOTD and LTAP Partnership Improves Local Agencies’ Capabilities to Develop Regional Safety 

Plans, Access Funding, and Implement Safety Improvements, 2013; https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/html/

localrural_la.aspx?id=146.

15 August 2016. FHWA Roadway Safety Professional Capacity Building program, Local Road Safety Data Analysis Approaches Peer 

Exchange, August 2016; https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/p2p_reports/peer_report_WA_Aug2016.pdf.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

31

Champaign County also had some good tips in dealing with stakeholders including to set a 

schedule and keep it; capture progress and distribute it; ask for feedback, but be targeted about 

what is needed; and ask how things can be improved or what else can be done. Their LRSP only 

included infrastructure projects due to budget limitations, but they are now looking to reach 

out and make an impact on drunk drivers and young drivers. The county engineer, who led the 

development of the LRSP, will be contacting the local sheriff and school personnel.

Chemung County, NY identified potential stakeholders across twenty different professional 

areas to serve as an advisory group to their LRSP. The county also took advantage of every 

opportunity to speak in front of New York State assembly members who were champions for 

critical infrastructure and other transportation projects. 

Clackamas County, OR worked with their Safe Communities Coalition, which brought people 

together to talk about common goals. It provided support for the infrastructure projects in the 

plan and identified behavioral programs, which helped the county implement their LRSP. The 

county now has a shared initiative with the Health Department through a health and transportation planner. It has generated a broader understanding of a safe systems approach, which 

differs from conventional safety practice by improving safety through environmental changes 

rather than relying solely on behavior. It also addresses risk with a comprehensive range of 

tools including vehicles, roadways, speeds, and behavior. 

Safe systems are designed to anticipate human behavior and accommodate errors by drivers 

and other road users. For example, a safe systems approach recognizes that distraction may 

prevent a driver from seeing a pedestrian or vice versa. Separating pedestrians from traffic 

when possible prevents predictable errors leading to death or serious injury. Safe systems are 

also designed to reduce or eliminate opportunities for crashes that result in forces beyond 

human endurance. An example would be a crosswalk where pedestrians and vehicles occupy 

the same space. Reducing speed limits or changing the road design can prevent crashes. The 

effort is proactively changing the culture. 

Washington State DOT is currently working with the SHSO to look for additional partners for 

the LRSP implementation, which is helping turn the current engineering-focused plans into 

something more comprehensive. 

In Minnesota, some of the county plans work with Regional Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) coordinators who aid in marketing efforts. Many counties in the State reached out to Safe Communities 

programs. In Otter Tail County, MN, for instance, the sheriff was the champion of the Safe 

Communities program and emergency medical services (EMS) were at the table from the beginning. This started a review of all fatalities in the county, including State roads, that is still ongoing. 
Steps for Successful Implementation

32

Step 6 Recommendations 

To keep communication going and the LRSP at the 

forefront and ensure greater coordination consider the 

following: 

• Ensure everyone is on board, and all stakeholders 

are accounted for including representation from the 

4Es of safety – engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency medical services.

• Message across communication channels and 

programs so all available communication channels 

are used to promote the safety message (e.g., 

news, social media, television, industry associations, and videos). 

• Meet with elected officials and attend committee and board meetings and workshops; 

prepare hot topic memos on emerging safety issues (e.g., pedestrian fatalities, and intersection crashes).

• Host conferences/webinars to keep a focus/awareness on local road safety

» Minnesota TZD meetings includes representatives from the 4Es.

» The Arizona Safety Summit includes a focus on rural transportation. 

• Develop a newsletter or e-newsletter or memorandum that can be sent to all stakeholders 

updating them on implementation progress. This can include a description of projects 

that have started along with photos whenever possible, information on changes in traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries in the jurisdiction, or even extraordinary safety efforts by 4E 

partners such as a local police officer who had an outstanding arrest record for impaired 

drivers. The county public information officer may be willing to help set up the newsletter 

and even aid in compilation and distribution. 

• Request and conduct regular presentations on the LRSP to the county, city, or regional 

board or council. These presentations can describe projects being implemented, provide 

any results when available, or information on new crash or safety trends. For instance, 

agencies may want to report on any increases in fatalities or serious injuries such as a 

spike in pedestrian fatalities and injuries. 

• Post photographs, graphs or charts on the jurisdiction’s web site or Facebook page. These 

can be photographs of the safety projects being started or updated fatality and serious 

injury charts.

• When you learn that a project may generate public opposition or criticism, it may be a 

good idea to schedule a meeting with the chair of your board or council and send follow up 

written documentation to let them know what you are doing, why it is important to improve 

safety, and why it may generate criticism. It is also important to engage the public and 

educate them about the benefits of safety solutions. 

Photo of 2018 LRSP workshop at Wisconsin 

Dells courtesy of FHWA. 
33

CHAPTER 4

Photo courtesy of Getty Images.

CONCLUSION

LRSPs are one of the 20 FHWA proven safety countermeasures.16 LRSPs have been developed throughout the country at the county, city, Tribal, or regional level (State DOT district or 

region, MPO). While development of LRSPs is widespread, implementation of LRSPs has been 

challenging for some agencies. For LRSPs to be an effective countermeasure for reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries on local roads, they must be implemented. Following are some 

steps to consider for implementation: 

• Engage your 4E stakeholders: Stakeholders that were involved during the LRSP development process may have moved on once that process concluded. When starting 

implementation, it is a good idea to bring them back together and give them roles 

and responsibilities. For instance, form teams or groups to look at various aspects of 

implementation such as the progress getting projects implemented, assisting with 

communication functions, or promoting the plan to officials and the community. It may 

16 FHWA, Office of Safety, Proven Countermeasures, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/local_road/.
Conclusion

34

also be necessary, given staff turnover, to 

identify new people. Maintaining contact 

with stakeholders can help move the 

implementation process forward and 

provide LRSP managers with opportunities to get input on the plan and its 

progress. Do not forget to reach out to 

stakeholders who can help with behavior 

safety issues such as law enforcement, 

education, and emergency medical 

services. 

• Find a champion: A local, regional, or 

statewide champion who was involved in 

the development of the LRSP and supports implementation of the LRSP will make it easier 

to transition to implementation. This individual can be a member of the jurisdiction’s 

board, another elected official, or the jurisdiction’s engineer. 

• Identify funding mechanisms: In implementation, knowing what funding is available will 

help with both the project prioritization and project delivery. Funding may lend itself more 

to projects selected based on risk factor analysis, high crash locations, or a combination of 

both. 

• Prioritize projects: Overall project prioritization makes implementation easier and allows 

localities to prepare for the next funding cycle. When prioritizing projects refer to the data 

to make sure the project will address the appropriate safety problems in the area.

• Allocate appropriate resources: Depending on what projects are selected for implementation, it will be necessary to determine what manpower and management are needed to 

take the projects through the project delivery process from design to installation as well as 

evaluation once the project is complete and has been installed for a period of time. 

• Determine project development: When it comes to developing a project for implementation, determine if there are tools, such as a project sheet that mirrors the funding 

application, that would help with the process or whether a consultant or training could 

assist with filling out the application. 

• Undertake project delivery: There are a lot of creative ways that LRSP projects can be 

implemented through different project delivery methods. State DOTs should consider 

ways to assist local agencies through design help (either in-house or from consultants) or 

by offering design build assistance to aid in a more streamlined way to implement projects. Project bundling is also a creative way to implement projects from the LRSPs. Some 

agencies bundle similar projects or projects near each other, while other agencies have 

bundled projects across multiple jurisdictions. On-going maintenance is another method 

for completing projects and recommendations that can be completed as part of routine 

maintenance projects. Agencies should consider some of the project delivery methods 

identified within this section to aid with implementation of their LRSPs.

Photo courtesy of Neil Hetherington WTI-MSU.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

35

• Conduct evaluation: Conducting an evaluation on projects after they are implemented 

can be valuable to educate and obtain support from the community for implementation 

of future projects. Additionally, the evaluation results can help agencies determine what 

types of projects to focus future implementation efforts.

• Continue communications and coordination: Marketing and communication on the LRSP 

should continue after the plan is completed. It is even more important to continually 

educate key elected and agency officials, colleagues, other stakeholders and the public 

about the value of the LRSP, the identified projects and how it is achieving positive results. 

A few ways to continue communication efforts including newsletters, web site postings, 

and presentations. Whatever vehicle is used to get the word out about LRSP implementation, it is a perfect opportunity to highlight how these plans get results. 

The development of a LRSP usually generates a good deal of interest, but it can be 

challenging to implement the strategies and 

projects identified within the LRSP. It involves 

gaining buy-in for the LRSP, finding the 

funding to implement projects, prioritizing 

projects based on available resources, implementing the projects and determining their 

effectiveness, and making sure key individuals and the public remain interested and 

committed to the goals of the plan. Photo courtesy of Getty Images.
CHAPTER 5

Photo credit: Neil Hetherington WTI-MSU

36

RESULTS OF 

IMPLEMENTATION

The following sections describe success stories that resulted from the successful implementation 

of a LRSP.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

37

THURSTON COUNTY, WA 

Scott Davis, former Thurston County Traffic Engineer 

Matt Enders, Technical Services Manager, Washington State Department of Transportation 

Since the Thurston County, WA LRSP 

was implemented, the county has seen a 

35% REDUCTION

in FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES

on horizontal curves.

This means there are approximately 20 to 30 fewer fatalities 

on local roads in the county. Crashes on horizontal curves 

made up approximately 50 percent of the fatalities in Thurston 

County and as a result of the LRSP, the total number of 

fatalities were reduced substantially. 

The LRSP also improved the safety culture of the Department 

of Public Works and ensured safety was more ingrained into planning, selection, and programming of projects. “It helped push our organization and staff to embrace new approaches to 

decision-making,” said Scott Davis who was the county traffic engineer in Thurston County 

when the LRSP was developed and then implemented. “Safety is now a bigger consideration 

in all projects,” said Matt Enders from Washington State DOT who oversaw the development 

of all LRSPs in the State. 

It has led to better planning processes. “There are now quite a few people who are 

committed to safety and involved in the plan,” Davis said. The plan also helped change the 

views of a new Public Works Director who initially did not think it was possible to reach 

a target zero on fatalities. After participating in the plan’s implementation, the director’s 

perspective changed. The LRSP lead to adoption of statewide goal of zero in the County’s 

Comprehensive Plan, incorporation of low-cost measures (e.g., rumble strips) into capital 

projects, roundabout policy, and using FHWA’s “Intersection Control Evaluation Framework” 

to identify optimal solutions for intersections. 

Scott Davis indicated the LRSP helped the county achieve a level of continuity. To successfully 

implement the plan, “you need more of an organizational approach rather an individual effort,” 

Davis said. “There are a lot of pieces [involved in implementation] and the plan allows safety 

to continue long after the original organizers are gone,” he said. 

When asked what would have happened in the county without the LRSP, both Davis and 

Enders indicated safety projects would have been done. “But we would not have looked at the 

issue as broadly,” said Davis. Previously the county focused more on hot spots and now uses 

the systemic approach to identify risk factors countywide. The Washington DOT was already 

moving counties in the direction of system-wide, low cost improvements before Thurston 

County started their safety plan. Now nearly all counties in the State have one. This has 

helped the State address safety issues in a larger context. For instance, problems along one 
Results of Implementation

38

corridor involved local roads owned by several counties. The LRSPs provided a way for the 

counties to come together to address the safety problem, said Enders. 

Involvement of stakeholders in the LRSP development and implementation processes led to 

some impressive changes. In one instance problems of speeding along a rural corridor could 

not be adequately addressed by law enforcement because there was no place for sheriff 

deputies to pull off road. One of the strategies for rural roads was to provide law enforcement 

pull-outs. In another instance stakeholder involvement spawned a multi-agency study looking 

at an 8-mile urban corridor.

Safety is important to the people in Thurston County, said Davis. “People want to feel safe 

and the LRSP helps meet community needs by taking safety and making it more prominent in 

the decision-making process,” he said. 

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MN

Victor Lund, PE, St. Louis County Traffic Engineer 

Minnesota began development of LRSPs in 2010. Most counties started deploying low-cost, 

proactive safety improvements in 2012. Vic Lund, traffic engineer with St. Louis County, MN 

reported that:

 “When you look at the results of what is happening with all the counties in 

Minnesota who developed and then implemented a LRSP, there was a 

35% REDUCTION

in the FATALITY RATE ON THE STATEWIDE COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM

between 2012 and 2017.” 

For the State highway system, during the same period, he reported, the fatality rate stayed 

even. So, over the last six or seven years, the reduction in fatalities and the fatality rate in 

Minnesota occurred primarily on the county road system. Counties in Minnesota have, by and 

large, taken their LRSPs to heart. Lund reported there were some counties that were not on 

board with doing a LRSP at first, but who, in the last couple of years, have come around and 

supported the concept. 

“When you look at fatal crashes on just the 

county road system in St. Louis County 

going back to 2005/2006, there was an 

average of about 10 fatal crashes per year. 

Since the time of systemically getting safety 

projects out onto the road, the county road 

system has experienced two separate years 

with the lowest number of fatal crashes 

in the last 20 years,” he said. Historically 

for county roads in St. Louis County, most 

serious injury crashes were single vehicles 

that ran off the road. In 2019, Lund indicated 

the county will probably end up with four 

Graph courtesy of Minnesota DOT.
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

39

fatal crashes, but only one of them will be a single vehicle, run-off-the-road crash, which had 

previously been the major cause of fatalities. The other fatal crashes involved motorcyclists 

and a truck/train crash. 

Another outcome of implementing the LRSP has been how St. Louis County incorporated 

safety into design. For example, St. Louis County previously used only a 4-inch-wide edgeline 

whereas all projects on county State aid routes now receive a standard 6-inch wide edgeline. Another example is where St. Louis County now paves the shoulder if allowed by the 

cross-section and installs shoulder rumble strips on the new paved shoulder. “Rather than me 

pushing for the change, our construction people are incorporating these key safety strategies 

into their projects on their own,” he said. The improvement has been institutionalized and is 

probably one of the reasons why there has been a reduction in run-off the road crashes. 

Lund reported he keeps his county board members up to date on what is happening with the 

LRSP. Typically, twice a year the St. Louis County Board hosts a “Transportation Day” workshop where the various divisions within the Public Works Department come and talk about 

their programs and projects. “As the traffic engineer, I get a half-hour to talk about traffic and 

safety and can report on our success with the LRSP. This is key to maintaining that close relationship with our elected officials thereby gaining and maintaining their political support.” 

When asked about the first step that St. Louis County did when implementing their LRSP, 

Lund indicated that they looked at their serious crashes and identified run-off-the road 

crashes as the largest percentage of total serious crashes on the county road system. “We 

invested millions of dollars in deploying safety strategies that addressed run-off-the-road 

crashes by putting in shoulder rumble strips, chevron signs on curves, 6-inch-wide edgelines 

and other low cost, pro-active improvements,” Lund said. St. Louis County has effectively 

completed all the low-cost, “low hanging fruit” type projects and now they are going back 

and doubling down on those safety improvements at the highest risk locations by completing 

projects such as high friction surface treatments (HFST) on curves, reconstructing intersections located within a curve, installing left-turn lanes major through routes and constructing 

innovative intersections such as reduced conflict intersections. 

“For me, I look at this like an apple tree. In the beginning you just pick the apples you can 

reach. These represent those low-cost projects that are relatively easy and quick to implement. For the next go round, you have put forth a little more effort and get a ladder out so 

you can reach apples in the middle area of the tree. This represents those medium cost type 

projects such as HFST. And finally, you must climb out of the ladder onto the tree and work 

your way to the top of the tree reaching for the last fruit. This represents those high cost projects such as constructing roundabouts and reduced conflict intersections,” Lund said. That is 

what we are doing now with our LRSP. “Our recommendation is to implement the low-cost 

first and then go for the costlier improvements next,” he said. He said by doing this you will 

likely have the best opportunity to realize significant reductions in fatalities and serious injuries early on. 
Photo courtesy of Getty Images. 

40

APPENDIX

RESOURCES 

FHWA has a number of resources on its website related to the development and implementation of LRSPs including: 

Countermeasures That Work is a basic reference to assist SHSOs in selecting effective, 

evidence-based countermeasures for nine traffic safety problem areas.

Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners, FHWA, provides guidance on 

the development of LRSPs. 

Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects, FHWA, 

provides information on institutional practices that integrate safety into resurfacing and restoration projects. 

Highway Safety Grant Programs, provides additional information on behavioral safety funding 

available from NHTSA. 
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

41

Highway Safety Improvement Program, FHWA, is a core Federal-aid program to achieve a 

significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

Highway Safety Manual, is the guidance document for incorporating quantitative safety analysis in the highway transportation project planning and development processes.

Highway Statistics, 2018, FHWA, is an annual report that contains analyzed statistical information on motor fuel, motor vehicle registrations, driver licenses, highway user taxation, 

highway mileage, travel, and highway finance. 

Local Agency Funding Guide for the Off-System Roadway, Florida DOT, District 7, provides 

targeted information on roadway safety, and a step-by-step process to assess and improve 

the safety of the local road networks.

Local Roadway Safety A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Caltrans, is designed to 

help maximize the safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to 

identify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively in 

call-for-projects. 

Network Screening is the process of studying safety conditions on all of a road network or 

a subset of the network using the same method at each location so that the results can be 

compared and prioritized. Other information on network screening is available in the HSIP 

Manual and a Network Screening Quick Start Guide. 

Proven Countermeasures, FHWA, is a list of 20 treatments and strategies that practitioners 

can implement to successfully address roadway departure, intersection, pedestrian and 

bicycle crashes. 

Rural/Urban Comparison of Traffic Fatalities, Traffic Safety Facts, NHTSA, is an annual report 

that presents descriptive statistics about traffic crashes of all severities in rural and urban 

areas. 

State Highway Safety Offices, is a listing of each state’s Highway Safety Office. 

Systemic Approach to Safety involves widely implemented improvements based on high-risk 

roadway features correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transportation Alternatives Program, FHWA, are set-aside funds for projects related pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community 

improvements, historic preservation, vegetation management, and environmental mitigation. 

Tribal Safety Plans, provides links to Transportation Safety Plans developed by Tribal 

Governments to share these Transportation Safety Plans.
Appendix

42

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

Information for this report was gathered from the following sources:

• A review of information from a variety of search engines and web sites including: 

» FHWA Office of Safety website, Local and Rural Road Safety Program:17

– Includes general information on HSIP, which provides funding to implement many 

of the infrastructure projects in the LRSP.

– Videos and brochures on the important role local elected officials play in improving 

road safety particularly in approving funding to implement projects in the LRSP, 

and tips to local agency practitioners about how to talk about road safety with 

local elected officials.

– “Assessment of Local Road Safety Funding, Training and Technical Assistance” 

report which summarizes State DOT practices for delivering funding and resources 

to local entities for road safety improvement projects.18

– Information on how to implement a safety management system (SMS) at the local 

level. SMS provides tools and information to help decision makers and those who 

manage and maintain local roadways identify, prioritize, correct, and evaluate the 

performance of their transportation safety investments. 

– Manuals for Local Rural Road Owners that provide information on implementation 

approaches, safety analysis, and countermeasures for intersections and roadway 

departure.

– Manual on Roadway Safety Information Analysis that includes information and 

case studies on crash data collection and analysis, and countermeasure selection.

– Manual on Speed Management including identifying countermeasures (e.g., 

engineering, enforcement, and education), and implementing countermeasures 

including preparing for implementation, i.e., support, prioritization, funding, and 

evaluation.

– Manual on Non-Motorized User Safety including selecting, implementing, and 

evaluating countermeasures. 

– Briefing sheets on local and rural road safety including applying the systemic 

approach on local roads, information on crash modification factors (CMFs) and 

how they can be used to evaluate the impact of improvements on fatalities and 

serious injuries, how implementing low-cost ITS applications can improve safety 

on local and rural roads, the safety needs and treatments of unpaved roads, and 

how to make local and rural roads safer for pedestrians and bicycles. 

17 FHWA Office of Safety, Local and Rural Road Safety Program, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/.

18 FHWA, Office of Safety, Assessment of Local Road Safety Funding, Training and Technical Assistance (https://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa13029/).
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

43

– “Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads, A Domestic Scan” 

includes information from seven States on how they were improving safety on 

their local roads. The report provides several noteworthy examples.19

» FHWA Office of Safety Noteworthy Practices database,20 including: 

– Safety Summit Yields Tenfold Increase in Number of Safety Applications Submitted 

by Local Agencies, 2013. 

– Highway Safety Improvement Program: Local Roads Safety Policy Peer Exchange, 

November 2016.

– Overcoming Limited Data to Identify High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Projects, 2018.

– Caltrans Uses Local Road Safety Manual to Improve its Data-driven Approach to 

Statewide Safety Project Selection, 2013.

– Ohio DOT’s GCAT (GIS (Geographic Information System) Crash Analysis Tool) 

Helps Local Roadway Agencies Justify Funding Requests for Road Safety 

Improvement, 2013.

– Local Road Safety Data Analysis Approaches Peer Exchange, August 2016. 

– Washington State DOT Implements $26 Million in Local Roadway Safety 

Improvements through Local Agencies, 2015.

– Design-Build Push Button Contract Significantly Reduces the Time It Takes to 

Implement Safety Improvements, Florida, 2013.

– Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) and LTAP 

Partnership Improves Local Agencies’ Capabilities to Develop Regional Safety 

Plans, Access Funding, and Implement Safety Improvements, 2013.

– Overcoming Limited Data to Identify High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Projects, 2018. 

– Tennessee DOT Local Roads Safety Initiative Assists Counties Challenged by 

Limited Staff with Road Safety Improvements, 2013.

» Results from FHWA sponsored Local Road Safety Plan Implementation Peer Exchange, 

May 14-15, 2019, Bismarck, ND.

» Transportation Research Board’s online search engine, TRIS (Transportation Research 

Information Services).21

» National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) relevant research.22

19 FHWA, Office of Safety, Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads, A Domestic Scan, https://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10027/ .

20 FHWA, Office of Safety, Noteworthy Practices Database, https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/default.aspx.

21 TRB, TRIS, https://trid.trb.org/.

22 TRB, NCHRP, http://www.trb.org/NCHRP/NCHRP.aspx.
Appendix

44

» Google search. 

• Input from State and local safety practitioners, including:

» State Department of Transportation (DOT) Officials.

» Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) representatives.

» County Engineers.

» Regional Coalitions.

» Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) representatives.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

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

July 2020

FHWA-SA-20-025

Background photo courtesy of Molly O’Brien, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.