Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 1

Safety Circuit Rider 

Programs

January 2009

FHWA-SA-09-019

Best 

Practices 

Guide
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.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices i

115

The contract manager for this report was Karen Timpone (FHWA Office of Safety). Dan Nabors (VHB) was the Principal 

Investigator. John Dewar (FHWA) reviewed the Guide and provided valuable feedback. Sandra Guerrero (VHB) along with

Michelle Scism (VHB) performed the document design and layout and Vicki Glenn provided editing.
ii

Acknowledgements

The project team gratefully acknowledges the contributions and insights provided by the 

following safety professionals and Safety Circuit Rider program staff:

• Arizona Safety Circuit Rider, Mike Blankenship.

• University of California, Berkeley and California LTAP Center, Laura Melendy.

• Connecticut LTAP Center, Donna Shea.

• Delaware Safety Circuit Rider, Alan Kercher.

• University of Delaware, Larry Klepner.

• Florida LTAP Center, Janet Degner, Nina Barker, Tiffany Wise, and Jaime Carreon.

• Florida Safety Circuit Riders, Larry Hagen, Gordon Burleson, and Ed Kant. 

• Idaho SCR Program, Bruce Drewes.

• Illinois Embedded Safety Specialist, Opus International, Nicole Thompson. 

• Iowa LTAP Center, Duane Smith. 

• Iowa Safety Circuit Rider, Tom McDonald.

• Kentucky Safety Circuit Rider, Lance Meredith. 

• Louisiana LTAP and National LTAP Association, Marie Walsh. 

• Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Cheri Marti.

• Nebraska LTAP Center, Daniel Cady.

• New Jersey LTAP Center, Janet Leli. 

• New York State LTAP, David Orr. 

• Northern Plains TTAP Center, Dennis Trusty. 

• Ohio Safety Circuit Rider Coordinator, Mike Fitch. 

• South Dakota LTAP Center, Ken Skorseth.

• Tennessee Safety Circuit Rider Coordinator, Matt Cate.

• Utah LTAP Director, Doyt Bolling.

• West Virginia LTAP, Kim Carr. 

• Wisconsin Safety Circuit Rider, Pete Rusch.

• Wisconsin Safety Circuit Rider Program, Steve Pudloski. 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1

1.1 About this Guide................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 2: PROGRAM ESSENTIALS........................................................................................5

2.1 Program Initiation.............................................................................................................. 5

2.1.1 Who Benefits from Safety Circuit Rider Programs?................................................ 5

2.1.2 Where to Find Support for the SCR Program..........................................................8

2.1.3 Program Initiation Case Studies..............................................................................9

2.2 Program Sustainability......................................................................................................14

2.2.1 Funding................................................................................................................. 14

2.2.2 Local Agency Structure......................................................................................... 18

2.2.3 Funding Case Studies............................................................................................ 19

2.2.4 Partnerships..........................................................................................................25

2.2.5 Identifying a Suitable SCR..................................................................................... 29

2.2.6 Part-Time versus Full-Time Safety Circuit Riders...................................................31

CHAPTER 3: PROGRAM ACTIVITIES....................................................................................... 33

3.1 Training.............................................................................................................................33

3.1.1. Training Case Studies............................................................................................ 35

3.2 Technology Transfer..........................................................................................................37

3.3 Technical Assistance.........................................................................................................38

3.3.1. Technical Assistance Case Studies.........................................................................39

3.4 Time Spent on Activities...................................................................................................43

3.5 Resources to Develop/Obtain Materials.......................................................................... 44

3.5.1. Reference Section................................................................................................. 44

3.5.2. Resource Materials Case Studies.......................................................................... 46

3.6 Agency Requests for SCR Activities.................................................................................. 48

3.6.1. Requesting SCR Activities Case Studies.................................................................48

3.7 Typical Audience...............................................................................................................50

CHAPTER 4: PROGRAM EVALUATION.................................................................................... 51

4.1 Anecdotal Evidence..........................................................................................................51

4.1.1 Anecdotal Evidence Case Studies..........................................................................51

4.2 Available Before-After Data..............................................................................................55

4.2.1 Before-After Kentucky Case Study.........................................................................55

4.3 Secondary Benefits of SCR Activities................................................................................55

4.3.1 Secondary Benefits West Virginia Case Study.......................................................56

4.4 Participant Feedback........................................................................................................57

4.4.1 Participant Feedback Case Studies....................................................................... 57
iv

CHAPTER 5: PROGRAM EVOLUTION......................................................................................59

5.1 Challenges and Lessons Learned......................................................................................59

5.1.1 Program Initiation................................................................................................. 59

5.1.2 Funding................................................................................................................. 59

5.1.3 Promoting/Sustaining a SCR Program...................................................................60

5.1.4 Identifying/Hiring Safety Circuit Riders.................................................................60

5.2 Issues Related to Safety Circuit Rider Support................................................................. 60

5.2.1 Training and Technical Assistance......................................................................... 60

5.2.2 Limitations of Support.......................................................................................... 61

5.2.3 Lack of Local Agency Resources............................................................................61

5.2.4 Requests for Safety Circuit Rider Support.............................................................61

5.3 Changes to SCR Programs................................................................................................ 62

5.3.1 Modify SCR Support..............................................................................................62

5.3.2 Enhance Efficiency.................................................................................................63

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX A..........................................................................................................................69

APPENDIX B..........................................................................................................................71

APPENDIX C..........................................................................................................................73

APPENDIX D..........................................................................................................................79

APPENDIX E...........................................................................................................................83

APPENDIX F..........................................................................................................................103

APPENDIX G.........................................................................................................................105
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Local agencies own and operate more than 75 percent of all public roadways in the United 

States and nearly 80 percent of rural roads. Of the 42,000-plus annual fatalities on the Nation’s 

roadways each year, more than 60 percent occur on our rural 

roads, which carry less than 40 percent of the total vehiclemiles traveled. To make significant progress in reducing the 

number of crashes and fatalities nationally, the safety on 

local roadways needs to improve. This is the primary goal of 

the Safety Circuit Rider (SCR) program.

The SCR program is designed to provide safety-related information, training, and support to 

agencies responsible for local roadway safety. While the primary focus is on local roads, and 

therefore local agencies, SCR support can also assist Local and Tribal Technical Assistance 

Program (LTAP/TTAP) Centers, State and local transportation agencies, universities, and safety 

interest groups, all of which can play a significant role in improving road safety. SCR programs 

can take many forms including technical assistance, training, and technology transfer. In that 

sense, SCR programs are similar to the LTAP/TTAP Centers; however, the difference is the SCR 

activities focus on safety. Providing this onsite, safety-related support meets two needs. First, 

safety on locally maintained roads is a significant issue nationwide. Second, many local agencies 

lack the resources or technical expertise to properly identify, diagnose, and treat traffic 

safety problems.

In 2005, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety identified an opportunity 

to enhance safety services through LTAP Centers by funding safety circuit rider positions at three 

LTAP Centers (Florida, Kentucky, and West Virginia) and one TTAP Center (Northern Plains). 

Grants were awarded through competitive process. This initiative was a pilot program 

developed with assistance from the FHWA Office of Federal Lands Highway. The purpose of this 

pilot study was to assess the feasibility and usefulness of a SCR program. The program was 

continued for the three LTAP Centers in 2006; in addition, several States have developed their 

own programs.

1. 1 About this Guide

The FHWA developed this Guide to provide State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and 

LTAP/TTAP Centers with a resource for implementing or enhancing a SCR program. The most 

Local agencies own and 

operate more than 75 percent 

of all public roadways in the 

United States.
Chapter 1: Introduction

2

important feature of this Guide is that there is no one right way to create a SCR program—there 

is only the right way for your State. 

The Guide focuses on examples of two groups of programs: 1) existing SCR programs, and 2) 

existing programs that provide services similar to an SCR but which are not technically known as 

a SCR program. For the purpose of this report, the term SCR program includes both groups and 

the focus includes:

• Common characteristics of a safety circuit rider and SCR programs.

• Typical duties performed and services offered by existing SCR programs.

• Lessons learned, about what to do and what not to do, by existing SCR programs.

• Evidence of current SCR program effectiveness with testimonials from recipients 

of SCR support.

• References to publications developed by SCR programs.

Information in this Guide is the result of discussions with staff representing both pilot and 

established SCR programs. 

The Guide emphasizes the importance of safety circuit riders developing and maintaining 

collaborative partnerships with LTAP/TTAP Centers, State and local transportation agencies, 

universities, and safety interest groups to improve local road safety. 

The Guide has four chapters, each focusing on a different element of the SCR program most 

relevant to program initiation and enhancement. Each chapter integrates case study examples 

of existing SCR programs in the United States. Due to the overlapping nature of many topics 

and to provide flexibility in the use of this Guide, the chapters are not mutually exclusive (i.e., 

information may be presented in more than one chapter if it is relevant to the topic). 

• Chapter 2: Program Essentials

The chapter discusses program initiation and sustainability, including information 

related to funding, partnerships, promoting the SCR program, and how to identify 

qualified safety circuit riders.

• Chapter 3: Program Activities

The chapter highlights various SCR activities, including technical assistance, 

training, and technology transfer. Examples of each activity are provided as well as 

the relative time spent on the activity. 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 3

• Chapter 4: Program Evaluation

The chapter illustrates the effectiveness of current SCR programs. While the true 

measure of effectiveness is related to real reductions in crashes and their severity, 

two reasons make it difficult to show reductions for programs: 1) SCR activities are 

usually related to local roads problems where crash data are often limited, and 2) 

SCR programs include a broad range of activities and it is difficult to link the activities 

with specific crash reductions. Instead, this Guide presents qualitative and anecdotal 

evidence including the number of projects initiated as a result of SCR activities, the 

number of training and technical assistance sessions provided, and feedback from 

participants. 

• Chapter 5: Program Evaluation

The chapter reviews challenges encountered and lessons learned by current 

SCR programs, as well as changes made as a result of the challenges.

• References

This section provides citations from the main body of the Guide. 

• Appendix A: Safety Circuit Rider Programs

This appendix lists existing SCRs along with contact information.

• Appendix B: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Funding Memorandum

This appendix provides a memorandum from the Federal Highway Administration’s 

(FHWA) Associate Administrator for Safety to the FHWA Division Administrators 

describing the eligibility of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds for 

Safety Engineering Assistance to Locals.

• Appendix C: SCR Funding Proposals

This appendix provides sample proposals and contract budgets from California and 

Wisconsin programs.

• Appendix D: Safety Circuit Rider Commentaries

This appendix presents commentaries from existing safety circuit riders about the 

professional characteristics associated with the safety circuit rider position.
Chapter 1: Introduction

4

• Appendix E. Safety Circuit Rider Activities

This appendix provides States’ experiences with SCR-related activities.

• Appendix F: Program Evaluation

This appendix illustrates performance measures in Iowa’s SCR program 

quarterly report. 

• Appendix G: Participant Feedback

This appendix provides commentary and feedback from individuals who received 

training or technical assistance through the SCR program.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 5

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

2.1 Program Initiation

2.1.1 Who Benefits from Safety Circuit Rider Programs?

Safety Circuit Rider (SCR) programs are established for a 

variety of reasons, but the main goal is typically the same: 

reduce the frequency and severity of roadway crashes by 

providing safety-related support to agencies responsible for 

local road safety. While SCR support is not limited to local 

agencies, local agencies are typically the focus of the SCR because they are more likely than 

State agencies to need safety-related assistance. Too often, local agency personnel lack formal 

training or expertise in road safety. For example, few local road agencies have a designated 

engineer, where State agencies usually have a designated roadway safety engineer. Additionally, local agencies operate with smaller staffs and more limited resources than State agencies. 

Access to a SCR is an opportunity to enhance available resources of local agencies (e.g., safetyrelated knowledge and tools), as well as provide additional staff. 

As the focus is on technical assistance and training for those responsible for local roads, the 

SCR program fits well within existing Local Technical Assistance Program and Tribal Technical 

Assistance Program (LTAP/TTAP) Centers. In fact, some LTAP Centers have been providing this 

type of onsite assistance for several years, well before the FHWA funded the pilot SCR programs 

in 2005. LTAP Centers are not the only option for establishing a SCR program; some States house 

their SCR program within the State DOT or a university research center.

Before establishing a SCR program, first identify whether there is the demand and the support 

for the service. It will be difficult to establish a program without both. The need to improve 

safety on local roads is evidenced by the overwhelming number of crashes occurring on local 

roads each year. The demand is the need for safety-related technical assistance and training 

to improve safety, which comes from State and local agencies. Initially, this demand can be 

measured by interviews or surveys of State and local agencies; however, it may be necessary to 

conduct a needs analysis because it may be difficult for State and local agencies to gauge what 

they do and do not know. Figure 1 provides a sample needs analysis survey. 

There are other measures to help gauge the level of demand for SCR services as well. One 

measure is the number of safety-related requests to LTAP/TTAP Centers. LTAP/TTAP Centers 

SCR Programs can provide 

much-needed support to help 

improve safety on local roads.
6

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

provide more than just safety-related support to local agencies. If the demand for safety-related 

support is great, it may be appropriate to establish a position (i.e., SCR) to provide a greater 

level of safety-related support. Demand for a SCR program may also be generated by the 

public in response to real or perceived safety problems. Public demand can be measured by 

the number of safety-related citizen complaints to local road agencies, although complaints can 

be directed to the State DOT or other safety agency. While it would be difficult to justify a SCR 

program based solely on public demand, this measure can be used to support the establishment 

of a SCR program.

It is not only important to identify the demand for a SCR program, but it is also necessary to 

establish the demand for the various types of support (e.g., technical assistance, training, or 

both). When training is desired, it is necessary to determine the topics of interest. The needs 

analysis survey (Figure 1) may be distributed to State and local agencies to determine the level 

of interest by type of assistance. If training is desired, the needs analysis identifies specific 

courses of interest.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 7

Figure 1. Sample Needs Analysis Survey.
8

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

2.1.2 Where to Find Support for the SCR Program

Support for SCR programs can be found in several ways. For example, while financial support is 

critical, it is also important to gain institutional support for the program from the State DOT and 

other partners. Partners can help champion the effort by promoting the SCR program and creating a strong safety culture within the State. Safety culture describes a heightened awareness 

of transportation safety needs across all levels of government and among the many associated 

professionals and agencies in which they are employed.

Iowa is regarded as a leader in changing the safety culture within their State. Specifically, the 

State established a Safety Management System (SMS) circa 1990, as mandated by the 

Intermodal Safe Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA). The SMS is composed of multi-disciplined 

professionals, including State and local transportation agencies, law enforcement, insurance 

representatives, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) representatives, educators, 

and others, all with a mutual interest in transportation safety improvement in Iowa. While many 

States abandoned any safety management system with the expiration of ISTEA, Iowa did not. 

This multi-disciplinary group continues to meet and plan safety initiatives on all levels of roads 

in Iowa. The Iowa SCR indicated the positive change in safety culture has been instrumental in 

providing momentum for its SCR program. In essence, a strong safety culture within a State can 

drive the need for SCR activities.

As demonstrated throughout the Guide, SCR programs share many commonalties related 

to why and where a program is established. The typical process for initiating a SCR program 

includes:

1. Identify level of demand and support.

2. Recruit appropriate partners.

3. Start small – measure and show effectiveness, secure additional funding, 

then expand.

While many commonalities exist, many differences unique to each program can also be 

identified. Rather than list the numerous differences, the following examples illustrate the 

process of establishing a SCR program.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 9

2.1.3 Program Initiation Case Studies

Florida

The Florida SCR program was established as part of the FHWA-funded pilot SCR program in 

2005. The Florida SCR program is part of the Florida LTAP Center, which is located at the University of Florida. Initially, SCR activities were limited, but the program expanded as partnerships 

and relationships were established.

The SCR activities began in Hendry County and were patterned on the successful Mendocino 

County (California) Road System Safety Assessment Process (see text box). Initial efforts in 

Hendry County included identifying sites with safety issues and conducting site visits to evaluate 

and correct the safety issues. As the program expanded beyond Hendry County, crash data were 

used to select focus counties, prioritize initial efforts, and identify other counties for later 

efforts. For each focus county, the SCR conducted basic training related to standard highway 

signs and using ball bank indicators, which the SCR provided.

Currently, the Florida LTAP employs three part-time circuit riders located throughout the State, 

which helps to minimize travel costs and serves a larger geographical area. Another benefit of 

employing multiple safety circuit riders is the ability to provide location-specific expertise to 

different geographic regions. For example, certain areas of Florida may have safety issues 

related to older road users whereas other areas may need to address different safety situations.

Mendoncino County Road System Safety Assessment

Mendocino County (California) Department of Transportation (MCDOT) maintains and 

improves 1,018 miles of secondary roads, including paved and unpaved local roads, major 

and minor collectors, and one four-lane arterial. 

MCDOT has successfully reduced crashes by implementing improved highway signage as a 

low-cost safety measure. Crashes were reduced by 42.1 percent from 1992 to 1998 at a cost 

of $79,260 over the 6-year period. MCDOT refers to its program for evaluating and improving the safety of the county’s road signs as Road System Traffic Safety Reviews. The program 

is similar to typical road safety audits (RSAs), but the focus is primarily on highway signs. 

More information on the Mendocino County Road System Safety Assessment Process can 

be found in the Public Roads Magazine, January/February 2005; view at: 

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/05jan/08.htm
10

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

Florida safety circuit riders interact mostly with County Road Department personnel who may 

be in highway maintenance or traffic device maintenance. Counties with a traffic operations 

department typically do not use the SCR services. Counties that contract traffic engineering 

design, but are responsible for maintenance of the devices, do use the SCR services.

Idaho

Historically, Idaho has had high fatality rates on its local system, specifically with intersectionrelated and run-off-road crashes. The Idaho LTAP and the FHWA became involved because of 

the large number of fatal crashes and a SCR program was suggested as a means to reduce crash 

costs for local agencies. The Idaho LTAP director champions this effort and helps to promote 

the SCR to local agencies. Local Highway Technical Assistance Councils (see text box) also work 

to raise awareness of the SCR program among local jurisdictions. As local agencies learn more 

about SCR services, the demand for these services increases. The SCR program and championing efforts have resulted in marked success because local agencies now understand the 

magnitude of the problem in terms of people killed and crash costs. The SCR program provides 

the local agencies with the resources to address the safety issues.

Iowa

The Iowa SCR program coincided with the Rural Technology Assistance Program (RTAP) in 1989, 

and was expanded to urban agencies in the early 1990s. Although not officially known as a SCR, 

the types of services provided date to the inception of RTAP.

The Iowa SCR program continually reviews its emphasis areas for relevance and worth to 

customers. Surveys of needs as well as preferences for training are distributed to customers 

periodically. Work zone safety and flagger training are staples of the training program, but other 

topics have been added, including roadside safety, permanent signing and pavement markings, 

and temporary traffic control design.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 11

Kentucky

Kentucky is also one of four SCR programs established as a FHWA pilot program. To initiate the 

SCR program, Kentucky staff attended an FHWA-sponsored training program on low-cost safety 

improvements (LCSI) in 2004. They used that experience to customize course materials and 

develop a 1-day, Kentucky-specific workshop on LCSIs.

The Kentucky program focuses on three primary areas: reducing road departures (run-off-road 

collisions with fixed objects), intersection collisions, and collisions involving pedestrians. To 

launch the Kentucky SCR initiative, a steering committee first identified the six counties with the 

highest crash numbers. Then, each of the six Area Development Districts (ADDs) with the 

highest crash records hosted a workshop to disseminate best practices and share information 

on LCSIs. Kentucky is now in the second phase of its program and has identified additional 

counties for workshops and road safety audits (RSAs). In fact, the workshops and RSAs account 

for about 25 percent of the SCR’s time.

New York

The New York State SCR program evolved out of necessity. The Cornell Local Roads Program 

(CLRP) was created circa World War II and operated until the LTAP Center was formally 

Idaho Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC)

The Idaho LHTAC’s mission is to “assist the Local Highway Jurisdictions (e.g., cities, counties, 

and highway districts) with using the available resources for maintenance and construction 

of Idaho’s Local Highway System in the most efficient and effective manner possible.” The 

LHTAC’s focus is to:

 • Develop uniform standards and procedures for highway maintenance, 

construction, operation, and administration.

• Make recommendations to the Idaho Transportation Board for distributing and 

prioritizing Federal funds for local highway projects.

• Assist the Legislature by providing research and data relating to transportation 

matters affecting Local Highway Jurisdictions within the State. 

• Represent member jurisdictions at conferences, meetings, and hearings relating 

to highway and street subjects affecting Local Highway Jurisdictions.

• Maintain and disseminate information from other States that would affect the 

Local Highway Jurisdictions in Idaho.

For more information on the Idaho LHTAC, visit: http://www.lhtac.org/index.html
12

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

established in 1984. The Cornell Local Roads Program used Section 402 funds to create and 

provide a work zone safety course, which formed the basis of its SCR program. 

Although not formally identified as a SCR program, support was expanded to provide additional 

training as well as technical assistance. A safety engineer on staff provided this training from 

the late-1990s through 2004. When the instructor left the program, the training was reduced. 

In 2007, the SCR was officially established with encouragement and financial support from the 

New York State DOT (NYSDOT). In New York State, the SCR program was referred to as a traffic 

safety outreach program and offered technical assistance and training to local agencies. With 

the new outreach program and the need for local training, there was a need to refill the 

instructor position. After several unsuccessful attempts to fill the position, the program hired 

consultants to provide training to local agencies. Currently, two of the program’s trainers also 

act as safety circuit riders. Additionally, one senior engineer at the LTAP Center provides safety 

technical assistance and training across the State as part of his LTAP duties. 

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania SCR program was initiated circa 1990 with safety engineers providing 

training and technical assistance. Through its different bureaus, the Pennsylvania DOT 

(PennDOT) provides overall SCR program management structure, primary funding, and technical 

resources. PennDOT also serves as the coordinating agent or liaison between the SCR and 

different municipalities throughout the Commonwealth, including partnerships with local 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs). The 

MPOs and RPOs provide outreach opportunities to market the SCR program, inform 

municipalities about safety resources, and schedule classes. Further, PennDOT provides crash 

data when needed and hosts safety-related classes at its district facilities.

The current SCR joined the Pennsylvania LTAP program in 1997, which was then managed by 

the Pennsylvania State University. In 2006, the Pennsylvania State Association of Township 

Supervisors (PSATS) assumed management of the LTAP program as the prime contractor to 

PennDOT. PSATS is responsible for the primary administrative duties including:

• Schedule coordination.

• Class logistics (e.g., set-up, handouts, food, etc.).

• Communication link between local government requestors, PennDOT, and the SCR.

• Newsletter production.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 13

• Training evaluations.

• Quality assurance.

PSATS uses a consultant to handle the training and technical assistance aspects of the SCR 

program. A pool of engineers provide safety-related services; two senior engineers conduct 

most of the training and technical assistance while four other engineers are available for technical assistance and other support. The safety circuit riders also write newsletter articles or tech 

sheets upon request and present at conferences and local government meetings. This creates 

a three-tiered SCR program including PennDOT, PSATS, and the consultant, each with its own 

roles and responsibilities. 

West Virginia

The West Virginia LTAP also received one of four Federally funded grant programs to establish 

a formal SCR program; however, the State has provided SCR-type activities for many years. The 

FHWA grant helped fund programs for technical assistance on rural road safety. The LTAP Center 

had an established relationship with the traffic engineering unit of the West Virginia DOT 

because LTAP provided training and informal technical assistance for some of the districts. 

West Virginia used the FHWA grant to expand the type and amount of support provided. The 

LTAP programs tended to focus on run-off-road, intersection, and pedestrian crashes, but the 

Center also had a strong commitment to providing safety-related support in any area of need. 

As an example, the State DOT identified a roadway departure crash problem on many two-lane 

rural roads statewide, but did not have the resources to assess all locations. West Virginia is one 

of several States that does not have county road agencies and the State essentially serves as the 

local road agency. As such, the State DOT is responsible for over 90 percent of all public roads 

in the State. The Federal grant allowed the SCR to assist the State DOT with crash data analysis 

for two-lane rural roads, conduct field reviews of the locations with the district traffic engineers, 

and document recommendations for the State DOT. The SCR was able to provide this support 

for approximately 75 percent of the US- and State-numbered routes that are State-maintained. 

The State DOT staff completed this process for the remaining US- and State-numbered routes.

Northern Plains Tribal Assistance Program

The Northern Plains Tribal Technical Assistance Program established their SCR Program in 2004. 

In December of that year they announced their SCR program to the Tribal Transportation Planners. In January and February of 2005 the SCR program staff determined the level of interest, 
14

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

level of need, and tribes’ ability to implement road safety improvements. Based on these 

discussions, the Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge) Reservation, the Cheyenne River Reservation, and 

the Rocky Boy Reservation were chosen for a concentrated effort by the SCR program. These 

reservations were selected because of their knowledge of their transportation safety problems 

and their ability to team with state, Federal, and local agencies. When the SCR program became 

one of the FHWA-funded pilot SCR programs in 2005, efforts were focused on conducting RSAs 

on the three reservations. Highlights from the SCR assistance provided on two of the reservations is as follows:

• Cheyenne River Reservation: This program began with road safety audit training 

in May of 2005. The training included actually conducting an RSA on a road that 

was chosen because of safety concerns as a result of reported crashes, changing land 

use patterns, and an increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic. An RSA report was 

produced at the conclusion of the RSA.

• Oglala Sioux Reservation: This program began in June of 2005 with a planningstage RSA on a proposed walking path. As a result of this RSA, training was 

conducted in the local schools on pedestrian and bike safety. The training sessions 

were administered to over 300 Native American children and adults.

2.2 Program Sustainability

2.2.1 Funding

The success of any program depends on sufficient funding. For the SCR program, different costs 

are associated with various aspects of the program and the extent of the program depends on 

the extent of the funding. Costs to initiate and operate a SCR program include:

• Employing a part-time or full-time safety circuit rider. 

• Travel costs associated with onsite training and technical assistance.

• Training materials (e.g., informational guides, lecture notes, videos).

• Equipment (e.g., LCD projector/screen, laptops, retroreflectometer, ball bank 

indicator, traffic counters, radar unit).

• Administrative costs (e.g., responding to requests, scheduling appointments, 

scheduling training, budgets, reporting, publicity/promotion, and finding/reserving 

training facilities).

Although the FHWA has supported the pilot initiative to fund SCR programs with short-term 

grants, it is unlikely the FHWA will be a primary source of funding for SCR programs. Once the 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 15

FHWA grants expired, the pilot SCR programs were required to seek alternative funding to 

continue operating. For a look at potential funding sources, it is helpful to assess existing SCR 

programs. Based on interviews with SCR program managers and staff representing FHWA pilot 

programs, and those who have initiated a SCR program without FHWA assistance, potential 

funding sources include:

Federal

• FHWA Office of Safety: Grants are sometimes available for specific types of activities 

based on solicitation of proposals through FHWA Division Offices or LTAP Centers. 

For example, the Florida SCR program applied for and received a $40,000 grant from 

FHWA for a Local Road Safety Audit (RSA) Program to support RSA activities that are 

conducted as part of the SCR program. The Delaware SCR program applied for and 

received a $10,000 FHWA grant for an Accelerating Safety Activities Program (ASAP). 

The grant funds a university student to assist with SCR activities.

• FHWA Division Offices: Funds are available for technology transfer activities. There 

is a potential to team with Division offices, using a portion of the technology transfer 

funds to provide safety-related support to local agencies within the Division.

State

• State Departments of Transportation: State DOTs may have specific funds available 

for safety-related activities. As the SCR program focus is on enhancing local road 

safety, SCRs may be eligible to use these funds. However, some State funding is only 

applicable for projects on State-maintained roads.

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): The HSIP provides Federal funds 

from the FHWA, however, the program is typically administered within each State 

by the State Highway Agency (typically State DOT) in partnership with the FHWA 

Division Office. These funds can be used for safety projects on any public road 

including engineering services as discussed below:

 - Engineering Services: The following paragraph is taken from the July 14, 2006 

 memorandum (refer to Appendix B for complete memorandum) from the 

 FHWA Associate Administrator for Safety to Division Administrators:

 The SAFETEA-LU emphasis on using a data-driven approach to improve 

 safety on all public roads may lead States to conclude that expanding or 

 beginning similar safety programs for local roads is an excellent strategy 
16

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

 for improving safety statewide. Engineering services have always been 

 eligible as part of a Federal-aid project under the broad Title 23 

	 	 	 	 	 definitions of construction and project, and Section 112 of Title 23 allows

 the State to contract for these design/engineering services. Engineering 

 assistance programs for local roads was an eligible expense under the 

 previous HSIP program and remains eligible under the new core 

 HSIP program. 

To qualify for HSIP funding, a SCR program should ensure that its engineering 

activities support key strategies within the State’s Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP). For example, many States have identified run-off-road crashes or 

rural roads as key emphasis areas in their SHSP.

For more information on the HSIP, visit the following links: 

 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/hsip.htm;

 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/state_program/hsip/index.htm;

 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/toc.htm.

Your State’s SHSP information can be obtained from the FHWA 

Division Office.

 	 -	 Complete SCR Activities: Safety Circuit Rider activities can be funded using 	 	

	 	 	 	 the 10% funding flexibility in HSIP. Under SAFETEA‐LU, States can “flex” up to 	 

 10 percent of their 23 U.S.C. 148 funds (i.e., HSIP funds) if they meet 

	 	 	 	 specific criteria.

The Wisconsin case study (refer to Funding Case Studies section) provides an 

example of how flex funding was used to fund a SCR program. For more 

information on how to meet HSIP flexible funding requirements, contact your 

FHWA Division Office. The following link provides the December 26, 2006, 

memorandum and guidance attachment regarding the use of funding 

flexibility in the Highway Safety Improvement Program: 

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

• State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (Section 402): Section 402 

funds are Federal funds administered by the States. The purpose of the Section 402 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 17

program is to assist States and communities to develop and implement behavioral 

(nonconstruction) highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and 

the resulting fatalities, injuries, and property damage. A State may use these grant 

funds only for highway safety purposes and at least 40 percent of these funds are 

to be used to address local traffic safety problems. Proposals for 402 funding must 

be submitted through the State Highway Safety Office (SHSO), which administers 

the 402 funds for the State. A successful proposal is based on a relationship with the 

SHSO and an understanding of its priority needs and how the proposal supports the 

SHSO Highway Safety Plan. For more information on how to apply for Section 402 

Highway Safety Funds, States should contact their Governor’s Highway Safety 

Representative. A listing is available at: 

 http://www.ghsa.org/html/links/highwaysafetywebsites.html. 

• Highway Safety Transfer Provision Programs (Sections 154 and 164): Two sections 

of Title 23 encourage States to comply with specific laws. Section 154 is intended to 

encourage States to pass laws that will not allow an open container of alcohol while 

operating a motor vehicle. Section 164 is intended to encourage States to have 

stronger laws that enforce stricter consequences for repeat DWI or DUI offenders. 

Starting October 1, 2002, for noncompliant States, 3 percent of the State’s 

Federal-aid highway construction funds are transferred each year to the State’s 

Section 402 funding. This includes 3 percent for each program; therefore, a State 

may have 6 percent of its funds transferred. These funds can be used for impaired 

driving countermeasures, impaired driving enforcement, or Title 23 United States 

Code, Section 148 Highway Safety Improvement Programs. LTAP activities, including 

the SCR, are eligible to apply for Section 148 funding. Agencies interested in applying 

for these funds should develop a relationship with their SHSO as well as the DOT 

traffic office. Contact your SHSO to learn how the funds are distributed. Application 

processes vary by State. 

Local

• LTAP/TTAP Centers: Many existing SCR programs are housed at the LTAP/TTAP center 

within the State. The safety circuit rider provides many of the same services as 

the LTAP/TTAP center, although the focus remains on safety-related support. LTAP/

TTAP Centers may be able to provide partial or even complete funding to support 

a SCR program using their existing funding mechanisms. In fact, some LTAP Centers 
18

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

(e.g., West Virginia) have an agreement where the circuit rider is funded part time 

under the SCR program and part time as an LTAP employee.

• Individual Contracts: A local agency may contract with the SCR program to provide 

ongoing technical support (e.g., RSAs) or a specified number of training courses.

• Workshop and Course Fees: While it is desirable to provide SCR support and services 

free of charge, it may be possible to charge a fee for training and/or technical 

assistance, depending on the level of effort.

2.2.2 Local Agency Structure

Local agencies vary significantly in size and structure, which often determines the diversity of 

skills and available resources (e.g., staff, funding, and equipment) for an individual agency. The 

structure of local agencies may differ significantly by State. Therefore, it is important to first 

understand the structure in which the SCR will work. Figure 2 shows several potential levels of 

local government or organizational 

frameworks that may exist within 

a State. The larger entities appear 

at the top and the smaller divisions 

of the larger entities are listed at 

the bottom. It should be noted that 

this is a general representation 

and actual structures vary by State 

and the entities may appear in 

different levels.

Larger local agencies (e.g., counties and large cities) will likely have greater resources available, 

while smaller municipalities (e.g., towns and villages) often have more limited staff and funding. Therefore the larger entities may be able to help support sustained SCR activities, while 

smaller local agencies will likely use this service only if it is provided free of charge. For example, 

the Florida SCRs focus on specific districts. District 7 in Florida has become so involved that it 

has contributed $50,000 to the SCR program to continue training efforts and RSA activities. In 

contrast, Pennsylvania is comprised of more than 2,500 smaller agencies, including townships 

and boroughs. The Pennsylvania SCR indicated that only a few of these local agencies (i.e., larger 

metropolitan areas) would have the resources to help support the SCR program.

Figure 2. Potential levels of government in states.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 19

The technical knowledge of the staff and resources available to the local agency may also affect 

the nature of training and technical assistance activities provided by the SCR. Larger local agencies may employ a staff to work full-time on roadway and traffic issues (e.g., highway and traffic 

engineers). Smaller municipalities often employ just a few staff members to handle all general 

civil engineering issues and these staff may or may not have a background in traffic engineering. 

For more information on the structure of local government within your State, visit: 

http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/stategov/stategov.html

2.2.3 Funding Case Studies

California

The University of California, Berkeley’s ITS Technology Transfer Program applied for a grant 

to perform traffic safety evaluation services for California communities. Funding was secured 

through a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. The grant was a two-year agreement and included the following 

activities:

• Traffic Safety Evaluations: conduct 30 two-day 

site visits to provide onsite assistance to city 

and county agencies in California.

• Pedestrian Safety Assessment Tool: create 

a model pedestrian safety assessment tool 

based on current best practices.

• Pedestrian Safety Assessments: conduct 

18 pedestrian safety assessments in 

California communities using the pedestrian 

safety assessment tool.

• Marketing: disseminate information related 

to the Traffic Safety Evaluations and the 

Pedestrian Safety Assessments.

• The grant expanded on an existing program 

with a longstanding and solid track record. The grant included a problem statement, 

performance measures, objectives, a method of procedure, a method of evaluation, 

administrative support, and a detailed budget estimate. Further details regarding the 

grant proposal are provided in Appendix C.1 California SCR Grant Proposal.
20

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

Delaware

Several sources fund the Delaware SCR program. The SCR program is established as part of the 

LTAP Center and, as such, the LTAP Center is the primary source of funding. The annual budget 

for the LTAP Center includes LTAP funds from the FHWA, State Planning and Research (SP&R) 

funds from the FHWA, and State funds. The Delaware LTAP Center has received funds from the 

FHWA Division Office’s technology transfer funds for several years, including once specifically 

for the SCR program in the amount of $5,000. While these funds are available annually, an 

application must be submitted each year for which the funds are requested. Aside from 

the support from the LTAP Center, additional funding was obtained for the SCR program as 

a one-time $10,000 grant from the FHWA’s Office of Highway Safety as part of the Accelerating 

Safety Activities Program (ASAP). 

Florida

The Florida SCR program was established and initially funded as an FHWA pilot SCR program. 

Since its inception, the Florida SCR program has had to obtain sustained funding and has 

identified and used several sources:

• Section 402 Funds: Received Section 402 funds to develop training courses.

• Workshop Fees: A fee is charged for workshops and no negative feedback has 

resulted from this method to date.

• FHWA Grant: Applied for additional funding of $40,000 from FHWA in the form of 

a grant for a Local Road Safety Audit Program. FHWA funding covers local road safety 

audit activities conducted as part of the SCR efforts. 

• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Districts: Some funding comes 

directly from Florida districts. The SCR program contracted with District 7 for $50,000 

to continue training efforts and RSA activities. This funding was also used as a match 

when applying for the FHWA grant for a Local Road Safety Audit Program.

• Cost Sharing: Cost-sharing represented $30,000 of the first SCR grant funds. Florida 

was required to show that the agencies receiving training and assistance were acting 

on the information and resources provided. In return for the SCR efforts, each agency 

was asked to submit an itemized list of expenses relating to any SCR suggestions that 

were implemented. These expenses included such items as the cost of new signs and 

markings, photocopies, administrative expenses, and even labor costs related to 

administrative activities and installation and maintenance functions. The expense 

lists were sent on agency letterhead and forwarded to the University to be recorded 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 21

and tallied against the total to be collected ($30,000), as required by the grant. 

During one quarter, the SCR program collected and reported $28,636 in cost sharing. 

During another quarter, the SCR program collected and reported $1,189 in 

cost sharing.

• State DOT: The Florida DOT provides important financial and employee support. The 

DOT hires and funds a Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) coordinator to work 

in each of the districts. CTSTs are diverse community groups, which include 

volunteers representing the four Es of safety: engineering, education, enforcement, 

and emergency medical services. These teams meet once a month to discuss safety 

issues within their communities. While CTST coordinators are not officially part of 

the SCR program, they are important partners involved in several SCR activities each 

year. The CTST coordinator acts as a liaison between the SCR program and the chairs 

of each of the CTSTs, assists with contacting team members, and promotes the 

program during monthly team meetings. Since receiving the additional grant funding 

($40,000) to specifically provide the Road Safety Assessment course for CTSTs, the 

coordinators have helped to schedule training, find places for training to be held, as 

well as assist in efforts to obtain follow-up reports on the training. For reporting 

purposes, the training results must be tracked. While this process is still fairly new, 

the coordinators have been very helpful and appreciative of services provided.

• LTAP Center: The Florida LTAP Center also supports the SCR program. Initially, the 

Center requested and received funding from the Accelerating Safety Activities 

Program (ASAP) through FHWA to purchase a retroreflectometer. The 

retroreflectometer is a useful tool for conducting RSAs because it allows the team 

to evaluate sign retroreflectivity during daylight conditions, a much safer time for 

the team conducting the tests.

Idaho

The Idaho SCR program was established initially as part of the LTAP Center, but activities were 

limited because of funding. The LTAP Center requested additional funding from the Idaho Transportation Department (IDT) through the HSIP or Section 402 funds. At the time, IDT would not 

provide additional funding through the HSIP because local roads were not included in the State’s 

SHSP and, therefore, did not qualify for HSIP funding to support this effort.

The LTAP Center has continued to pursue funding and the IDT recently agreed to include 

language in the SHSP to allow funds to be spent on local roads and the SCR program. As soon as 
22

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

the SHSP is updated, funds will be available for the SCR program and held by the LTAP Center. 

In July 2008, local jurisdictions applied for projects through the Local Technical Highway 

Assistance Council. A preliminary list of locations will be selected based on the most severe 

needs and RSAs will be conducted for those projects that are deemed appropriate. The RSAs 

will be, at least partially, supported by the County Risk Management Group. It is expected that 

the County Risk Management Group will provide funding to support one staff member to 

participate in the RSAs. Once the RSAs are complete, the funds from the HSIP can be obligated 

to correct the safety issues.

Another potential funding source is a local agency insurer, who has realized the potential 

benefit of improving the road systems. Increased safety would reduce the liability of the local 

jurisdiction, and as a result, the insurance company has expressed a strong interest in 

supporting the SCR program financially. Idaho is currently trying to identify an appropriate 

mechanism for the insurance company to provide funding.

Illinois

State Farm Insurance has established the Embedded Safety Specialist Initiative in Illinois. While 

not technically a SCR program, it serves a similar function by providing safety-related support to 

local agencies (e.g., RSAs, local Highway Safety Plans, and grant applications). This pilot 

initiative through State Farm Insurance was established in response to the State’s Dangerous 

Intersections Program, which identified hazardous intersections throughout the State. Some 

local agencies indicated that the Dangerous Intersections Program could have been more 

effective if they were involved in the selection process so that intersections that had recent 

improvements made could be removed from the list. As a result, State Farm provided seed 

money to initiate a SCR-type program to work more closely with the local agencies. The 

funding provided support for one consultant to work part time assisting a designated local 

agency. For the first year of the privately-funded pilot program, Champaign County was 

identified as the designated local agency. A different county was identified as the designated 

local agency for the second year of the initiative; however, Champaign County established 

a contract with the original consultant to provide continued support. Champaign County is 

funding the continued SCR-type activities through its MPO.

Iowa

The Iowa SCR program initially was funded entirely by LTAP funds. Currently, the program is 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 23

funded through a combination of sources. Specifically, the State DOT provides funding from its 

0.50 percent road use tax fund, while the Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau and LTAP contribute 

additional funds. 

Kentucky

During the pilot period, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) recognized the value of 

the SCR program and pledged sufficient funding to carry the program through 2006, and 

possibly 2007. The SCR program is now solely funded by the KTC, but the SCR program must 

reapply annually to renew the KTC funding. The application is submitted to the Secretary of 

Transportation and approved by the KTC advisory board.

New York

Initially, New York used Section 402 funds to develop and present the work zone safety course, 

as previously discussed. With financial support from the NYSDOT, the SCR was expanded. 

Specifically, the LTAP Center receives funding from the State DOT for safety-related activities. 

The SCR program falls well within the realm of safety-related activities and the LTAP Center uses 

the State funds to finance a large percentage of the SCR program. In addition, the SCR program 

receives funding from the Governors’ Highway Traffic Safety Committee to support development 

of training materials. The SCR program also charges fees for workshops, but these fees only 

help to recover costs of the training (e.g., meeting room, materials, food). The fees from the 

workshops do not cover training costs; safety-related funds from the NYSDOT are used to cover 

the remaining costs. In 2008, typical workshop fees were $40 for basic training courses and 

$75 for engineering-level training (e.g., FHWA courses on pedestrian or roadside safety).

Pennsylvania

As discussed previously, the Pennsylvania SCR program is a three-tiered program, including 

PennDOT, PSATS, and a consultant. Funding is available for the overall program through a single 

fund at the State DOT, including contributions from the FHWA, Bureau of Planning and 

Research, and the Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering, which includes Section 

402 dollars. It is estimated that PennDOT adds about $1,300,000 to the LTAP program, annually. 

While the funding supports safety training and technical assistance as well as maintenance and 

marketing/outreach activities, it is estimated that 50 percent of the funding is spent on safety 

activities. The Bureau of Planning and Research lets a bid to provide LTAP services for a threeyear period with the option of a two-year extension. The program appears to be wellestablished and the outlook for continued funding appears promising.
24

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

West Virginia

As noted previously, the West Virginia LTAP Center has had a SCR program for many years and 

provides training and onsite technical assistance. The West Virginia SCR program is funded 

mostly by the State and while the program would likely offer many of the same services had 

it not received an FHWA grant, the SCR has been enhanced by the grant. Grant monies were 

particularly helpful for purchasing additional equipment to provide a wider range of services. 

For example, the West Virginia LTAP owned automated traffic counters, which were available for 

loan to local agencies. With the additional funding, the SCR program was able to purchase 

a retroreflectometer for testing sign retroreflectivity. Now, when the SCR identifies potential 

signing issues and recommends a study to determine the adequacy of retroreflectivity, the SCR 

can provide the equipment to the agency to perform the task. West Virginia will continue to 

look for other support to maintain the current level of activity and resources.

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin SCR program was initiated at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2008. The 

SCR program has been established as a two-year pilot program funded at $280,000 by the State 

DOT using the HSIP flexible funding option. Its continuation is contingent on the success of the 

pilot period. Appendixes C.2 Wisconsin SCR Funding Proposal and C.3 Wisconsin SCR Contract 

Budget include the initial SCR proposal and budget between the State DOT and University of 

Wisconsin-Madison.

The funding is provided through the State’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds, 

specifically the 10 percent flex option set forth in 23 U.S.C. 148 section 104(b)(5), described 

previously under State funding options. To use HSIP funds for non-infrastructure projects, the 

DOT had to certify that it had fulfilled all of its infrastructure needs for that year. Specifically, 

Wisconsin certified to the FHWA Division Administrator that it had allocated funding for all HSIP 

projects. In addition, the SCR program was included in the State’s SHSP as an activity to help improve intersection safety and to minimize consequences of run-off- road crashes. SCR activities 

will specifically support the following SHSP issue areas:

• Issue Area 2: Improve Design/Operation of Intersections.

• Issue Area 6: Keep Vehicles on the Road.

• Issue Area 9: Minimize Consequences of Leaving the Roadway.

According to those involved in the SCR program initiation, the greatest challenge in the process 

was the certification that the State had met all infrastructure requirements. Another challenge 

was to convince the Wisconsin DOT that the SCR program was beneficial and worthy of this 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 25

funding mechanism. There were 15 proposals submitted to use the 10 percent flex option. As 

a testament to the perceived benefits of the SCR program, the proposal was one of just five 

proposals approved to use the 10 percent flex funding. As discussed previously, the use of flex 

funds requires a match, which cannot come from other Federal sources. Wisconsin developed 

a clever solution, employing course registration fees and publication sales to obtain the 

necessary match in funding.

Activities to be performed under the two-year contract include:

• Conduct crash data analysis ($100,000) to provide information and support for local 

safety improvement programs. Data analysis will include support for safety counter

measures, road safety audits, and operations.

• Provide technical assistance ($140,000) to local agencies for safety improvements. 

Use part-time regional staff experts in cooperation with University of Wisconsin staff.

• Conduct training workshops and conferences ($40,000) on local road safety. 

Coordinate with University of Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety (TOPS) Lab, 

University of Wisconsin Transportation Information Center (TIC), Wisconsin DOT, and 

FHWA Safety Programs. For more details regarding the budget, refer to Appendix C.3 

Wisconsin SCR Contract Budget.

The SCR program involves a partnership with the University of Wisconsin TOPS lab for crash 

analysis support. The TOPS lab employs students to assist in the crash data analysis under the 

direct supervision of full-time researchers. The data analysis effort initially identified those 

counties with the highest number of fatal crashes. Based on the initial analysis, the safety circuit 

riders will conduct RSAs in six of the 72 counties.

2.2.4 Partnerships

Partnerships are a crucial aspect of any SCR program. Partners formed by existing SCR programs 

range from Federal to local governments and can include the general public. The divisions of 

government will vary across States, but examples of partners include:

• Federal Highway Administration (Division Office, Office of Safety, Resource 

Centers): The FHWA has become an important partner in many States. The Florida 

SCR program works closely with the FHWA when applying for grants and other types 

of funding.

• State Department of Transportation/Highways or Transportation Cabinet: The 
26

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

State DOT may provide funding and help to identify the need for training and 

technical assistance. In West Virginia, the main partner of the SCR program is the 

State DOT, as it manages more than 90 percent of roads in West Virginia. The SCR 

has formalized and enhanced existing relationships with the safety unit of the Traffic 

Engineering Division of the State DOT and with the FHWA West Virginia Division 

Safety Engineer. Based on discussions with the SCR, it is critical to have a traffic 

engineer on staff or available for questions; the Traffic Engineering Division of the 

State DOT provides this resource. Individual State DOT districts can also provide 

support and help to spread the word about the SCR program to local agencies. For 

example, District 7 in Florida provided $50,000 to continue training efforts and 

RSA activities.

• LTAP/TTAP Center: Many SCR programs are housed at the LTAP Center and the 

programs fit comfortably into already-established LTAP Client relationships. To 

further promote the Florida SCR program, SCR program-related articles are included 

in the LTAP Center’s quarterly newsletter. With a circulation of over 12,000, the 

publication is respected among Florida’s transportation and public works 

professionals. Articles have included titles such as “Levy County Takes a Proactive 

Approach to Safety” and “Florida LTAP Center’s Popular Workshop: Road Safety 

Audits for Local Governments.” By using the existing and well-established 

publication, the SCR program saves money and reaches a broad audience.

• Universities: Similar to LTAP/TTAP centers, universities can provide a base of 

operation and other resources such as part-time staff. In Iowa, collaboration with the 

university has proven a particularly successful partnership. The SCR often works with 

the Iowa DOT to evaluate practices and strategies through low-cost research 

projects. Graduate students at the University perform much of the basic research 

required and assist in report preparation. Thus the Iowa DOT receives a valuable 

product, the student receives beneficial research experience, and local agencies gain 

insight and knowledge of the potential effectiveness of improvements.

• County Roadway Department: The Florida SCR program has worked closely with the 

county roadway agencies to identify locations for RSAs and identify the need for 

workshops. The counties have been valuable partners because they provide the 

personnel and materials for conducting many of the activities; the SCR then provides 

the initial training.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 27

• Law Enforcement Officers: Partnerships with law enforcement can prove a valuable 

asset to a safety circuit rider program. Counties and local agencies rarely maintain 

the crash data necessary to identify and diagnose safety issues. Law enforcement 

agencies, however, do maintain crash data, typically in the form of police crash 

reports. Law enforcement can also provide insights regarding hazardous locations 

and potential safety issues based on their observations and response to crashes.

• Community Traffic Safety Teams (CTSTs): The Florida DOT supports the community 

traffic safety teams, which are a major partner of the SCR. The Florida safety circuit 

riders have worked closely with the CTSTs to train members to better identify road 

safety issues. There are currently 58 CTSTs throughout the State that provide 

a means for disseminating information. When sufficient funds are available, the SCR 

program offers scholarships for CTSTs, which can be used to pay for training. One 

SCR taught a class on road safety audits in January 2008 to 38 team members 

representing CTSTs throughout the State. For results of follow-up interviews, see the 

Participant Feedback section of chapter 3 (Program Evaluation). Other States have 

similar community safety groups such as the Traffic Safety Commission 

in Washington.

Other partnerships identified by existing SCR programs include:

• County and City Officials (e.g., mayor, judge, etc.).

• Local Area Development Districts.

• Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).

• Municipal Workers.

• Safety Advocacy Groups.

• Street Superintendents.

• Professional Organizations (e.g., Institute of Traffic Engineers [ITE], American Public 

Works Association [APWA], National Association of County Engineers [NACE], 

Fraternal Order of Police [FOP], American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE]).

• Public Works Department.

• Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs).

Partnerships may result in several benefits including:

• Funding or Cost Sharing Opportunities: The previous section discussed funding 

options and the role of partners, many of which involved professional relationships. 

Many agencies benefit directly or indirectly from a SCR program, and as such, there 
28

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

are several opportunities for cost sharing. Cost sharing can occur within any aspect 

of the program and simply helps to spread the costs among partners. For example, 

West Virginia SCR develops the training materials, distributes electronic copies 

of the materials to participants, and delivers the instruction. Participants are 

responsible for printing materials prior to the course, which reduces costs for the 

SCR program. Technical training seminars are typically conducted in the DOT district 

training rooms. The SCR offers training free of charge with the stipulation that the 

district open the training to nearby local agencies. Aside from the cost-sharing 

benefits, this policy helps to create a healthy mix of State and local participants 

with various backgrounds and perspectives.

In Pennsylvania, the SCR equivalent is housed with the LTAP Center through a unique 

arrangement with the DOT, PSATS, and a consulting firm as described previously. 

Thus, public and private sector partners clearly form the foundation for the 

program. The FHWA provides funding and technical resources through the State 

Safety Engineer who participates in classes, provides technical resources, and 

participates in developing new classes. PennDOT provides the overall management 

structure for the program, is the primary funding source, and provides technical 

resources through the different bureaus. PennDOT also often serves as the 

coordinating agent or liaison between the SCR and different municipalities 

throughout the Commonwealth. This is accomplished through partnerships with 

local Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Rural Planning Organizations 

(RPOs). The MPOs and RPOs provide outreach opportunities to market the program, 

direct municipalities to safety resources, and schedule classes. Further, the DOT 

provides crash data when needed, and will host safety related classes at its 

district facilities.

• Program Resources: The SCR needs to have an operation base. SCR programs will 

also likely need at least part-time staff to provide support for budgeting, marketing, 

and daily activities (e.g., providing point of contact, scheduling training and 

technical assistance, assisting with publications). Equipment sharing (e.g., travel 

vehicle, traffic counters, and ball-bank indicators) is another potential benefit when 

forming partnerships. The administrative, facility, and equipment costs represent a 

potentially large cost for SCR programs. Partnerships with the State DOT, LTAP/TTAP 

Center, or universities may offer staff and equipment sharing opportunities 

to mitigate these costs.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 29

• Multidisciplinary Collaborations: Road safety is a multidisciplinary issue and 

activities related to road safety should include a variety of professionals, including 

engineering, planning, public health, law enforcement, emergency medical services, 

public works, and maintenance. Each group can provide a different perspective 

of the problem and often critical information. As discussed previously, law 

enforcement, in particular, is an important partner for SCR programs since law 

enforcement agencies maintain crash data.

• Program Support: For a new SCR program, partners may already have established 

relationships with local agencies. If this is the case, the partners are particularly 

valuable for promoting the SCR program, encouraging agencies to use the service, 

and disseminating information developed by the SCR. In West Virginia, the SCR has 

developed a relationship with its LTAP Advisory Board. The Advisory Board helps to 

promote the SCR program by encouraging locals to become involved. Board 

members can show first-hand evidence of how the SCR has influenced their 

communities. 

The FHWA has promoted the SCR program with the SCR grants. A July 14, 2006, 

memorandum from the FHWA Associate Administrator for Safety to Division 

Administrators states (the complete memorandum is available in Appendix B):

	 	 	 As your State moves forward in developing and implementing a Strategic

	 	 	 Highway Safety Plan that identifies specific strategies to improve safety on all 	 	

 public roads, we encourage you to consider the suitability of providing part- or 

	 	 	 full-time safety assistance to local governments through your State’s LTAP Center 		

 or some other means. If your data points to engineering safety needs on local 

	 	 	 roadways, it will be important to assure those jurisdictions have adequate

 resources to assess and develop safety strategies and projects.

2.2.5 Identifying a Suitable SCR

One of the greatest challenges to initiating a SCR program, aside from identifying sufficient 

funding, is identifying an appropriate circuit rider. The New York LTAP Center indicated that hiring safety circuit riders is one of its greatest issues. While several common characteristics were 

identified among current safety circuit riders, the preferred characteristics of a circuit rider will 

likely vary based on the scope of the program.

Safety circuit riders perform a wide range of duties including training, technical assistance, and 

technology transfer. These duties require a diverse knowledge in safety from design and opera-
30

Chapter 2: Program Essentials

tions to specific populations of road users (e.g., 

pedestrians and the elderly). The SCR may work 

with people at all levels of government from local 

officials and local agencies to the State DOT. Therefore, the safety circuit rider must understand the 

various levels of government; experience and relationships at the various levels is even more desirable. Safety circuit riders are also required to travel 

regularly to provide onsite training and technical 

assistance as well as to attend professional development activities (e.g., conferences and seminars). 

As such, the safety circuit rider must be amenable 

to travel and comfortable speaking to large audiences. Additionally, good interpersonal communication skills are very important as safety circuit 

riders must be able to work effectively one-on-one in technical assistance mode. Good written 

communication skills are also critical as safety circuit riders must be able to prepare reports for 

a variety of technical and non-technical audiences.

Interviews were conducted with several current SCRs to identify common characteristics. Appendix D Safety Circuit Rider Commentaries provides thoughts and comments from existing 

safety circuit riders regarding the most important characteristics of the job. The following items 

were identified as common characteristics among current safety circuit riders:

• Diverse skill set: Safety circuit riders are expected to provide a wide range of 

technical assistance and training. This may require a general knowledge in traffic 

engineering, highway design, roadside design, pedestrian and bicycle issues, 

maintenance, construction, and tort liability, as well as how all of these fields relate 

to safety.

• Established relations with local agencies: Having an established relationship with 

local agencies helps to bypass part of the forming partnerships and promotional 

stage of the program. This is not a critical characteristic, however, because the LTAP 

Center may have several existing relationships to promote the SCR and references 

could also be provided by the State DOT, MPO, or RPO. Once the SCR is established, 

they will likely develop their own relationships. It may also be easier to gain the 

support and trust of local agencies if they are familiar with the SCR. Former county 

engineers will certainly have an established relationship and intimate knowledge of 

Characteristics of a Good Safety 

Circuit Rider

• Diverse technical skills in engineering 

and operations. 

• Credibility with local road and other 

community organizations.

• Active in professional associations. 

• Comfortable speaking before large 

audiences.

• Good interpersonal skills.

• Good written communication skills.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 31

local agencies; however, former DOT staff may also have established relationships 

with the local agencies throughout their careers. One of the challenges of using 

former DOT employees is that the locals may have a negative opinion or relationship 

with the DOT. State and local road issues are often very different and it may be 

difficult for a former DOT employee to relate to particular situations at the 

local level. 

• Credibility: Because of the nature of the position (i.e., providing technical expertise), 

a certain level of experience is expected. In this regard, it is unlikely that a young 

engineer will have the necessary skill-set. Even if young engineers have the 

necessary experience, it may be difficult for them to command the respect of the 

local agencies. Professional certification, while not necessary, will demonstrate that 

the SCR has the baseline knowledge in their discipline and will also help with 

credibility. Pennsylvania safety circuit riders are also encouraged to become certified 

as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE).

• Comfortable ‘Working the Crowd’: The SCR may work well with individuals on 

technical assistance, but training often involves a larger audience. Therefore, the SCR 

should be comfortable speaking to and working with a large audience. A senior 

engineer at the New York LTAP indicated that this characteristic is not absolutely 

necessary because people can become comfortable with the task of working with 

large groups. 

2.2.6 Part-Time versus Full-Time Safety Circuit Riders

When initiating or expanding a SCR program, it is necessary to determine the number of safety 

circuit riders needed and whether they will be part-time or full-time employees. Of course, this 

assumes that the number and types of planned activities are known. In many existing SCR 

programs, the number of safety circuit riders was initially determined by available funding and 

the size of the State. 

Chapter 3 provides examples of the activities expected from a part-time or full-time SCR. 

Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 33

Chapter 3: Program Activities

Typical SCR program activities include training, technical 

assistance, and technology transfer. This chapter provides 

examples of the types of activities performed by existing 

SCR programs, as well as the number of activities 

performed each year and percent time spent on each 

type of activity. 

3.1 Training

Training is one common function performed by safety circuit riders (see Figure 3). Based on 

responses from current SCR programs, training is offered on a variety of topics including:

• ADA/Accessibility Requirements.

• Crash Investigation/Reconstruction.

• Equipment and Worker Safety.

• Flagger Training.

• Intersection Safety.

• Low-Cost Safety Solutions.

• Older Road User Issues.

• Pavement Markings.

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety.

• Risk Management/Tort Liability.

• Road Safety Audits/Assessments.

• Road Safety Fundamentals.

• Roadside Safety.

• Software Training.

• Traffic Calming.

• Traffic Engineering Fundamentals.

• Traffic Signal Basics: Warrants, installation, maintenance (not design).

• Traffic Signs. 

• Walkable Communities (different than pedestrian safety).

• Work Zone Safety.

The variety of courses offered will likely vary by program. As discussed previously, many SCR 

programs start small. They offer one or two courses initially and then expand their course list 

Figure 3. Training Session.

SCR Programs activities may 

include training, technical 

assistance, and technology 

transfer. However, the percent 

time dedicated to each aspect 

will vary based on client needs.
34

Chapter 3: Program Activities

as the program becomes more established. One reason for only 

offering a select list of courses initially is the time required to develop course materials. In West Virginia, the SCR typically spends 

more time on training than on technical assistance because of 

the time necessary to develop curriculum, which in many cases 

is highly dependent on the availability of resources. According to the Iowa SCR, it may take four 

to eight hours or more of preparation time for a one-hour presentation. However, once training 

materials are developed, the time commitment to update the materials is not as substantial. 

It is also likely that the need for training will vary from year to year. Therefore, it is necessary 

to continually assess the demand for various courses and provide training on those topics that 

are most desired and timely. In general, the assessment of the need for training is similar to the 

assessment of the need for a SCR program. Important topics to cover during the assessment 

include the courses of interest, appropriate course length (e.g., half-day, one-day, two-day), 

desired format (e.g., onsite or web-based), and willingness to pay. Surveys can be distributed 

to State and local agencies on an annual basis. The Iowa SCR program constantly reviews its 

emphasis areas for relevance and worth to customers by periodically distributing surveys of 

customer needs. Idaho provides a one-day training course on Road Safety Fundamentals and 

Low-Cost/Low-Volume Safety Improvements. The Idaho SCR indicated that the one-day course 

could be enhanced by expanding it to a two-day format. In a two-day format, the course material would be presented on the first day and the following day could be used to demonstrate a 

Road Safety Audit/Assessment (RSA).

Training may also be conducted in conjunction with major program initiatives. All local transportation agencies in Iowa are provided with free crash analysis software along with the current 

five-year crash history. Training is available to help staff use the software and understanding 

the data. Several counties, where courses were provided, indicated that they are implementing 

low-cost improvements. The SCR indicated that the counties have seen a real movement toward 

data analysis and low-cost safety improvements.

The number of course sessions offered per year will likely vary as well. The number of sessions 

offered will depend on the number and availability of safety circuit riders as well as the demand 

for training. 

• In Kentucky, the number of training courses varies from year-to-year, but plans are in 

place to conduct 24 training sessions in 2008, which is the most for any year to date. 

• The Iowa SCR offers as many as 50 training sessions per year. The case studies 

Many SCR Programs start 

small and add or modify 

courses as the program 

develops.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 35

provide several examples of course offerings as well as the number of courses 

offered per year. 

3.1.1 Training Case Studies

Florida

From January through September 2007, the three safety circuit riders in Florida conducted 

13 training activities totaling 125 hours and involving 205 participants. The training activities 

included RSAs for Local Governments, RSAs for CTSTs, Low-Cost Safety Solutions for Rural Roads, 

and Traffic Engineering Fundamentals. For additional details regarding these training activities, 

see Appendix E.1 Florida Training Activities.

As an example of market research, the Florida SCR program distributed a survey before 

developing a course on the Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction 

and Maintenance for Streets and Highways, commonly referred to as the Florida Greenbook, 

a resource for cities and counties regarding design of non-State roads. The course agenda and 

survey were distributed to members of the Florida Association of Counties and Road Superintendents (FACERS) to better determine the course content, target audience, and their needs.

RSAs for CTSTs Workshop, January 2008

The Florida SCR conducted a RSA workshop in Heathrow, Florida. The purpose of the workshop was to provide CTST members with a basic understanding of RSAs and better prepare

them to identify safety issues and countermeasures in their communities.

Participants had diverse backgrounds and reasons for attending. Participants included

State and local employees and even a Senator’s assistant. Job titles of participants included

Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator, Highway Safety Program Manager, and Transportation

Planning Section Manager. Additional details related to the participants are provided in the

Participant Feedback section in Chapter 3.

The workshop addressed three topics:

	 •	 What are RSAs?

	 •	 Why do we need RSAs?

	 •	 Why are RSAs a good fit for CTSTs?

Examples of previous RSAs were provided from several counties. The examples illustrated

several typical safety issues, including pavement edge drop-offs, fixed-object roadside

hazards, sight obstructions, and pedestrian issues. After the classroom portion of the course

was complete, the SCR led a field exercise where the team conducted a RSA, which gave

participants an opportunity to apply the knowledge they obtained from the course and

ask questions.
36

Chapter 3: Program Activities

New York

Training is offered based on demand and feedback from the potential audience. Course 

topics typically vary from year-to-year and by region, based on need. The SCR has also 

developed pocket guides and provides them to local agencies to help them identify and address 

safety issues. The pocket guides are a useful training tool as well. The three pocket guides are:

1. Flagger training: distributed 20,000 guides from 2000 to 2003.

2. Work zone training: distributed 16,000 guides from 2000 to 2003.

3. Traffic signs handbook: distributed 2,933 guides from 2002 to 2003.

The pocket guides have received positive feedback and are very popular with local agencies. 

The Traffic Signs Handbook was updated in 2008 and 3,500 copies were distributed within the 

first year.

Pennsylvania

Training focuses on the latest technology, techniques, and regulations to help local governments maintain and enhance the safety of their local road network. Training is conducted in a 

classroom setting and several courses are regularly scheduled at three set locations across the 

Commonwealth. Training is also initiated in response to customer-specific phone call or email 

requests (local government, planning partner). Following initial training requests, PSATS and 

the SCR work together to propose dates to the municipality. Evaluation forms are collected at 

the end of each class to rate the material and instructor. PSATS sends an evaluation to the SCR 

six months following the completion of a class. In 2007, the SCR conducted 86 training sessions 

involving 1,500 participants. 

West Virginia

The SCR provides training for State and local road personnel. One of the features of the SCR 

training was the safety blitz at DOT district offices. The safety blitz events included several courses over three days: Road Safety Fundamentals on Tuesday, Roadside Safety on Wednesday, and 

Low-Cost Safety Improvements on Thursday. Training also extends beyond the safety blitz and 

is offered on a number of topics including: roadside safety, intersection safety, signs and markings, accident investigation, crash reconstruction, traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle safety, 

road safety fundamentals, low-cost safety improvements, traffic sign retroreflectivity. The SCR 

conducts 30 to 40 training courses each year. In 2007, the SCR conducted 44 training sessions 

totaling 78.5 hours and involving 1,139 participants. 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 37

3.2 Technology Transfer

Technology transfer is a combination of training and technical assistance. Technology transfer, 

for the purpose of this Guide, refers to the dissemination of state-of-the-art and state-of-thepractice methods and tools. Technology transfer often involves onsite, hands-on training. For 

example, retroreflectivity is an important attribute of signs for visibility during nighttime and 

poor weather conditions. Retroreflectivity decreases as signs age, creating a potential safety 

issue. A retroreflectometer can be used to measure the retroreflectivity of signs, but agencies 

may not have the funds to purchase or skills to use the equipment. In West Virginia, the SCR 

program was able to purchase a retroreflectometer with funding support from FHWA. As part 

of a technical assistance activity, the SCR may recommend that the agency conduct a sign study 

to determine the adequacy of sign retroreflectivity and replace inadequate signs. The SCR may 

demonstrate the use of the retroreflectometer and allow the agency to borrow the equipment 

to conduct the study. Iowa’s SCR indicated that keeping up-to-date with new technology is one 

issue related to technology transfer because it changes constantly.

Technology transfer can also involve the dissemination of safety-related resources and information. The Florida SCR program has developed a Highway Safety Resource CD. The CD is distributed to workshop participants and, to date, favorable reviews have been received from CD recipients. Similar to West Virginia, the Florida SCR program has purchased a retroreflectometer and 

plans to train the local agencies on its proper use. The equipment will mostly be used to support 

RSA activities.

Highway Safety Resource CD

The Resource CD includes an extensive list of safety 

resources including the following topics: 

• Highway Design.

• National Cooperative Highway Research

Program (NCHRP) Report 500.

• Restraints (Observing occupant restraint

use/misuse, increasing use).

• RSAs.

• Safety Management Systems.

• Special Populations.

• Statistics.
38

Chapter 3: Program Activities

3.3. Technical Assistance

Technical assistance includes onsite, phone-based, or webbased support to answer technical questions and provide 

guidance to State and local agencies. Technical assistance 

can include a number of activities ranging from advice 

related to appropriate signage and installation requirements to detailed crash analysis with safety diagnosis and 

countermeasure recommendation. Much of the technical 

assistance related to design guides and standards can be 

answered quickly by phone or email. When an agency has 

concerns related to the safety of a specific site or area, a 

site visit is typically required, which is much more time-consuming. Many of the SCR programs 

began on a small scale, offering some onsite assistance, and in some cases, SCR programs initially limited onsite support to specific counties, focusing on those with the greatest need. One 

benefit to limiting the initial focus is the potential to develop strong relationships (e.g., repeat 

visits and in-depth assistance). As the programs became more established, they were able to 

expand services to other counties and offer a wider range of technical assistance.

A common type of technical assistance is the RSA. Safety circuit riders successfully use RSAs to 

improve safety on local roads. A RSA is a formal safety examination of a future roadway plan 

or project or an in-service facility; it is conducted by an independent, experienced, multidisciplinary RSA team. Figure 4 provides an example of a safety issue identified during a SCR technical assistance site visit and potential countermeasure to address the safety issue. The following 

case studies provide several examples of technical assistance activities conducted by existing 

SCR programs.

Technical assistance can range 

from advice related to 

appropriate signage to 

a detailed safety diagnosis and 

countermeasure recommendation. SCR programs may offer 

limited technical assistance 

initially and then expand their 

services over time.

Figure 4. Examples of SCR Technical Assistance.

An example technical assistance site visit by the SCR 

identifies pavement edge drop-offs as a safety concern.

The safety edge is one potential recommendation to address 

pavement edge drop-offs created by resurfacing.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 39

3.3.1 Technical Assistance Case Studies

Florida

In Florida, the safety circuit riders have worked with nearly a dozen counties to review crash 

data and identify locations with safety issues. Once locations are identified, the safety circuit 

riders conduct site visits or formal RSAs to diagnose safety issues. Florida safety circuit riders 

have been conducting RSAs for over three years.

District 7 has become so involved with the SCR program that it has developed a five-year work 

plan for conducting RSAs and Road Safety Audit Reviews (RSARs). Based on a safety diagnosis, 

the safety circuit riders work with the agency to identify low-cost solutions to:

• Improve signing and pavement markings.

• Install appropriate signs and rumble strips.

• Trim vegetation to improve sight distance and the visibility of signs.

Figure 5 provides an example of issues identified during RSAs in Pasco County and the actions 

taken to remedy the issue. A more detailed example of a Pasco County RSA is provided in 

Appendix E.

Figure 5. Examples of Issues Identified during Pasco County RSAs.

Guide signs were identified as confusing and obstructed 

visibility of the traffic signals on Leo Kidd Avenue 

(background).

Sign clutter was identified as an issue, especially 

redundant signage.

Guide signs were consolidated and backplates added 

to increase visibility of the traffic signal and to reduce 

driver overload

Redundant evacuation signs were eliminated and 

remaining sign located so visibility was not obstructed.

Ridge Road (CR 587) at Leo Kidd Avenue.

SR 54 at Morris Bridge Road / Eiland Boulevard (CR 579)

Before

Before

After

After
40

Chapter 3: Program Activities

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania SCR Program provides six types of technical assistance services to local 

governments. 

1. Participating in “local safe roads communities” reviews to assist municipalities in 

developing an ongoing safety improvement program.

2. Conducting “walkable communities” reviews to assist municipalities in improving 

pedestrian safety and walkability in their communities.

3. Conducting road safety audit reviews to improve safety on local roads.

4. Providing local agency staff with customized technical assistance to address roadway 

safety issues.

5. Providing customized advanced technical assistance to municipalities who regularly 

use LTAP services. 

6. Participating in “technical assistance for a day” (Visiting Engineer Program) to reach 

out to those municipalities who have not utilized LTAP.

As there is some overlap within these services, it is up to PennDOT, PSATS, and the SCR consultant to determine the appropriate service for each municipal request. For example, one site 

examined as part of the Local Safe Roads Communities may end up being a Road Safety Audit 

Review because of the lack of reportable crashes. For additional details on each type of technical assistance, refer to Appendix E.

In addition to the in-person technical assistance, the SCR also publishes technical information 

sheets (i.e., technical articles) through the Pennsylvania LTAP Center. The technical information 

sheets are relatively short (no more than a few pages) and focus on a specific topic (e.g., curve 

warning versus turn warning signs). An example of a technical information sheet is provided in 

Appendix E.

Utah

The Utah SCR program uses Safety Software Suite to provide technical assistance and RSAs to 

local agencies. The Safety Software Suite is described further in Appendix E. As part of the RSA 

training and technical assistance, the Utah SCR developed a mailing list of those local agencies 

that have received RSA training. In addition, the SCR facilitates the organization of teams for 

locals requesting RSAs. The local agency is responsible for providing preliminary studies and per
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 41

tinent information for the location of interest, as well as lunch for the RSA team. The Utah SCR 

also uses the FHWA RSA Peer-to-Peer program for additional assistance in conducting the RSAs. 

West Virginia

As reported in the LTAP Program Assessment Report (PAR), the majority of the technical 

assistance in West Virginia includes five types of activities.

1. Participating in the Community Design Team and First Impressions programs, which 

enhance community development. 

2. Conducting onsite visits to assess and make recommendations in dealing with issues 

such as hazardous roadways, on-street parking, crosswalk location, and intersection 

safety for a variety of agencies and associations. 

3. Setting up automated traffic recorders and conducting speed and traffic counts for 

local roadway agencies. 

4. Conducting sidewalk and walkability assessments for communities. 

5. Providing one-on-one instruction to individuals on topics ranging from proper 

calculation of sight distance to developing PowerPoint displays and public relation 

 pieces.

The West Virginia LTAP center tracks all technical assistance requests, including those conducted 

by the SCR. The technical assistance requests are tracked separately under Highway Safety 

Technical Assistance and Worker Safety Technical Assistance. The information recorded for each 

technical assistance request includes:

FHWA Road Safety Audit Peer-to-Peer (RSA P2P) Program

To provide assistance to agencies either considering the use of or actually conducting RSAs,

the FHWA Office of Safety established a peer-to-peer (P2P) program. The RSA P2P program

is provided at no cost to State, local, and Tribal transportation agencies, and it’s easy to access the support of a knowledgeable peer.

A State, local, or Tribal agency can request assistance either by email or by calling the tollfree number describing their needs to the FHWA-sponsored P2P coordinator. The coordinator will match the agency with a transportation professional that is experienced and knowledgeable in RSAs, including expertise with particular issues or types of RSAs.

The matched peer will then contact the agency to work out the details of the assistance to 

be provided within the program framework, which can include a site visit as needed.
42

Chapter 3: Program Activities

• Description and date of request.

• Name and contact information of person requesting assistance.

• Action taken to satisfy request.

• Keyword to classify request topic (e.g., work zone, roadside safety, pedestrian/

bicycle, and tort liability).

In West Virginia, onsite technical assistance has typically focused on safety issues that can be 

addressed with low-cost safety improvements such as sight distance and signing (see Figure 6). 

As a separate focus area, walkability audits have been conducted in several towns and neighborhoods to identify pedestrian issues. The following provides a short list of examples of technical 

assistance activities. Further details are provided in Appendix G Participant Feedback and additional technical assistance activities are presented in Appendix E. 

• Technical Assistance for City of Fairmont Public Works: The Public Works 

Department requested technical assistance from the COTR on two occasions. In 

November 2006, the Department requested a review of parallel parking along the 

street to see if it could be safely converted to angle parking. In May 2007, Public 

Works was concerned about increasing vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the college 

campus (Fairmont State University). The SCR provided technical assistance to address 

this problem. 

• Walkability Audit of Concord University and Town of Athens: At the request of a 

faculty member at Concord University, the West Virginia SCR led a walkability audit 

on October 18, 2006, to assess the walkability of portions of the Town of Athens and 

the Concord University Campus. The University was interested in providing a more 

pedestrian-friendly campus and the community was interested in enhancing 

pedestrian safety, particularly for elementary and high school students.

• Technical Assistance for Local Homeowners Association: A faculty member at West 

Virginia University requested the services of the SCR on behalf of a local 

homeowners association concerned with pedestrian safety. 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 43

3.4 Time Spent on Activities

The time spent on various activities depends on the services offered by the SCR program, as well 

as the demand for the various services. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the relative amount of 

time spent on major SCR activities (i.e., training, technology transfer, and technical assistance).

Top left and right photos show a marked crosswalk before a technical assistance activity from the West Virginia SCR. Crossing 

is difficult to see from a driver’s perspective.

Bottom left and right photos show the same marked crosswalk after a technical assistance activity from the West Virginia 

SCR. Pavement markings have been repainted and a retroreflective sign has been installed to increase conspicuity.

Figure 6. Example of Technical Assistance Activity in West Virginia.

*Note: Iowa other activities 

included research. Pennsylvania 

other activities include special 

event presentations at county 

conventions, APWA meetings, 

and conferences.

Table 1. Time Spent on Major SCR Activities by State.
44

Chapter 3: Program Activities

3.5 Resources to Develop/Obtain Materials

There is extensive literature related to road safety and it 

is unlikely that a SCR program would need to produce any 

new material. Therefore, it is necessary for the SCR to be 

familiar with the latest safety information including practices, ideas, methods, guides, and standards and stay current 

with the state-of-the-practice. The SCR should be familiar 

with the differences between policy, standards, guidance, 

and research. The safety circuit rider should be familiar 

with the current policies and standards of the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design 

of Highways and Streets (Green Book), the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),

and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Section 3.5.1 provides examples of how these and other 

documents were utilized. Much of the safety-related literature, such as the NCHRP 500 Series 

Guidebooks, is not prescriptive; rather it offers recommendations to address specific 

safety issues. 

3.5.1 Reference Section

Several current SCR programs have developed reference materials for local agencies. These 

quick-reference guides include excerpts from the MUTCD or AASHTO Green Book that are 

specific to local roads. To develop training documents, many of the SCR programs have used 

material from existing courses offered by the FHWA or the National Highway Institute (NHI). 

Aside from FHWA and NHI courses, the following list includes several references that may 

be applicable:

• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book). American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC. 

(2004). Available for purchase at the following address: 

 https://bookstore.transportation.org/Item_details.aspx?id=110

• Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors. Federal Highway Administration 

Report No. FHWA-SA-07-015, Washington, DC. (2007). 

 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/desk_ref_sept2008/index.htm

• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC. 

(2004). Available for purchase at the following address: 

 https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?id=119

The SCR should be familiar with 

the difference between nominal 

and substantive safety. Design 

policy and standards set the 

baseline, while careful research 

provides insight on potential 

safety impacts.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 45

• Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The National Academies, Washington, DC. (2000). 

Available for purchase at the following address: 

 http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=1166

• Institute of Transportation Engineers. Manual of Transportation Engineering

 Studies, Washington, DC. (Publ. No. TB-012). (1994). Available for purchase at 

the following address: 

 http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=TB-012

• Low-Cost Local Road Safety Solutions. American Traffic Safety Services Association, 

Fredericksburg, VA. (2006). 

 http://docs.mvrpc.org/safety/Low_Cost_Local_Roadway_Safety_Solutions.pdf

• Low Cost Traffic Engineering Improvements: A Primer. Federal Highway 

Administration, Report No. FHWA-OP-03-078, Washington, DC. (2003). 

 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/low_cost_traf/low_cost_traf.pdf 

• Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety. Federal Highway Administration, 

Report No. FHWA-SA-07-002, Washington, DC. (2006). 

 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pubs/sa07002/index.htm

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Federal Highway 

Administration, USDOT, Washington, DC. (2000). http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Report 486: Systemwide 

Impact of Safety and Traffic Operations Design Decisions for 3R Projects, 

National Academies, Washington, DC. (2003). 

 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_486_full.pdf

• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). 500 Series Reports, 

National Academies, Washington, DC. 

 http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_browse.asp?id=2

• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Synthesis of Highway 

Practice 321, Roadway Safety Tools for Local Agencies, National Academies, 

Washington, DC. (2003). 

 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_486_full.pdf

• Pline, J. Traffic Engineering Handbook, 5th Ed., Institute of Transportation Engineers, 

Washington, DC. (1999). Available for purchase at the following address: 

 http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/Orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=TB-010A
46

Chapter 3: Program Activities

• Roadside Design Guide. Third Edition. American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. (2002). Available for purchase at the 

following address: 

 https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=148

3.5.2 Resource Materials Case Studies

Florida

Florida has its own version of the Green Book, which is a general guideline for non-State road 

design and is a primary resource for cities and counties. The Florida SCR program is developing 

a workshop to provide a broad overview using the Florida Green Book as the main resource. 

In addition, a Florida SCR regularly attends the statewide Green Book Committee meeting to 

exchange ideas about the course.

NHI courses are another useful resource for obtaining materials. The RSA training presentation, 

offered through the Florida SCR program, was adapted from the FHWA RSA course. Two safety 

circuit riders, as well as staff from the Florida LTAP Center, attended a FHWA RSA train-thetrainer workshop in November 2006. Based on materials from the train-the-trainer course and 

assistance from the FHWA, the safety circuit riders began offering RSA workshops. The workshops were refined and materials added, including Florida-specific issues. The Florida SCR program currently offers two different RSA classes—a full two-day course and a modified one-day 

course for CTSTs. The RSA course for CTSTs is a compressed version of the two-day class with a 

discussion of the relevance to the CTSTs. In another example, a SCR attended a train-the-trainer 

course for Design and Maintenance of Paved Low-Volume Roads. The course materials will be 

Figure 7. Examples of Safety Resource Documents.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 47

evaluated for possible incorporation into current SCR workshops and possibly used to develop 

a new workshop.

Iowa

The Iowa SCR provides several manuals for various topics including pavement markings, signing, 

and work zone traffic control. FHWA training materials are an excellent resource for developing 

SCR materials. The MUTCD, State Department of Transportation, and various web sources are 

other useful resources for developing materials.

New York

The New York SCR distributes three different pocket guides to provide a supplemental tool to 

local agencies. The pocket guides were developed by staff at the Cornell Local Roads Program 

and based on a number of resources including:

1. Flagger training: Uses North Carolina flagger 

handbook and updated with the New York standards. 

2. Work zone training: Uses North Carolina work zone 

handbook and updated with New York standards. 

3. Traffic signs handbook: Uses the MUTCD as well 

as the New York MUTCD supplement. Includes 

additional input from the State DOT. 

 http://www.t2.unh.edu/pubs/sign_handbook.pdf

Pennsylvania

Most of the training courses are developed in-house using a variety of resources. The safety 

circuit riders distribute many State-specific manuals for work zone, signs, traffic studies, tort 

liability, and flagging.

Utah

The Utah SCR program uses Safety Software Suite to provide technical assistance and RSAs to 

local agencies. Safety Software Suite is a royalty-free, GIS-based, safety analysis tool, which 

incorporates several modules to assist with sign management, crash analysis at segments and 

intersections, RSAs, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. Appendix E provides 

further details regarding select modules. The crash analysis capabilities of the software include 

calculations of equivalent property damage only (EPDO), crash rate, and weighted hazard index 
48

Chapter 3: Program Activities

(WHI). Using a GIS-based platform, the software is also capable of locating crashes and crash 

statistics to specific segments or intersections. The tool can also incorporate existing crash data 

with crash reduction factors (CRFs) to estimate the expected reduction in crashes. The CRFs 

are obtained from the FHWA Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors. In addition, the 

software can generate a benefit-cost analysis for proposed treatments based on the expected 

reduction in crashes and cost of treatment.

The SCR program uses other existing resources, in addition to the Safety Software Suite, to 

facilitate RSAs for local agencies. In particular, the SCR program uses the Desktop Reference for 

Crash Reduction Factors, developed by FHWA, as well as a Cost- Benefit Analysis Worksheet, 

developed by the Utah DOT, in conjunction with Iowa. 

3.6 Agency Requests for SCR Activities

In most cases, the process for requesting SCR activities is relatively informal. Requests are 

typically handled on a first-come-first-served basis and can be submitted by letter, telephone, 

email, or in-person to the SCR or the LTAP/TTAP Center. The West Virginia SCR indicated that 

requests often result from personal contacts at workshops, meetings, and conferences. 

Requests are also generated through involvement with community development (e.g., the 

Community Design Team) and other similar organizations. The West Virginia SCR indicated that 

its involvement with the Community Design Team is the most common source of technical 

assistance requests. At this point, many SCR programs are relatively new and usually do not 

often have a long queue for requests. While the number of requests is relatively limited, the 

requests can be tracked manually. As SCR programs become more established, it may be 

necessary to modify the request process, including an automated system to receive the 

requests and track the progress until the request is closed. The Pennsylvania case study provides 

an example of a web-based tracking procedure. 

3.6.1 Requesting SCR Activities Case Studies

Pennsylvania

There are over 2,500 local governments in Pennsylvania, including cities, townships, and 

boroughs. Each of these local governments owns and maintains a roadway network, which 

range in size from all roads within an area of one square mile to roadway networks covering more than 125 linear miles. Municipal government employees (e.g., elected officials, 

road crews, planners, engineers) can submit a request to the PennDOT Central Office, PSATS, 

PennDOT Municipal Services representative (i.e., PennDOT District liaisons to local governments 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 49

who help administer liquid fuels funds), the MPO/RPO, or directly to the safety circuit riders.

• PennDOT LTAP Website: If the request is made by an individual at a local 

government through its account on the PennDOT LTAP website, that request is 

immediately forwarded to PSATS. PSATS then sends it to the SCR consultant 

point-of-contact who decides to whom the request should be assigned.

• Phone/Email/In-Person: If the request is made by an individual at a local 

government through the toll-free phone number, email, or in-person, then the 

PennDOT or PSATS representative will submit the request through the website and 

the process will proceed as described previously.

• Directly to the SCR: If the request is made directly to the SCR, then the SCR will 

submit the request through the website. In this case, however, the SCR will accept 

the assignment request and complete all required documentation.

Once PSATS notifies the SCR consultant point-of-contact of a request, the consultant point-ofcontact assigns the technical assistance based on the location and nature of the request. The 

assignment to a particular SCR is completed by phone, email, or on-site and PSATS is copied 

on the assignment to start the web-logging and assignment process. All contacts are tracked 

through the website.

Regarding the timeframe, the SCR contacts the requesting municipality within three working 

days from receipt of the request. Once the SCR agrees to send follow-up material, it is sent 

within five business days of the agreement. The on-site visits are scheduled based on the availability of the SCR and requesting municipality. The SCR performs the technical assistance and 

documents all applicable technical and administrative information until the tech assist is considered complete or inactive. Again, all information is tracked using the existing LTAP website. The 

SCR provides final documents and information to the requesting agency within 10 business days 

of the on-site technical assistance. After the technical assistance is complete, the SCR closes the 

request on the website within 10 business days.

PSATS is responsible for administration activities to ensure all requests are met in a timely 

fashion and closed to the satisfaction of the requesting municipality. Copies of all technical 

assistance correspondence, which must include the assigned technical assistance number, are 

maintained by PSATS.
50

Chapter 3: Program Activities

3.7 Typical Audience

The typical audience of SCR-related activities 

may range from State employees to members 

of volunteer safety groups. It is likely that technology transfer will apply mostly to engineers, 

while the audience for training and technical 

assistance will be much broader. Florida safety 

circuit riders conduct training workshops and 

provide technical support, but do not provide engineering services or detailed design recommendations. The typical audience in Florida 

includes elected officials, law enforcement, municipal workers, safety advocacy groups, roadway 

designers, street superintendents, public works employees, directors, CTSTs, and engineers. In 

Pennsylvania, the typical audience includes elected officials, roadmasters, law enforcement 

personnel, street superintendents, public works employees, and public works directors. 

Engineers are welcome to attend but the focus is on the non-engineer.

In Iowa, the typical audience includes employees of county and city agencies, utility companies, 

and private contractors. Specific examples include the county engineer, city administrator, local 

safety representatives, and staff from these local agencies. The Iowa SCR indicated the importance of a multidisciplinary focus in training efforts (e.g., involve other local agencies such as 

public works, law enforcement, and elected officials). Iowa has a very good relationship with 

several local law enforcement agencies and a great relationship with the Iowa State patrol, and 

these agencies have provided valuable input and assistance. It is beneficial to develop relationships and include public safety and law enforcement officials in the training and technical assistance efforts because they are responsible for documenting crashes and are a valuable resource 

when conducting safety studies and road safety audits.

The majority of technical assistance will probably be requested by State and local engineers, but 

the West Virginia SCR has received and responded to several requests from local communities 

as well. In West Virginia, there are no county-maintained roads; all roads are State maintained 

except those that are in incorporated municipalities. There are, however, county headquarters 

staffed by State personnel. The primary recipient of SCR support is the State DOT including 

central office, districts, and county headquarters. Other SCR activities include local road 

agencies and communities. When possible, the SCR tries to involve elected officials, public 

health, and law enforcement agencies, but this is the exception rather than the rule. The SCR 

indicated that pedestrian and bicycle advocacy groups are more responsive to these requests.

Figure 8. SCR Speaking to Group in West Virginia.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 51

Chapter 4: Program Evaluation

4.1 Anecdotal Evidence

Many SCR programs are relatively new and based on their 

recommendations; local agencies may have only recently 

installed safety countermeasures. Few, if any, crash-based 

evaluations of SCR programs have been conducted to 

determine program effectiveness. However, several other 

indicators can be used in lieu of crash-based statistics to 

assess the strength and effectiveness of the program. 

Other indicators may include:

• Number of training and technical assistance sessions.

• Number of projects initiated as a result of the SCR activities. 

• Number of requests for SCR support.

• Anecdotal evidence and feedback from those who have requested SCR support.

Based on interviews with several States, there is evidence that the SCR program has been 

successful. 

4.1.1 Anecdotal Evidence Case Studies

Florida

Local agencies do not have adequate funding to evaluate roadway improvements; however, the 

safety circuit riders are optimistic about their efforts. Ed Kant, Florida safety circuit rider, indicated that two locations recently improved in Hendry County included restriping and installing turn 

lanes. The projects have been completed for less than a year, but it appears that the identified 

safety issues have been corrected. 

Idaho

With help from Local Technical Councils, the SCR is working to raise awareness among local 

jurisdictions. The effort has met with a good deal of success because local agencies now understand the magnitude of the safety problem (e.g., crash statistics and crash costs) as well as 

available resources to address the problem. This has also generated significant interest from the 

insurance organizations and State DOT to develop and support the program. The insurer of local 

road agencies sees the potential for the SCR program to reduce liability.

While formal safety evaluations 

of SCR programs are limited, 

there is plenty of other evidence 

to indicate the success of 

existing SCR programs.
52

Chapter 4: Program Evaluation

Iowa

The SCR program is evaluated on an annual basis and results are reported to the Center for 

Transportation Research and Education (CTRE), at Iowa State University. In addition, LTAP provides quarterly reports to the DOT to show how funds are being used, particularly for the SCR 

program. An annual report is also provided to the LTAP Advisory Committee. Finally, there are 

periodic surveys to identify customers’ needs as well as any suggestions they have for training.

While there are several annual evaluations of the SCR program, as mentioned above, many of 

the oversight groups use similar metrics for evaluation. At CTRE, annual goals are set and discussed during the program evaluation with the CTRE Director. The annual report to the LTAP 

committee is essentially a summary of the quarterly reports to the Iowa DOT, with an added listing of contacts and technical information sharing. Participant evaluations were used for several 

years following individual workshops, but were discontinued because the results were mostly 

redundant and not worth the effort. Appendix F.1 Quarterly Report to Iowa DOT provides an 

example of a DOT quarterly report summary.

To date, Iowa’s SCR program has demonstrated results as anticipated and appears to be very 

successful. The continued interest in training and an increasing number of requests for technical assistance indicate the program’s value. Feedback from local agencies has also been positive. Iowa provides a series of safety workshops for rural agencies every year. These include 

workshops related to older driver safety, intersection safety, and run-off-road crashes. This year 

a number of attendees indicated they were implementing specific spot improvements on their 

own (e.g., shoulder widening and slope flattening). The spot improvements are typically implemented with in-house funding and staff. 

One noteworthy aspect of Iowa’s SCR program is the opportunity for involvement in safetyrelated research. The research offers a good basis for technology transfer in topics of interest to 

local agencies.

New York

There has not been a formal evaluation of SCR activities in New York, but a review of the overall 

LTAP program was conducted in 2007. Currently, the program appears to be effective because 

there are several requests for training and technical assistance, and the training sessions are 

always full. From 1997 to 2003, the traffic safety outreach program trained 2,341 participants 

in 105 workshops on seven topics. In addition, safety-related videos were loaned to local agen-
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 53

cies 525 times. Among these, work zone training was the most popular. Technical assistance was 

requested and filled 143 times on issues of traffic safety, traffic control, and sign management.

An example of a successful technical assistance effort follows. A school zone speed limit sign 

with flashing beacons was installed prior to a school zone to warn motorists to slow down when 

flashing. The sign created a safety hazard, however, because it was located on the outside of 

a horizontal curve and mounted on a 2.5-ft-high concrete base. The SCR conducted a site visit, 

confirmed that the fixed object was a hazard, and recommended a better installation location. 

The beacon was relocated beyond the curve and installed with the concrete base at ground 

level.

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania LTAP submits a quarterly report to the Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic 

Engineering (BHSTE) in fulfillment of their grant requirements. The quarterly report summarizes 

the activities conducted by the SCR, including progress to complete activities proposed in the 

grant. Specifically, the report summarizes the number of sessions, the number of attendees, 

and the number of site reviews that resulted from training sessions. For each individual training 

course, the report indicates the date, duration, instructor, and location as well as the number 

of registered students, number of students attended, and number of students that passed. 

For technical assistance activities, the report summarizes the number of contacts by response 

method (i.e., office or on-site) as well as the number of safety improvement recommendations 

and number of safety improvements implemented as a result of the recommendations. Specific 

details are provided for the Local Safe Roads Communities and the Walkable Communities efforts, including the number of communities contacted, progress made in each community, and 

number of communities completed. For each individual technical assistance activity, the report 

provides information for the date completed, description of the type of activity (e.g., delineation and marking), location, method of contact (e.g., phone or field visit), information requested, actions taken, and time spent on the activity.

Several of the SCR activities were summarized in Chapter 2 and Appendix E, including the number of training sessions and participants as well as the number of technical assistance activities 

and resulting improvements. While these summaries provide some indication of the penetration of the SCR Program, they do not provide a specific measure of the quality or safety effectiveness of the program.

To evaluate the quality and effectiveness of SCR technical assistance activities, a safety technical 
54

Chapter 4: Program Evaluation

assistance evaluation analysis was conducted. The following points summarize the results of 17 

evaluations received during a single reporting period: 

• 100% indicated that the technical assistance adequately addressed the request.

• 88% reported using the information immediately, if not within six months of the date 

of the technical assistance.

• Most respondents reported numerous benefits from the technical assistance 

provided.

o 76% reported being able to do their job better.

o 71% reported increased safety for their communities.

• 82% rated the technical experts highly – 4 on a scale of 1 to 4, one being low.

• Materials when provided and the time allotted remain highly rated.

While most agencies were unable to quantify the safety effectiveness of the technical assistance 

and resulting improvements, two agencies did provide noteworthy information:

1. Town of Bloomsburg: Requested information related to the conversion of a street 

from two-way to one-way operation. The SCR provided the town staff and 

council with the necessary information to make a sound, justifiable decision. The 

one-way operation was implemented and the town reported improvements in traffic 

operations and pedestrian safety.

2. Lynn Township: Requested technical assistance regarding speed limits. The agency 

reported increased safety as follows: “You cannot put a price on public safety. 

Reducing the speed limit in one area has saved a child’s life. An accident occurred 

but because it was at a reduced speed limit the child on a bike was not killed.”

West Virginia

The West Virginia SCR indicated that it is too early to determine whether the program is operating as envisioned in terms of crash reduction goals. Local agencies often implement the recommended safety improvements, but it is difficult to show an associated crash reduction because 

the location of interest is usually only one point on a relatively low-volume road. Similarly, the 

State DOT has either programmed or recently implemented recommendations and sufficient 

time has not passed for a formal evaluation.

Anecdotally, the SCR program has exceeded expectations. This is evidenced in the training area 

by the number of requests for workshops. In fact, the SCR program receives more requests 

for workshops than they can facilitate. For technical assistance, the SCR noted that the large-
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 55

scale data analysis, road review, and countermeasure identification effort for the State DOT is a 

noteworthy aspect of the program. The State DOT has programmed several recommendations 

related to roadway departure countermeasures and has implemented several intersection and 

pedestrian countermeasures identified in five focus cities. 

4.2 Available Before-After Data

While many of the existing SCR programs complete an annual program review, only one included a detailed review of crash data to determine the effectiveness of the program. The following 

describes the overall status of the SCR program in Kentucky and details the safety effectiveness 

in regard to crashes. 

4.2.1 Kentucky Before-After Case Study

According to the Kentucky SCR, the program is exceeding expectations. By the end of the first 

phase of the program in June 2005, Kentucky helped to improve 39 roads as a result of the 

workshop and RSA activities, spending only $235,000 on the safety improvements. The involved 

counties in Kentucky have seen a marked improvement in safety through reduced injuries and 

fatalities. Roadways included as part of SCR activities recorded a 49.9 percent crash reduction in 

2006. This reduction is based on crash data from sites that were improved in 2005 as part of the 

SCR efforts. The reduction was determined by comparing the average number of crashes per 

year in the before and after periods. The before period included five years of data and the after 

period included crash data from the time of implementation in 2005 through 2006. The public 

and media also responded well to the visible improvements in local roads. 

4.3 Secondary Benefits of SCR Activities

Secondary benefits are those benefits that cannot be quantified in terms of a crash reduction. 

While the SCR can provide recommendations to enhance safety, the recommendations do not 

necessarily include the implementation of some countermeasure or program. The recommendation can include advice against implementation if it is counter to good safety practice and 

recognized engineering guidelines (e.g., installing CHILDREN AT PLAY signs). Political expediency 

is an issue at all levels of government, particularly at the small, local government level. Elected 

officials, public works directors, and street supervisors are often under public pressure to install 

or implement some device, even though it may not be in the best interest of safety. The SCR can 

provide these people with safety-related evidence to support or refute the public request. 

Secondary benefits also include the increased awareness of manuals and guidelines (e.g., 

MUTCD, Roadside Design Guide). By working with the local agencies, the SCR can demonstrate 
56

Chapter 4: Program Evaluation

the purpose of using these manuals and guides. If the 

agency continues to refer to these materials after their 

experience with the SCR, this should lead to increased uniformity of the roadway and roadway features (e.g., signs, 

markings, work zone traffic control), better information to 

motorists, and reduced liability exposure for the local agency. While it is difficult to quantify the 

safety effectiveness of secondary benefits, they should not be ignored because they can lead to 

significant long-term safety benefits. 

4.3.1 West Virginia Secondary Benefits Case Study

As discussed in Section 3.3.1 Technical Assistance Case Studies, the City of Fairmont requested 

assistance from the West Virginia SCR to evaluate the potential to convert on-street parallel 

parking to angle parking. The request for angle parking was proposed to the City of Fairmont 

City Council by retail merchants with the hope of increasing available parking. The West Virginia 

SCR evaluated the situation and provided advice to the City of Fairmont recommending against 

the conversion to angle parking because of restricted sight distance on the street. The public 

works director, armed with the recommendation from the SCR, presented the advice and supporting evidence to the City Council. The City Council took into account the data provided by 

the SCR and turned down the request from the business community.

In another case, a new city administrator in a small town (Ronceverte, WV) asked the SCR to 

review the town’s plan to convert several streets in a residential area to one-way traffic flow. 

The SCR examined the area and noted the presence of pedestrian traffic with relatively low 

traffic volumes. The SCR recommended against the one-way conversion (i.e., the streets remain 

two-way) because the conversion to one-way pairs would likely increase speeds and make the 

streets more attractive as shortcuts, thereby increasing traffic volumes in a residential area 

where pedestrians are present. The administrator took the advice of the SCR and, two years 

later, commented that he was glad he had listened to the SCR. Since then, the SCR has provided 

traffic-related assistance to the town on three other occasions. This indicates that the town 

respects and values the advice of the SCR, even though the first contact involved the rejection 

of their idea.

A number of other examples exist where the West Virginia SCR has recommended against proposals for installing CHILDREN AT PLAY signs or mid-block crosswalks where safety was an issue.

Increased awareness of safety 

and better adherence to design 

manuals and guidelines are benefits of SCR programs.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 57

4.4 Participant Feedback

While much of the evidence of program success has been 

quantitative (e.g., number of training and technical assistance activities, number of requests for activities, and 

implementation of recommendations), participant feedback can also be an indicator of the strength and success 

of a program. Participant feedback represents customer 

satisfaction, which is important for the sustainability 

of a program. 

Florida and West Virginia were two States where thorough case studies were conducted. Because of the large number of SCR activities in these States, ample opportunities were available 

to obtain feedback from course and workshop participants as well as those requesting technical assistance. The remainder of this section provides an overview of activities performed and 

related feedback regarding the satisfaction with the SCR program. More details on participant 

feedback are provided in Appendix G. 

4.4.1 Participant Feedback Case Studies

Florida

In January 2008, one of the Florida SCRs instructed a RSA workshop for CTSTs in Heathrow, 

Florida. The purpose of the workshop was to provide CTST members with a basic understanding 

of RSAs and better prepare them to identify safety issues and countermeasures in their communities. The free workshop attracted participants with very different backgrounds and reasons 

for attending. Follow-up interviews were conducted with several participants determined their 

reasons for attending and their satisfaction with the workshop. Each participants interviewed 

had positive comments regarding the workshop. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator for the 

City of Gainesville, Florida, indicated that he had attended prior RSA training, but this workshop 

was very useful and provided a different perspective on RSAs. A recently promoted Highway 

Safety Program Manager for District 1 indicated that he now has a good understanding of the 

RSA process and within one month of the training had already conducted an RSA. The Transportation Planning Section Manager for the Lake County Public Works Department indicated 

that the RSA workshop was very good overall and provided information from many different 

perspectives. Regarding the length of the workshop, he indicated that it was sufficient for senior 

management, but a two-day course may be more appropriate for those who are involved with 

RSAs on a regular basis. Additional comments are presented in Appendix G. 

A great deal of information can 

be gleaned from client feedback. 

While crash reductions are the 

ultimate goal of the SCR program, client satisfaction provides important insight on the 

success of a program.
58

Chapter 4: Program Evaluation

West Virginia

The West Virginia SCR has conducted numerous technical assistance activities including activities related to parking, traffic calming, walkability, and pedestrian and bicycle safety. These 

activities have been conducted both in- and out-of-state. Participants consistently indicated that 

the SCR was extremely helpful and very pleasant.

A participant involved in the walkability audit of Concord University and Town of Athens, West 

Virginia, noted that the study helped to spark interest in pedestrian issues throughout the 

university and community. The community has since applied for a grant through Safe Routes 

to School to implement several recommendations from the walkability study. Officials included 

several portions of the SCR’s report in their application and were awarded the grant. 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 59

Chapter 5: Program Evolution

5.1 Challenges and Lessons Learned

For those agencies that would like to initiate or enhance a SCR program, several lessons from 

other SCR programs may be of use. The following points were identified as challenges that have 

arisen or lessons learned during the initiation and evolution of existing SCR programs. The issues 

are summarized by the chapters presented in this report.

5.1.1 Program Initiation

Chapter 2 discussed program initiation and program sustainability. The chapter includes information related to 

funding, partnerships, promoting the SCR program, and 

how to identify qualified circuit riders. Many of the obstacles identified by existing SCR programs were encountered 

during the program initiation stage. During program initiation, one must determine the need for a SCR program and 

at the same time identify sources of funding to support the program activities. This is why most 

existing SCR programs started small and expanded as the program became more established. 

Another challenge is identifying a qualified SCR once the program is funded or in obtaining 

funding to initiate or continue a program. Although it took several years, Wisconsin’s program 

provides valuable insights as to how funding may be obtained to start a SCR.

West Virginia had no challenges of a technical nature, but did encounter some drawbacks 

related to program administration. Administratively, it took a long time to process the 

contractual paperwork through the State DOT because this effort was different from the normal 

Highway Planning and Research (HP&R) projects. 

5.1.2 Funding

The SCR program has been very popular in Florida, but as a result of the substantial population 

(18.5 million), transportation funds are spread thin. Hurricanes, reduced property taxes, and 

budget cuts have also reduced the available funding for safety projects. With reduced funding, 

local agencies are interested in SCR activities because they do not have the funds to implement 

the recommended improvements or pay for workshops and training. Also, with funding shortages, training was the first program to be cut. Much of the time spent developing relationships 

and buy-in has been negated by the lack of funding.

Many obstacles identified by 

current SCR programs were 

encountered during program 

initiation including contract administration, initial funding, and 

identifying appropriate SCRs.
60

Chapter 5: Program Evolution

5.1.3 Promoting/Sustaining a SCR Program

The State of Iowa has been a leader in changing the culture of highway safety. Specifically, they 

have stressed the significance of the highway safety problem and have established support from 

State and local agencies as well as the public to address this issue. This has helped sustain the 

SCR program in Iowa because agencies and the public can see a real benefit to the activities 

performed.

In terms of continuity, West Virginia had some difficulties related to turnover within the SCR 

program and within local agencies. The original circuit rider left West Virginia after the first year 

of the program, so a new circuit rider arrangement was worked out for year two and beyond. 

Because of high turnover in local governments, continuous effort is necessary to promote the 

SCR program as a resource.

5.1.4 Identifying/Hiring Safety Circuit Riders

The New York LTAP Center indicated that one of its biggest challenges has been finding personnel to provide training and technical assistance. One potential hire did not accept the position 

because of concerns about the long-term status of the SCR program, among other reasons. 

Currently, the program contracts with eight private consultants to provide training when needed. Two of the consultants also serve as SCRs and provide technical assistance.

5.2 Issues Related to Safety Circuit Rider Support

Chapter 3 highlighted various activities performed by the 

safety circuit riders. Activities include technical assistance, 

training, and technology transfer. The main issues related 

to safety circuit rider activities include the time to develop 

materials, travel time, and staying current with client 

needs. 

5.2.1 Training and Technical Assistance

The Iowa safety circuit rider cited the amount of time necessary to develop course materials. 

It can take 4 to 8 hours to develop materials for a one-hour presentation, depending mostly on 

the availability of materials and resources. Staying up-to-date with new technology is also an 

issue because it is constantly changing.

The Idaho safety circuit rider indicated that travel time for training and technical assistance is an 

issue because of the State’s large geographic area. Flying was considered as an alternative mode 

Issues related to SCR activities 

include travel time and the 

time to develop and update 

materials.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 61

of transportation, but has not proven to be a viable solution because of the amount of training 

materials necessary for the workshops.

5.2.2 Limitations of Support

Based on conversations with the West Virginia safety circuit rider, it is important to realize the 

limitations of the safety circuit rider duties. The safety circuit rider is intended to provide 

support to State and local agencies, not to perform the duties of the agencies or consultants. 

This is a sensitive issue because the safety circuit rider can make recommendations, but they 

cannot always help agencies implement the recommendations. For example, the SCR program 

in West Virginia was able to purchase a retroreflectometer with the additional FHWA funding 

support. As part of a technical assistance activity, the safety circuit rider may recommend that 

the agency conduct a sign study to determine the adequacy of sign retroreflectivity and replace 

inadequate signs. The safety circuit rider may then provide technology transfer to the agency, 

demonstrating the use of the retroreflectometer. However, the agency is responsible for 

completing the majority of the work, not the safety circuit rider.

5.2.3 Lack of Local Agency Resources 

Local agencies often have very limited resources to implement the recommended changes, 

including staff, materials, equipment, and budget. The low-cost improvements are beyond the 

scope of what the local agency can do, but the magnitude is also too small a job to justify all of 

the paperwork, time, and hassle of hiring a contractor. Therefore, the work may not get done. 

If there was a statewide or district-wide contract to cover the low-cost improvements, then 

small work orders could be issued to the contractor with minimal effort and delay in response 

to each SCR visit. One safety circuit rider in Florida strongly recommended an on-call contractor to implement the relatively low-cost recommendations from SCR-related activities as they 

are completed. If a contractor could handle the simple low-cost improvements (e.g., add a sign, 

refurbish pavement markings), everyone would see an immediate improvement from the SCR 

efforts, including the local agency, the public, and the elected officials. This would have a significant effect on program visibility and should lead to more timely safety benefits. In Florida, 

one district currently uses FHWA funding to purchase materials (e.g., signs, Qwik Kurb, solarpowered flashers) for the local agencies, but the local agencies are responsible for installation 

and maintenance. 

5.2.4 Requests for Safety Circuit Rider Support

In West Virginia, the SCR program has had a minor backlog of requests for assistance from local 

agencies, but mostly related to scheduling issues. Site visits often require two to three months 
62

Chapter 5: Program Evolution

advance notice to work out the logistics. Every year, the local agencies are given more responsibility (e.g., new signals, widened roads, more signs, etc.) and asked to cut their budgets. The 

common theme of do more with less has not been conducive to the SCR program.

5.3 Changes to SCR Programs

Over time, it may be necessary or beneficial to make 

changes to a SCR program. As discussed previously, many 

SCR programs start small and expand the number and 

types of training and technical assistance offered. Starting 

small allows a program to establish relationships with local 

agencies and thoroughly develop materials for those activities that are offered. As a program 

becomes established, it may be necessary to adjust training and technical assistance based on 

the need of local agencies. Some larger States have also added SCRs to more efficiently cover 

the various regions of the State. Funding, however, is the primary factor in determining the level 

of safety circuit rider support. As funding changes, particularly if funding is reduced, it may be 

necessary to adjust the type or level of support. The following points are offered as examples of 

changes that were made out of necessity or proactively to enhance existing SCR programs.

5.3.1 Modify SCR Support

At the inception of its SCR program, Kentucky offered limited support related to data collection 

and analysis. After the program was established, the State was able to expand its data collection 

and analysis efforts. It has also expanded the number of items monitored using the data. 

In Iowa, the SCR program constantly reviews its emphasis areas for relevance and worth 

to customers. Surveys of needs and preferences for training are distributed to customers 

periodically and topics are added as needed.

The Florida SCR program has enjoyed great success with the RSA course. The full two-day 

course was modified to a one-day version for the CTSTs in the State because CTST members are 

volunteers and do not have time to attend a two-day session. Of the 57 CTSTs that would greatly 

benefit, many have not yet received the training because funding is not adequate to meet 

the demand.

When the FHWA grant for the West Virginia SCR program expired, the intense work on data 

analysis and road reviews also ended. Other safety circuit rider activities continue and the 

Start small and expand as resources become available. Many 

existing SCR programs have 

found success in this method. 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 63

potential to increase data analysis and road review activities depends on whether additional 

funding is identified. For example, the State DOT may fund an initiative on intersection safety 

that involves the safety circuit rider. 

5.3.2 Enhance Efficiency

The Florida SCR program includes three safety circuit riders, located strategically throughout the 

State to help cover the large geographic area in Florida. Although multiple safety circuit riders 

requires greater funding, the funds are actually better used because travel time and travel costs 

are reduced. This leaves more time and funds available for actual safety circuit rider activities. 

All three safety circuit riders are also part-time, which helps to reduce costs.

The New York SCR program created separate contracts for safety circuit rider training and safety 

circuit rider technical assistance. Although the same person may be involved with both aspects 

of the program, the separate contracts make the paperwork easier. This is particularly useful for 

the New York SCR program because it contracts with consultants to provide the majority of the 

safety-related training.

The New York safety circuit rider also indicated that travel can be very time consuming due to 

the large geographic area of the State. To minimize costs and travel time, the safety circuit rider 

combines trips whenever possible.

Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 65

References

• SCR Survey Responses.

• SCR Webconference Discussion.

• Florida SCR Quarterly Reports.

• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Employee Newsletter, Konnection, Fall 2005. 

Visit: http://transportation.ky.gov/konnection/Fall%202005%20Newsletter.pdf 

[Accessed May 5, 2008].

• The Link, Kentucky Transportation Center, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2005.

• The Link, Kentucky Transportation Center, Vol. 22, No. 1, Spring 2006.

• Pathways, Newsletter for the Tribal Transportation Communities, Vol. 10, No. 4, 

Fall 2003.

• Road Talk, Tennessee TTAP, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 2007. 

Visit: http://ctr.utk.edu/ttap/graphics/roadtalk/pdf%20file/RoadTalkSpring07.pdf 

[Accessed May 5, 2008].

• Road Talk, Tennessee TTAP, Vol. 20, No. 2, Summer 2006. 

Visit: http://ctr.utk.edu/ttap/graphics/roadtalk/pdf%20file/sum06.pdf 

[Accessed May 5, 2008].

• Country Roads and City Streets, West Virginia Transportation Technology Transfer 

Center, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 2004. Visit: 

http://wvltap.wvu.edu/images/Winter04Newsletter.pdf [Accessed May 5, 2008].

• Ostensen, A.G. New focus for highway safety: FHWA’s performance-based approach 

is addressing those initiatives where the prospects for improvement are greatest. 

Public Roads, March-April, 2005. 

Visit: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3724/is_5_68/ai_n14727173/pg_4 

[Accessed May 2, 2008].

• Road Safety Assessments for Community Traffic Safety Teams (CTSTs). 

Florida SCR Workshop. Visit: http://t2.ce.ufl.edu/workshops.asp?workshop=RSACTST 

[Accessed May 5, 2008].
66

References

• Background on Kentucky’s SCR Program. 

Visit: http://tig.transportation.org/sites/aashtotig/docs/AASHTO%20TIG%20

FHWA%20RSA%20Peer%20Exchange%20Notes.pdf 

[Accessed May 2, 2008].

• Background on West Virginia’s SCR Program. 

Visit: http://wvltap.wvu.edu/event3.html [Accessed May 2, 2008].

• Delaware’s SCR Program Employs Students. 

Visit: http://www.ce.udel.edu/current/Circuilt%20Rider.html [Accessed May 2, 2008].

• “Safety Circuit Rider Program to Begin in Fall 2006.” Delaware T2 Center, Travel-Log, 

Vol. 17, Issue 1, Summer 2006. Visit: 

http://www.ce.udel.edu/dct/t2/t2_files/T2%20Newsletter%202006.pdf 

[Accessed May 2, 2008].

• LTAP’s Safety Circuit Rider Program. Iowa LTAP, Visit: 

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/ltap/safety.htm [accessed May 2, 2008].

• Circuit Rider Update. Ohio State DOT, Visit: 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ltap/Newsletters/1999/Q4/page6.pdf 

[Accessed May 2, 2008].

• Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2006. West Central Community Traffic Safety 

Team, Florida. Visit: http://www.hcso.hernando.fl.us/CTSTWeb/index_files/Minutes/

wcfl-9-13-06.pdf [Accessed May 2, 2008].

• Roadway Safety: Activities and Results. Iowa Highway Safety Program Annual 

Evaluation Report, Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau, Iowa Department of Public 

Safety, 2005. Visit: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/SAFETEAweb/images/FY05/AnnRpts/

Iowa_2005AnnRpt.pdf [Accessed May 2, 2008].

• Larsen, D., F.N. Ranck, and J. McFadden. Low-Cost, High Return. Public Roads, 

Vol. 70, No. 2, September/October 2006. Visit: 

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/06sep/04.htm [Accessed May 2, 2008].

• Background on FHWA Pilot SCR Program at TTAP Center. Visit: 

http://www.uttc.edu/hr/jobs/job0186.asp [accessed May 2, 2008].
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 67

Other Websites:

http://www.ence.umd.edu/mdt2center/training/on_request.htm

https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/LTAP/

http://personalweb.smcvt.edu/vermontlocalroads/New/circuit_rider/circuit_rider.htm

Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 69

Appendix A: Safety Circuit Rider Programs

State SCR(s) or Point of Contact Phone Email

Arizona Mike Blankenship (SCR) 602-712-7601 mblankenship@azdot.gov

Connecticut Donna Shea 860-486-5400 shea@engr.uconn.edu

Delaware Matheu Carter (SCR) 302-831-7236 matheu@udel.edu

Florida Gordon Burleson (SCR)

Larry Hagen (SCR)

Ed Kant (SCR)

Nina Barker

352-213-8315

229-237-3269

239-598-3123

352-392-2371

burleygator@bellsouth.net

larry@LarryHagen.com

ejkpe@comcast.net

nina@ce.ufl.edu

Idaho Bruce Drewes bdrewes@uidaho.edu

Indiana Richard Domonkos

(LTAP Training Specialist)

765-494-4225 rdomonko@purdue.edu

Iowa Tom McDonald (SCR) 515-294-6384 tmcdonal@iastate.edu

Kentucky Lance Meredith (SCR) 859-257-7405 meredith@engr.uky.edu

New Jersey Janet Leli 732-445-5236 jleli@rci.rutgers.edu

New York David Orr (SCR) 607-255-8033 dpo3@cornell.edu

Northern 

Plains

Dennis Trusty

Theodore Danks (SCR)

701-255-3285

701-255-3285

dtrusty@uttc.edu

tdanks@uttc.edu

Ohio Mike Fitch (SCR)

Dave Weir (SCR)

614-387-7358 Mike.Fitch@dot.state.oh.us

Pennsylvania Mark Hood (SCR) 814-238-1170 mhood@pennoni.com

South Dakota Ken Skorseth (SCR) 605-688-4185 ken.skorseth@sdstate.edu

Tennessee John Tidwell (SCR) 615-855-1755 jorjtidwell@bellsouth.net

Utah Doyt Bolling 435-797-2931 doyt@cc.usu.edu

Vermont Steve Jerome (SCR) 800-462-6555 sughouse@sover.net

West Virginia Ron Eck (SCR) 304-293-3031 ronald.eck@mail.wvu.edu

Wisconsin Steve Pudloski

Pete Rusch (SCR)

608-262-8707 pudloski@epd.engr.wisc.edu

peterlic@charter.net

Table A.1. Contact Information for Existing SCR Programs

Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 71

Appendix B: Highway Safety Improvement Program

(HSIP) Funding Memorandum
72

Appendix B: (HSIP) Funding Memorandum
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 73

Appendix C: SCR Funding Proposals and Budgets

C.1 California SCR Grant Proposal

The following is a copy of the cover page of California’s grant proposal. The bulk of the proposal 

was dedicated to the grant description, which is described in further detail on the next page 

followed by a copy of the proposed budget for the program. 
74

Appendix C: Funding Proposals and Budgets

C.2 California Grant Proposal Description

Problem Statement: This section includes a background of safety statistics in the State, 

emphasizing the number of pedestrian- and bicycle-related fatalities as well as the State goals 

for reducing these fatalities. The problem statement also outlines the role of local agencies in 

reducing pedestrian- and bicycle-related fatalities and makes a case for additional support at 

the local level.

Grant Goals: The section listed two specific goals of the program, indicating the target audience 

(i.e., local engineering and enforcement agencies) and specific dates of completion. The 

following is an example of one of the two goals:

To enhance traffic safety in California cities and counties that receive Traffic Safety Evaluations 

by working with local engineering and enforcement agencies and recommending practical 

ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local traffic safety programs by September 

30, 2009.

Grant Objectives: Several objectives were listed under each anticipated activity. Activities 

included traffic safety evaluations (TSE), pedestrian safety audits (PSA), and media outreach. 

Three of the nine TSE objectives are listed below as an example.

To conduct 30 2-day site visits on request from cities or counties in California focused on benchmarking local traffic safety programs against similar communities in California and recommending solutions for locally identified problems by September 30, 2009.

To assist local police and traffic engineering staff in their efforts to design coordinated traffic 

safety programs and locate resources to fund their implementation by September 30, 2009.

To produce a report of findings for each site visit that documents recommendations by 

September 30, 2009.

Method of Procedure: This section outlined the tasks to be completed during each phase of the 

program as well as the anticipated start and completion dates for each phase. There were 

a total three phases:

1. Phase 1 (Program Preparation): This phase included training as needed for new 

expert team members, preparing and distributing a new press release to announce 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 75

continuation of the project, and reviewing SWITRS data to identify those cities and 

counties in the top quartile of crash statistics.

2. Phase 2 (Program Operations): This phase consists of four parts including outreach 

and project marketing, performing the community traffic safety evaluations, 

performing the pedestrian safety audits, and development and broad distribution 

of traffic and pedestrian safety best practices.

3. Phase 3 (Data Gathering and Reporting): This phase consists of collecting the 

necessary data to evaluate the progress and success of the program. This phase 

occurs throughout the project, resulting in Quarterly Performance Reports (QPRs).

Method of Evaluation: This section described how the grant manager would 

evaluate the program based on the data compiled in Phase 3. Specifically, the grant manager 

will evaluate: (1) how well the stated grant goal and objectives were accomplished, (2) if all the 

activities outlined in the “Method of Procedure” were performed in accordance with the grant 

agreement, and (3) the cost-effectiveness of the grant.

Administrative Support: This section outlined the administrative support available through the 

University Of California Berkley Institute Of Transportation Studies and its Technology Transfer 

Program.

Proposed Budget: 
76

Appendix C: Funding Proposals and Budgets

C.3 Wisconsin SCR Funding Proposal

Scope

In an effort to improve intersection safety and to minimize consequences of run-off-the-road 

crashes, the UW-Madison based Transportation Information Center (LTAP) and the Traffic 

Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory are proposing an outreach strategy to assist local 

agency partners.

In Wisconsin, 66 percent of intersection crashes occur on local roads and 90 percent of the 

fatalities from run off the road crashes occur on rural roads. Evidence from other LTAP Centers 

indicates that reductions in crashes at intersections and rural roads can be achieved with a 

coordinated outreach approach to local agencies that includes safety engineering analysis and 

on-site technical assistance provided by safety circuit riders. This proposal envisions two 

part-time traffic engineering professionals who would perform the tasks listed below. 

Additionally, the TOPS Laboratory is engaged in numerous safety engineering projects with 

WisDOT that could serve as a basis for providing local road safety information, such as:

• Intersection Safety Countermeasure Plan Development.

• Road Safety Audit Program Support and Coordination Services.

• Run-off-the Road Safety Counter measures Plan Development.

• Unique indications for improving signalized intersections.

• Hosting TransPortal which includes query tools to access over 13 years of historical 

crash data and a variety of other transportation operations information (e.g., weather, 

volumes, etc.).

• Assist circuit riders in organizing before and after crash effectiveness studies to evaluate 

safety improvements resulting from this program.

The project includes two components: back office traffic safety engineering analysis and outreach oriented safety circuit riders. In coordination with LTAP, the TOPS Laboratory will process 

requests for local crash data and provide summary data and a customized catalog of appropriate 

countermeasures to the circuit riders who will work with local governments.

The Safety circuit riders will:

• Assist local agencies in using crash data to identify opportunities for crash reduction at 

intersections and run off the road locations.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 77

• Develop relationships with local agencies staff and County Traffic Safety Commissions 

to achieve the use of crash data to make appropriate safety improvements.

• Provide technical assistance to local agencies to assist in selection and design of safety 

improvements.

• Assist communities conduct before and after crash effectiveness studies to evaluate 

safety improvement programs on local roads.

• Provide technical assistance to local agencies to assist in implementation of upcoming 

requirements for sign retro-reflectivity.

• Develop curriculum for safety training intended for local agency staff and law 

enforcement officials.

Benefit

Using the single automated statewide crash mapping application, TOPS can perform traffic 

safety analyses to identify critical locations and crash causes for the purpose of decision 

support. Using the safety analysis produced by TOPS, safety circuit riders can provide hands-on 

technical assistance to local officials thereby implementing safety measures to mitigate safety 

problems and ultimately save lives and the loss of property.

Cost

Total funding for the two year pilot is anticipated to total $280,000. Approximately $50k 

per year is designated to support the local roads-oriented analysis at the TOPS Laboratory 

and $90k per year would be allocated to support two, part-time safety circuit riders.

Source of 10% match funds

The Wisconsin Transportation Information Center (LTAP) source of the 10% matching comes 

from publications sales and course registration fees.

Support relevance to SHSP emphasis area

Activities would specifically support SHSP Issue Area 2: Improve Design/Operation of 

Intersections and Issue Areas 6&9: Keep Vehicles on the Road and Minimize Consequences 

of Leaving the Roadway.
78

Appendix C: Funding Proposals and Budgets

C.4 Wisconsin SCR Contract Budget

The following is a copy of the Wisconsin contract budget. It should be noted that this budget 

was amended to reduce the academic salaries and fringe benefits in an effort to increase the 

SCR salary and travel budget by $23,000.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 79

Appendix D: Safety Circuit Rider Commentaries

This appendix provides commentaries from existing safety circuit riders about the important 

characteristics and qualifications for safety circuit riders.

Florida

Florida currently employs three safety circuit riders, 1) a former public works director, 2) 

a retired DOT engineer, and 3) one with a diverse background. The following commentaries are 

from current Florida safety circuit riders related to the desired characteristics of a SCR.

SCR #1 (Ed Kant):

To be proficient, a safety circuit rider should have a good relationship with local 

agencies, background in traffic engineering, good knowledge of how government works 

(e.g., budgeting, public law, and local ordinance requirements in terms of what it takes 

to get projects funded and completed), and be comfortable speaking to groups. 

A SCR also needs to understand how to bypass the typical engineering process to 

implement low-cost countermeasures. Many of the situations encountered by a SCR 

can be enhanced through simple measures such as improving signs and pavement 

markings or trimming trees to improve sight distance. These types of improvements 

do not require a complete engineering study.

SCR #2 (Gordon Burleson):

Safety circuit riders should have some public speaking skills and a professional 

background specifically related to the area in which the clients work. The SCR must be 

able to communicate to field maintenance personnel, engineers, and politicians. If the 

SCR’s background is closely related to the field personnel and engineers, their 

suggestions are more likely to be accepted. If the SCR is a professional engineer, their 

suggestions are more likely to be accepted by politicians (county commissions).

In regard to having a background in traffic engineering, it is best if the SCR has field 

implementation and/or maintenance experience rather than design experience. It also 

helps if the SCR has over 15 years of experience; being under the age of 35 may not be 

desirable due to issues with credibility and experience.
80

Appendix D: Safety Circuit Rider Commentaries

SCR #3 (Larry Hagen):

A safety circuit rider must be a person with a passion for reducing crashes and the resulting 

injuries and fatalities, a strong traffic safety CHAMPION. The safety circuit rider must have the 

ability to communicate with people at all levels within the hierarchy of a transportation agency 

from the maintenance worker to the engineer, as well as with other people including law 

enforcement officers, elected officials, the press, and the public. The SCR must have a few gray 

hairs gained from the school of hard knocks, and ideally would have a broad and diverse 

background that may include design, operations, and/or maintenance responsibilities. 

Above all, the most important thing that a SCR must bring to the table is a spirit of cooperation. 

To be effective in making the changes that are necessary to bring about any improvement, 

the SCR often has to bridge jurisdictional issues that exist between agencies. It could be 

responsibility issues between state and city/county agencies, or long-standing discord between 

traffic engineering and law enforcement. The SCR’s focus must be on getting the right players 

to the table to bring about effective change. All of the players have a part in making our 

roadways safer, but no one player has the whole; all of the E’s (engineering, education, 

enforcement, EMS, encouragement, everyone else, etc.) must work together to make 

substantive safety improvements.

Iowa

According to the Iowa SCR, the most essential characteristics for a safety circuit rider are 

credibility, the ability to communicate well, and a passion for roadway safety. Retired county 

engineers have an established relationship with local agencies and also command a certain 

level of respect and credibility from local agencies because they are seen as “one of their own.” 

County engineers, however, often do not have a strong safety background and it is often 

necessary to provide them with this skill set through train-the-trainer or similar programs. 

A background in traffic engineering and/or safety would be valuable for safety circuit riders, 

but is not mandatory because a person with a passion for safety can obtain this knowledge 

through professional development or training.

The Iowa SCR has never been a county engineer, but has worked with local agencies extensively 

throughout his career with the Iowa DOT. This has helped build a degree of credibility among 

local agencies. Also, the SCR has been involved in a considerable amount of research 

throughout his career. While the research activities are mostly an interest of the Iowa SCR, and 

not necessarily a requirement of the SCR position, the results of many of these studies have 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 81

 

provided excellent opportunities to share safety information with local agencies and develop 

resources such as handbooks and manuals. 

Pennsylvania

The following commentary is from a current SCR in Pennsylvania related to the desired 

characteristics of a SCR.

Mark Hood:

It is important for a SCR to have a technical knowledge in traffic engineering, 

operations, and traffic safety with an understanding of design, maintenance, and liability 

issues. It is best if the SCR has field implementation and/or maintenance experience 

rather than design experience. More importantly, they should know if something will 

work in the field and how to get it implemented in the field. It is also helpful for a SCR to 

have a good understanding of State law, operation of local government, and existing 

resources and manuals. It is important for a SCR to be a registered professional engineer, 

but the age of the SCR is secondary to experience. To be effective, the SCR should be 

able to explain engineering concepts in a useful manner to a non-engineering audience 

(i.e., they must be able to relate to all audiences: law enforcement, elected officials, 

designers, and road laborers). Finally, the SCR must be willing to travel as part of the job 

and be comfortable and effective at public speaking.

West Virginia

The West Virginia SCR program identifies circuit riders based on the required characteristics. 

According to the SCR, desired characteristics include adequate knowledge of design and 

operations (e.g., guides, policies, and issues), diverse knowledge in safety, willingness to travel, 

ability to communicate and work with others, public speaking skills, and ability to work in the 

field and provide hands-on assistance.

Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 83

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities

E.1 Florida Training Activities

The three safety circuit riders in Florida are focusing on 10 of the 67 counties (see Program 

Initiation for additional details). Table E.1 provides an example of the number of training 

activities that occur during a typical year. These training activities include those conducted from 

January through September of 2007.

Table E.1. Overview of 2007 Training Activities in Florida (January to September) 
84

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities

E.2 Pennsylvania Training Activities

Table E.2 provides an example of the number of training activities that occur during a typical 

year in Pennsylvania. These training activities include those conducted from 2006 through 2008.

Table E.2. Overview of 2006-2008 Training Activities in Pennsylvania

Note: Some session lengths were shorter or longer in duration.

Name of Session Session Length 

(hours)

Number of 

Sessions

Number of 

Participants

Average 

Participants 

per Session

Engineering and 

Traffic Studies

8

7

7

6 in 2006

9 in 2007

4 in 2008

92

133

53

15

15

13

Low-Cost Safety 

Improvements

7.5

•

•

1 in 2006

0 in 2007

0 in 2008

11

•

•

11

•

•

Risk Management/Tort 

Liability

3.5

4

4

1 in 2006

6 in 2007

6 in 2008

18

69

124

18

12

21

Road Safety 

Improvement 

Program

8

7

7

2 in 2006

4 in 2007

2 in 2008

16

67

15

8

17

8

Signing and Work 

Zone Rules for Local 

Governments

4

4

4

34 in 2006

16 in 2007

3 in 2008

868

296

67

26

19

22

Traffic Calming •

•

7

0 in 2006

0 in 2007

3 in 2008

•

•

41

•

•

14

Traffic Signs 8

7

7

16 in 2006

19 in 2007

9 in 2008

332

279

156

21

15

17

Work Zone Traffic Control 4

4

4

32 in 2006

32 in 2007

24 in 2008

662

661

530

21

21

22

Total

- -

92 in 2006

86 in 2007

51 in 2008

1,999

1,505

986

22

18

19
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 85

E.3 West Virginia Training Activities

Table E.3 provides an overview of presentations made by the West Virginia LTAP in 2007, all 

of which were provided by the SCR as formal workshops. Training opportunities also include 

presentations (1 to 2 hours) at state and regional safety venues, community group meetings, 

and to elected bodies.

Table E.3. Overview of 2007 Training Activities in West Virginia
86

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 87

E.4 Florida Technical Assistance Activities

Pasco County RSAs

Larry Hagen, a SCR for the central region of Florida, has conducted multiple RSAs in Pasco 

County. Pasco County was one of the first counties in Florida to utilize the SCR for conducting 

RSAs on a large-scale. To determine the locations of greatest need regarding safety, a 

preliminary list of intersections was developed utilizing the Pasco County Crash Data 

Management System (CDMS). Criteria to identify the high-priority locations included: average 

number of crashes per year, total number of fatalities, total number of injuries, percentage 

of angle crashes, percentage of left turn crashes, and percentage of crashes occurring at 

intersections. The list of candidate intersections was then reviewed by Pasco County Traffic 

Engineering staff and modified to reflect the County’s work program schedule (i.e., locations 

already scheduled for improvements were eliminated from the list). This process identified the 

top 10 intersections for a RSA. 

The RSA team was assembled by the FHWA with assistance from the Florida DOT Traffic 

Operations staff. The team included members from the FHWA, Florida DOT Traffic Operations, 

Pasco County Traffic Operations, Pasco County Sheriff Office, City of New Port Richey, 

a consultant, Florida SCR (Larry Hagen), and URS Corporation.

The SCR led the RSA using the traditional eight-step RSA process for all 10 intersections. The SCR 

produced a comprehensive RSA report describing the suggested measures ranging from 

short-term solutions such as signing and pavement marking modifications to geometric changes 

such as adding turn-lanes (see Table E.4 below). The SCR also added a step to the RSA process. 

This was a RSA follow-up one year after the initial RSAs involving the same RSA team members. 

This enabled the team to not only ensure actions were taken to address potential safety issues, 

but permitted the review of suggested intermediate and long-term measures.

Table E.4. Example of Issues Identified and Suggestions from Pasco County RSA
88

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities

E.5 Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Activities

Local Safe Roads Communities

A. Purpose: Assist municipalities in developing an ongoing safety improvement program to 

achieve a measurable impact in improving safety on local roads by reducing crashes at 

specific locations.

B. Process: 

1) Initiate: PSATS and the SCR consultant are proactively contacting the “top 30” 

municipalities with high crash rates throughout PA (with reasonable geographic and 

population distribution as well as type of municipality). Also, any municipality who 

expresses an interest in the program is considered.

2) Conduct: Once initial contact is made, engineer calls the municipality to schedule an 

onsite kickoff meeting with municipality, PSATS, Municipal Services Representative, 

planning commission members and anyone else chosen to be present. Crash data 

is requested from PennDOT and local knowledge is obtained at the kickoff meeting. 

An onsite visit is then conducted and a final report is generated with safety 

improvement recommendations for three to four high-crash locations.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 89

3) Follow up: Engineer documents this as an onsite tech assist(s) and PSATS follows 

up 6 months later to determine if anything has been implemented and if crashes 

have been reduced following implementation.

Walkable Communities

A. Purpose: Assist municipalities in improving pedestrian safety and walkability in their 

communities.

B. Process: 

1) Initiate: PennDOT Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE) 

provides interested communities with input from District Pedestrian-Bike 

 coordinators.

2) Conduct: Conduct of Walkable Communities varies by the interest of the 

community. In general, once initial contact is made, engineer calls the 

municipality to schedule a day for an onsite kick-off meeting with municipal 

representative. Engineer also conducts a ‘walkabout’ and takes pictures to 

assess the community for pedestrian safety and walkability issues. A crash data 

is requested of PennDOT and local knowledge is obtained at the kickoff meeting. 

A customized workshop is then presented in the municipality based on the 

‘walkabout’. Following the workshop, a report is generated summarizing 

key findings.

3) Follow up: Engineer documents this as an onsite tech assist(s) and PSATS follows 

up 6 months later to determine if anything has been implemented.

Road Safety Audit Reviews

A. Purpose: To improve safety on local roads by performing RSARs on existing roadways in 

municipalities to proactively identify road safety deficiencies. The selected RSARs will 

be used to generate more detailed technical assist data for generating technical 

bulletins, class example materials, newsletter articles, and safety case studies.

B. Process: 

1) Initiate: Municipality requests a safety-oriented technical assist, and PSATS 

and/or the consultant determine whether it is worthy of further study/

documentation.

2) Conduct: Engineer calls the municipality to schedule a day for an onsite visit. An 

engineer (and possibly a junior engineer) meets with the municipal 
90

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities

representatives who together choose a roadway, intersection, school zone, etc. on 

which to conduct the audit. The team would drive the agreed upon roadways, use 

PennDOT’s Road Safety Audit forms and photos to document what is seen. 

A report is generated with findings. Note that this road safety audit review process is 

defined in the Roadway Safety Improvement Program (RSIP) class.

3) Follow up: The municipality is required to respond in 6 weeks to document how they 

are addressing safety concerns on the roadway. PSATS will follow up 6 months later 

to determine of anything has been implemented. The consultant will document 

safety improvements that were made, and conduct a before/after crash study to 

document safety improvement results. 

Tech Assist

A. Purpose: Provide local government representatives customized technical assistance in 

highway safety or highway maintenance issues. As an example, the SCR has provided 

support related to the appropriate use of pavement markings, warning signs, and 

advisory speeds.

B. Process:

1) Initiate: Response to customer-specific request by phone call or email.

2) Conduct: After assignment, engineer provides assistance over the phone or email 

or schedules an onsite visit to review the situation.

3) Follow up: PSATS sends tech assist evaluation 6 months following completion.

Advanced Tech Assist

A. Purpose: To provide further customized training and technical assistance to 

municipalities who regularly use LTAP services. 

B. Process:

1) Initiate: This service is initiated as part of a scheduled Training Class (Roadshow). 

Based on the topic of the class requested, the instructing engineer and/or PSATS 

discuss with the class host the opportunity for the engineer to provide customized 

onsite technical assistance on this topic. This can occur the day before the class 

so that the site-specific example may be used as part of the in-class discussion; 

or it can occur after the class is complete (in the afternoon if it is a half-day class 

or the next day if it is a full day class) so that participants can see how the 
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 91

information provided in the class may be applied to a real-life scenario. The 

PennDOT, PSATS, or a consultant representative who responds to the class 

request should ask a series of questions to determine whether an onsite tech 

assist or customized training may better meet the needs of the customer 

(municipality).

2) Conduct: A TOAST is conducted and documented by the engineer in the same 

manner as a regular tech assist.

3) Follow up: PSATS sends tech assist evaluation 6 months following completion.

Tech Assist for a Day (Visiting Engineer Program)

A. Purpose: Expand the LTAP service user base by reaching out to those municipalities who 

have not utilized LTAP.

B. Process: 

1) Initiate: Similar to the TOAST, prior to travel for an already scheduled Training 

Course (Roadshow), identify and proactively cold-call municipalities in the area 

who have not used LTAP services in the last 3 years to determine whether the 

LTAP Engineer could provide assistance to the municipality. Possibly utilize 

District Municipal Services Representatives or Planning Partner for suggestions. 

This assistance can occur the day before the class, or it can occur after the class is 

complete (in the afternoon if it is a half-day class or the next day if it is a full day 

class). This may also encourage nearby municipalities to attend the training class. 

If we do not get any ‘bites’, PSATS could identify those nearby municipalities who 

indicated an interest in an onsite tech assist on the class evaluation forms. An 

analysis could also be conducted on regions of Pennsylvania that are underrepresented for technical assists, and targeted for this program. 

2) Conduct: This program is conducted and documented by the engineer in the 

same manner as a regular tech assist. Because we will be at the municipality for 

an extended period of time, this may result in a number of different tech assists.

3) Follow up: Engineer documents this as an onsite tech assist(s) and follows 

up with any additional information, letter, or report as necessary. PSATS sends 

tech assist evaluation(s) 6 months following completion.
92

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities

Sample Technical Information Sheet: The following is an example of a technical information 

sheet. The SCR publishes technical information sheets through the Pennsylvania LTAP Center to 

provide detailed information on a specific topic. The sample technical information sheet focuses 

on new signing and work zone rules for local governments.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 93
94

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities

E.6 West Virginia Technical Assistance Activities

On September 7, 2005, West Virginia LTAP (Local Technical Assistance Program) engineers Ron 

Eck, Mike Blankenship, and Brad DiCola met with Easton Elementary School officials and parents 

to discuss the traffic circulation of buses and teacher/parent vehicles entering and exiting the 

school property. School representatives included Principal Hlad, student parents Sherry Williams 

and Donna Weems, and bus driver Joe Boyles. Based on our discussions, an on-site review, and 

a bus turning radius demonstration, we developed the following recommendations with student 

safety in mind.

1. Backing maneuvers by the buses are extremely hazardous and should be eliminated. One 

way to accomplish this is to make the front parking lot a one-way loop in the counterclockwise direction as shown on the attached drawing. Buses can make a continuous loop with

out backing maneuvers and park along the guardrail beside the field. The parking lot will 

need pavement markings to show the “bus lane” around the lot.

2. The safest student drop-off/pick-up is for parents to drive to the front of the school with 

the passenger side of the vehicle at the curb so students don’t have to cross paths with 

vehicles. This can be accomplished by the parent driving to the back of the school and 

making a loop, continuing to the front of the school to let students out. To facilitate these 

vehicular movements, no parking must be enforced for some of the parking stalls on the side 

of the school (all stalls to the left of the door, and one stall to the right of the door, as one 

faces the school from outside).

3. Parking for faculty/staff at the rear of the building can be enhanced by relocating the picnic 

tables (possibly to the field area). This should more than make up for the decrease in parking 

stalls on the side of the school building.

4. Prohibit parking in the front lot during the morning and afternoon hours. This will be used 

for bus maneuvers, and it will decrease the student/vehicle conflicts. If the pavement in the 

middle of the lot is not needed for parking during evening events, consideration should be 

given to removing the pavement and landscaping this center “island.” If this is not an option, 

additional measures will need to be taken to prohibit parking in this area during bus 

operations (signing, pavement markings, educating the parents about the parking 

prohibition).

5. During the afternoon student pick-up hour, parents’ vehicles will queue from the front of the 

school to the back of the school. To reduce the queue lengths, students can be released at 

staggered times, by grade or last name.

6. If the above recommendations are not considered feasible, the following modifications are 

offered, as shown on an attachment. Mark the parking lot for the bus lane, as described 

above. Continue to allow automobile parking in the middle of the lot, but provide parking 

stall markings for more orderly and efficient parking maneuvers. Provide highly visible 

crosswalks from the school building to this parking lof for students to use in going to and 

from their parents’ vehicles and the school.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 95
96

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 97

Walkabout of Port Marion, Pennsylvania
98

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 99
100

Appendix E: Safety Circuit Rider Activities

E.7 Utah Resources

The following are screen captures from the Safety Software Suite, which the Utah SCR utilizes to 

provide technical assistance and RSA activities. Figure E.1 is a screen capture from the sign management module. This module allows agencies to track the location, date of installation, and 

condition of their signs. Figures E.2 and E.3 are screen captures from the RSA module. Figure E.2 

shows a tool that is used during roundtable discussions when conducting RSAs. The team can 

utilize this module to easily track the location and details of each issue identified during the RSA 

process as well as the relative severity and recommended actions. Figure E.3 shows a sample 

report that is automatically produced based on the inputs from the roundtable discussion. The 

report includes a summary of the issue identified, the location, recommended actions, and even 

a picture to illustrate the issue.

Figure E.1 Screen Capture from Sign Management Module
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 101

Figure E.2 Screen Capture from RSA Module – Data Entry Tool

Figure E.3 Screen Capture from RSA Module – Reporting Tool 

Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 103

Appendix F: Program Evaluation

F.1 Quarterly Report to Iowa DOT

Safety Circuit Rider Quarterly Report

Fiscal Year 2008  Quarter Number 

October through December 2007

Safety Circuit Rider

Scheduled and participated in several progress meetings for research projects including

safety corridors in Iowa, installation and evaluation of rumble stripes on local roads, and

crash analysis on very low volume rural roads. Participated in the 2007 MINK conference 

on October 23rd and 24th in St. Joseph, MO, LTAP Advisory Committee meeting, Midwest

Transportation Consortium Symposium in Ames, Traffic Safety Alliance meeting in West 

Des Moines, STRCC meeting in Ames, and Traffic Safety Forum in West Des Moines. 

Scheduled and participated in three Local Road Safety workshops with 100 participants 

in Ames, Car roll, and Iowa City. Participated in two road safety audits in eastern Iowa. 

Presented work shops on registered flagging with 21 participants and DOT flagging with 

8 participants. Scheduled and participated in a teleconference and video conference for 

the Smart Work Zone Deployment Initiative Board of Directors. Participated and made 

presentation in a web conference on safety circuit riders.

Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 105

Appendix G: Participant Feedback

G.1 Participant Feedback in Florida

Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) Meeting in Heathrow, FL: In January 2008, Larry Hagen 

(FL SCR) instructed a RSA workshop for CTSTs in Heathrow, FL. The CTSTs are important partners 

of the SCR program, acting as local road safety advocates. The purpose of the workshop was 

to provide CTST members with a basic understanding of RSAs and better prepare them to 

identify safety issues and countermeasures in their communities. The workshop was offered 

free of charge and of the participants that attended the workshop, most had very different 

backgrounds and reasons for attending. Follow-up interviews were conducted with several 

participants to determine their reason for attending and satisfaction with the workshop.

Participant #1: Dekova Batey is the Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator for the City of 

Gainesville, FL and also serves on a community advisory board. The CTST to which he belongs 

would like to perform RSAs in the future, but does not yet have any specific projects in line. 

He attended the RSA workshop for informational purposes. While he had attended prior RSA 

training, he indicated that this workshop was very useful and provided a different perspective 

on RSAs. He appreciated the training opportunity and felt that it was useful knowledge to bring 

back to the CTST. He felt the knowledge would also be useful when dealing with public concerns 

and reviewing future pedestrian and bike projects. The participant noted that the instructorled training was a benefit compared to distance learning because it allowed for in-field 

experience and a very interactive atmosphere with input from several individuals with 

different backgrounds.

Participant #2: Michael Kautz had recently been promoted to Highway Safety Program 

Manager for District 1 of the Florida DOT, but was unfamiliar with RSAs. He attended the 

workshop to learn about the RSA process. He indicated that the course provided an appropriate 

amount of information and he now has a good understanding of the RSA process. Within one 

month of the training, they had already conducted an RSA, including multijurisdictional inputs. 

He noted that the instructor-led training was beneficial because it provided an opportunity for 

actual field experience and dealt with local issues.

Participant #3: Noble Olasimbo is the Transportation Planning Section Manager for the Lake 

County Public Works Department and is responsible for their Traffic Safety Team. He attended 

the workshop for continuing education purposes to be better prepared in his supervisory role. 

He noted that his county had conducted a few RSAs, but they may ask the SCR to attend a future 
106

Appendix G: Participant Feedback

RSA to identify opportunities for improvements in their process. He indicated that the RSA 

workshop was very good overall and provided information from many different perspectives. He 

had a relatively good background in safety before the workshop, but the workshop helped to 

enhance his current knowledge. He added that he has a much better understanding of the RSA 

process and purpose after attending the workshop. He mentioned that it was very helpful to go 

into the field as part of the workshop, but did not feel that online training would hinder the field 

exercise because a lot could be done with technology. He indicated that it is more important 

to have a diverse group of participants because the input from various perspectives helps to 

enhance the learning experience. He felt that the target audience is also an important factor for 

determining the structure of the workshop. He indicated that younger participants may be more 

amenable to online training while older professionals may prefer the hands-on and in-class 

approach. He noted that travel costs could play a factor in the type of training, particularly for 

local governments that do not have a large travel budget. Regarding the length of the workshop, 

he indicated that it depends on the responsibilities of the participants. For senior management, 

he felt that the workshop was sufficient; however, for those who are involved with RSAs on a 

regular basis, it may be more appropriate as a 2-day course. While the course was offered free 

of charge, the participants had to donate their time and the participant mentioned that it would 

be nice if the training counted toward professional development.

Participant #4: Linda Spivey works for a Florida Senator and attends CTST meetings on behalf of 

the Senator. The participant had attended the workshop to learn more about RSAs and would 

like to take a more active role in safety as a private citizen after her job with the Senator.

G.2 Participant Feedback in West Virginia

Technical Assistance for City of Fairmont Public Works, WV: The public works department in 

Fairmont, WV has requested technical assistance from the SCR on two different occasions. In 

November 2006, there was a request for the SCR to review parking along Monroe Street in 

Fairmont, WV. The request was made to determine if parking could be increased by converting 

the parallel parking to angle parking. Based on a review of the literature, it was determined that 

angle parking is more hazardous than parallel parking. Based on a review of the site conditions, 

it was determined that the street was too narrow to provide angle parking and no changes were 

made. While there were no changes as a result of the technical assistance, the public works 

representative indicated that the SCR was very helpful and provided the necessary guidance to 

determine the feasibility of increasing parking. Had the parking been converted without 

consulting the SCR, safety issues may have arisen as a result of the narrow roadway width and 

hazards associated with angle parking.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 107

In May 2007, the public works department once again contacted the SCR for technical 

assistance. The concern was that vehicle speeds are increasing in the vicinity of the college 

campus (Fairmont State University). Residents contacted the public works department and 

requested speed bumps for their neighborhood. The city has a policy to avoid the use of speed 

bumps, but was amenable to the installation of speed humps if necessary. The SCR provided 

drawings of typical speed humps, including dimensions, and discussed potential issues with 

drainage and snow plows. There was not enough local support to install the speed humps, 

but the city is currently monitoring the situation and is prepared to install speed humps if 

necessary. The representative indicated that the SCR was extremely helpful in both situations 

and the technical assistance was greatly appreciated. 

Walkability Audit of Concord University and Town of Athens, WV: At the request of a faculty 

member at Concord University, the West Virginia SCR led a walkability audit on October 18, 

2006 to assess the walkability of portions of the Town of Athens and the Concord University 

Campus. The university was interested in providing a more pedestrian-friendly campus and the 

community was interested in enhancing pedestrian safety, particularly for elementary and high 

school students. The SCR identified several opportunities for improvements to the current 

facilities to promote walking and perhaps even enhance safety for pedestrians. The SCR also 

provided a formal written report documenting the findings and recommendations.

The technical assistance was deemed a success, according to the faculty member. They noted 

that the walkability study helped to spark interest in pedestrian issues throughout the 

university and community. Also, the community applied for a grant through Safe Routes to 

School to implement several of the recommendations from the walkability study. They included 

several portions of the SCR’s report in their application and were awarded the grant. While 

the community is waiting to receive the grant funds before implementing many of the 

recommendations, there have been a few changes made. For example, there was one location 

where cars were allowed to park on part of the sidewalk, causing an obstruction for 

pedestrians and forcing them into the street to avoid the parked cars. The SCR suggested 

repainting the stalls as angle parking. This recommendation was implemented and now the 

parked vehicles do not create an obstruction for pedestrians.

Technical Assistance for a Local Homeowners Association, West Virginia: A faculty member at 

West Virginia University requested the services of the SCR on behalf of their local homeowners 

association. The homeowners association was concerned with pedestrian safety. The SCR 
108

Appendix G: Participant Feedback

conducted a walk-through of the community to determine if additional signing and pavement 

markings were necessary. The SCR recommended the installation of a standard pedestrian 

warning sign near the entrance to the community. The SCR also recommended the installation 

of a turn warning sign with an advisory speed plate in both directions in advance of a sharp 

curve. The Board of the homeowners association approved the purchase of the signs, but the 

signs have not yet been purchased.

Other recommendations included a speed hump to maintain low speeds in the area and 

drainage improvements to prevent further roadside erosion. While the recommendations have 

not yet been implemented, the requesting faculty member indicated that the SCR was very 

helpful and the technical assistance was greatly appreciated. Specifically, they noted that the 

SCR provided detailed design and installation criteria for the signing, which would be useful 

when the signs are finally ordered and installed.

Walkability Workshop and Audit in Point Marion, Pennsylvania: A participant of the 

walkability workshop and audit indicated that Point Marion became involved with the SCR as 

part of a Community Design Team (CDT) application to West Virginia University. As part of the 

application process, Point Marion conducted a First Impressions workshop as well as a 

Walkability workshop and study. The SCR conducted the Walkability workshop and led 

a walkabout in the town of Point Marion. The SCR pointed out several opportunities to improve 

the walkability and connectivity within the town and between neighborhoods. Unfortunately, 

the recommendations have not yet been implemented in full due to funding limitations and 

competing needs in the town. However, as the town’s water distribution system is updated, the 

surrounding roadways and sidewalks are also improved, which is helping to enhance walkability. 

The participant indicated that the SCR was very helpful and aside from the recommendations 

provided by the SCR, the experience has helped to “heighten awareness” of pedestrian and 

bicycle issues within the town.

Continuing Education for Virginia Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (VASITE): 

A member of the VASITE Board of Directors indicated that she had taken a course on pedestrian 

and bicycle safety, which was instructed by the West Virginia SCR. After the course, the member 

followed-up with the SCR on various occasions for technical assistance. She indicated that the 

SCR was always very helpful and responsive. For example, they had a question regarding the design of the width, buffer, and driveway considerations for a sidewalk along a suburban road. The 

SCR provided his thoughts on the topic as well as links to several FHWA and AASHTO resources 

that contained additional information.
Safety Circuit Rider Best Practices 109

The member was also responsible for identifying and scheduling continuing education for 

VASITE. She indicated that the SCR has instructed a pedestrian and bicycle safety course for 

VASITE and they have been very satisfied with the training.