NOTICE:

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.

The contents of this report refl ect the views of the contractor who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented 

herein. The contents do not necessarily refl ect the offi cial policy of the Department of Transportation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein 

only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-HEP-09-043

2. Government Accession No.

 

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

 

4. Title and Subtitle

A Primer on Safety Performance Measures for the Transportation 

Planning Process

5. Report Date

September 2009

6. Performing Organization Code

 

7. Author(s)

Susan Herbel (Principal Investigator), Michael D. Meyer, Bernardo 

Kleiner, Danena Gaines

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No.

 

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-05-D-00026-T-08-00

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Offi ce of Safety E71-115

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

May 2009-September 2009

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA: Tamiko Brim-Burnell, Offi ce of Safety and Susan Grosser, Offi ce of Planning

16. Abstract

This Primer is a tool to help State and local practitioners, transportation planners, and decision-makers identify, select, 

and use safety performance measures as a part of the transportation planning process. The Primer draws from current 

literature, professional experience, and State DOT and MPO practice. Key elements of the Primer include: a defi nition of 

performance measures; a step-by-step description and fl owchart showing how safety performance measures can be identifi ed 

and integrated into the transportation planning process; characteristics of effective performance measures; a checklist to 

assess an organization’s current status with respect to the use of safety performance measures in the transportation planning 

and decision-making process; a list of references; and case studies of noteworthy practice.

17. Key Words

Transportation safety, transportation planning, 

performance measures, case studies

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfi eld, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No of Pages

35

22. Price

 

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

To promote a safer transportation system, we want to share with you this report, “A Primer on Safety 

Performance Measures for the Transportation Planning Process.” This is a fi rst step towards employing 

safety performance measures in the transportation planning process. 

This report introduces the concept of integrating safety performance measures into the transportation 

planning process. It outlines the benefi ts of using safety performance measures in planning, as well as basic 

information on what are safety performance measures. This document includes a high level step-by-step 

approach for developing safety performance measures. 

To give the reader a better understanding of what is discussed in this primer, seven case studies have been 

included in the document. The case studies highlight the experience and application of the States and metropolitan planning organizations that have developed and used safety performance measures.

This primer will be of interest to transportation planning and safety practitioners, in particular those in 

State departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and other organizations involved 

in transportation decision-making. It provides information to assist planners with incorporating safety 

performance measures into the transportation planning process in an effort to improve safety of the 

transportation system.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph S. Toole Gloria M. Shepherd

Associate Administrator for Safety Associate Administrator for

Federal Highway Administration Planning, Realty, and Environment

 Federal Highway Administration
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

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

What are Safety Performance Measures? ..........................................................................................................................2

Process for Incorporating Safety Performance Measures into Transportation Planning .........................................4

Identify Candidate Safety Performance Measures ....................................................................................................4

Select Safety Performance Measures ..........................................................................................................................6

Incorporate Safety Performance Measures into Transportation Planning Process .........................................10

Assessing Your Organization’s Use of Safety Performance Measures ......................................................................14

Sources Cited ......................................................................................................................................................................15

Additional References .......................................................................................................................................................16

CASE STUDIES PAGE

Performance-Based Planning and Investment Management ......................................................................................17

Asset Management Plan for Safety .................................................................................................................................18

Project Prioritization Process ...........................................................................................................................................20

Developing Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures .......................................................................................21

Identifying Regional Traffi c Safety Needs .....................................................................................................................23

1

INTRODUCTION

In 2008 more than 37,000 people were killed and nearly 2.35 million were injured in crashes on the Nation’s roadways (Source 1). The consequences of traffi c crashes are felt not only by those directly involved but also by family 

members, friends, and coworkers who must deal with a devastating loss or fi nd resources to cope with disabling 

injuries. The costs to society such as lost productivity, property damage, medical costs, emergency services, and 

travel delays are also tremendous.

For these reasons improving safety is one of the primary goals of transportation offi cials. Years of experience 

with safety projects and strategies have shown that benefi ts associated with efforts to improve transportation 

safety far outweigh the resources consumed. 

The most critical safety benefi t is a decrease in the number of fatal and injury crashes that occur each year on 

streets and highways across the Nation. Motor vehicle crashes are the sixth leading cause of death and the 

leading cause of injuries in the United States. Beyond the pain and suffering of victims and their friends and 

relatives, these crashes are a signifi cant economic burden to the Nation. In 2004, the American Association 

of State Highway Offi cials (AASHTO) estimated traffi c crashes in the United States accounted for over $230 

billion in economic losses every year (Source 2). Improving safety not only saves lives, but also produces other 

societal, environmental, and monetary benefi ts, such as greater mobility, increased economic development, and 

improved quality of life. 

Transportation system improvements are initiated in the transportation planning process. Every urbanized area in the country 

uses a planning process to identify those transportation system 

improvements that most effectively address the needs of the 

community. Consideration of safety issues during the transportation planning process is important to improving transportation 

safety, as it enables the funding of safety related projects. Proper 

safety performance measures are key to ensuring that safety 

issues are considered and addressed throughout the transportation planning process. 

One particularly important benefi t of performance measures is the information generated through their use 

over time. Consistent analysis of data refl ecting safety performance of the transportation system is particularly 

important for identifying goals to guide transportation planning efforts and focusing attention and resources on 

safety-related challenges, as well as monitoring progress toward their achievement. Over the past 15 years, the 

transportation profession has increasingly used performance measures as the primary mechanism for providing 

this information. Information collected through the use of safety performance measures are used to prioritize 

investments, demonstrate progress toward goals in statewide and metropolitan long-range transportation plans, 

implement statewide and metropolitan transportation improvement programs (S/TIP), and monitor overall system performance. The S/TIP is a resource-constrained program that identifi es the projects to be implemented.

This Primer is a tool to help State and local practitioners, transportation planners, and decision-makers identify, 

select, and use safety performance measures as a part of the transportation planning process. The Primer draws 

from current literature, professional experience, and State DOT and MPO practice. Key elements of the Primer 

include the following:

A study of the societal costs of congestion compared to the cost of crashes conducted by AAA 

in 2008 showed in the top 85 metropolitan 

areas in the United States crash per capita 

costs ranged from 1.3 to 4 times greater than 

congestion costs. 

(Source 3)
2

• A defi nition of performance measures; 

• A step-by-step description and fl owchart showing how safety performance measures can be identifi ed and 

integrated into the transportation planning process;

• Characteristics of effective performance measures;

• A checklist to assess an organization’s current status with respect to the use of safety performance measures in the transportation planning and decision-making process; 

• A list of references; and 

• Case studies of noteworthy practice.

WHAT ARE SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES?

Performance measures are indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes in 

system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. Typical safety performance 

measures relate to the number and rate of fatalities and/or crashes and incidents, emergency response times, public perceptions of safety, etc., for the relevant transportation modes.1

 

Safety performance measures provide the following benefi ts to the planning and decision-making process (Source 4):

• Greater accountability to policy-makers, customers, and other stakeholders;

• Greater linkage between the safety goals/objectives identifi ed through long-range planning and policy 

formulation;

• A better understanding of the impacts of alternative courses of action aimed at improving transportation 

system safety;

• Improved communication about transportation safety to customers, political leaders, the public, and other 

stakeholders;

• Increased organizational focus on safety priorities; and

• Information feedback to promote ongoing improvement of business processes as they relate to supporting 

safety strategies.

Safety performance measures should be relevant to the safety issues and policy/strategy initiatives in a jurisdiction. The number and rate of fatalities, injuries, and/or crashes are commonly used safety performance measures. 

However, given that safety issues vary across the country, no single set of safety performance measures is applicable to every State and region. 

The National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Governors Highway Safety Association 

(GHSA) have developed a set of safety performance measures that each State will be required to track beginning 

in Federal fi scal year 2010 (see Table 1). Some of the performance measures listed in the table below (i.e., counts 

and rates of fatalities, number of serious injuries, number of speeding-related fatalities, and number of pedestrian fatalities) are common to both the infrastructure and behavioral transportation safety area. As State DOTs, 

1

 Performance measures are different from evaluation criteria, which relate to assessing the relative safety benefi ts or costs 

of specifi c projects or for prioritizing alternative safety strategies. The level of detail associated with evaluation criteria 

is greater than that associated with performance measures.
3

MPOs, and other transportation safety stakeholders move forward with developing safety performance measures 

for the transportation planning process they can take advantage of these data and adopt some of these safety 

performance measures if appropriate.

Table 1. Safety Performance Measures (Source 5)

Core Measures Description Data Sources

C-1 Number of traffi c fatalities (three-year or fi ve-year moving averages) FARS

C-2 Number of serious injuries in traffi c crashes State crash data fi les

C-3 Fatalities/VMT (including rural, urban, and total fatalities) FARS, FHWA

C-4 Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant, all seat positions FARS

C-5 Number of fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator with 

a blood alcohol concentration of .08 g/dL or higher

FARS

C-6 Number of speeding-related fatalities FARS

C-7 Number of motorcyclist fatalities FARS

C-8 Number of unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities FARS

C-9 Number of drivers 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes FARS

C-10 Number of pedestrian fatalities FARS

B-1 Observed seat belt use for passenger vehicles, front seat outboard occupants Survey

A-1 Number of seat belt citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities Grant activity reporting

A-2 Number of impaired-driving arrests made during grant-funded enforcement 

activities

Grant activity reporting

A-3 Number of speed citations issued during grant-funded activities Grant activity reporting

C= Core measure; B = Behavioral measure; A = Activity measure

The safety performance measures in Table 1 are organized in three categories representing the types of measures often found in practice:

• Core measures (also known as outcome measures) relate to the safety goals and objectives established 

as part of policy or as part of a planning process. These measures allocate resources and measure overall 

progress. They may include crashes, injuries, and fatalities and can be presented as numbers, rates, percentages, or ratios.

• Behavioral measures provide a link between specifi c safety activities and outcomes by assessing whether 

the activities infl uenced behavior. These may include direct observations of safety belt use and vehicle 

speed or self-reported behavior pertaining to program awareness and attitude obtained through surveys.

• Activity measures document safety program implementation and track actions taken by law enforcement, 

courts, media, education, and others to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities.

In addition to the safety performance measures developed by NHTSA and GHSA, some examples of infrastructure-related safety performance measures that can be considered for inclusion in the transportation planning process may include:

• Number of run-off-the-road crashes (core measure);

• Number of fi xed object crashes (core measure);

• Number of intersection crashes (core measure);
4

• Miles of guard cable installed (activity measure); 

• Miles of rumble strips installed (activity measure); 

• Number of medians installed (activity measure); 

• Number of signs updated or warning signs installed (activity measure); and 

• Number of intersections with improved signal timing (activity measure). 

PROCESS FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

A high-level process illustrating the three major steps to incorporating safety performance measures into transportation planning is shown in Figure 1 below. For States and metropolitan areas already using safety performance 

measures, these steps can help identify new measures and/or enhance existing ones. If performance measures 

are not currently used, these steps can help identify, select, and incorporate them into the transportation planning process.

IDENTIFY CANDIDATE SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Safety performance measures originate from many sources, including current goals and objectives, safety data 

analysis, legislative and program requirements, decision-makers, stakeholders, and other constituencies (see 

Figure 2). 

Incorporate into Transportation Planning

Feedback

Identify Candidate Performance Measures

Select Performance Measures

Figure 1. Transportation Safety Planning Performance Measures
5

Current Goals and Objectives

A typical transportation planning process includes a set of goals and objectives that refl ect the values and desires 

of the community. These goals and objectives provide guidance to transportation offi cials and analysts, and 

highlight the types of information required to measure progress toward achieving them. Most State and regional 

planning processes have goals related to system preservation, mobility and congestion, economic development, 

safety, environmental quality, and fi nancial responsibility. Developing safety performance measures and aligning 

them with the planning goals and objectives help decision-makers design and implement strategies and projects 

that support the community’s values.

Safety-related goals can originate from within the transportation 

planning process or be brought into the process from other state 

or regional safety planning efforts. Strategic Highway Safety 

Plans (SHSP) include many safety-related goals that lead to performance measures such as those listed in the Figure 3. The 

SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive, multidisciplinary strategic plan developed in collaboration with Federal, State, local, 

and private sector safety stakeholders. It identifi es priorities 

and drives investment decisions by establishing statewide safety 

goals, objectives, and emphasis areas. As a part of the SHSP 

process some States have developed performance measures to 

Identify Candidate 

Performance Measures

Select Performance Measures

Transportation Planning

Current Goals 

and Objectives

Data Analysis

Legislative/Program

Requirements

Stakeholders/

Constituencies

Decision-Makers

• Number of run-off-road fatalities

• Number of intersection-related fatalities 

• Number of speeding-related fatalities

• Number of fatalities involving distracted drivers

• Number of fatalities in unlicensed-driver crashes

• Number of fatalities involving 16-19 year-old drivers

• Number of motorcyclist fatalities

• Number of fatalities involving heavy trucks

Figure 3. Sample SHSP Performance Measures

Figure 2.Sources of Candidate Safety Performance Measures
6

further guide safety improvement efforts. Additional safety-related goals and information can be drawn from 

other safety plans and programs, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program, Highway Safety Plan, and/

or Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan.

Data Analysis

Most transportation planning efforts begin with a preliminary analysis of the challenges facing the system. 

In almost all cases, this ongoing effort continually identifies new issues and feeds them into the planning 

process. For example, regional planning analysts often conduct corridor studies that provide details on the 

types of challenges and system deficiencies found in a portion of the region. Improving overall transportation safety within the corridor is almost always a major goal of such studies. Data analyses focus on identifying 

intersections and other high-crash locations in the corridor, followed by more detailed investigation of the types 

of strategies that can be used to reduce crashes. Corridor 

studies suggest strategies and recommend projects for the 

long-range transportation plan and for the S/TIP program.

Monitoring of transportation safety problems (e.g., run-offthe-road crashes, alcohol-related crashes, pedestrian/bicycle 

crashes, and transit incidents, etc.) results in collection and 

analysis of data useful for developing performance indicators such as those in Figure 4. The SHSP development and 

associated update activities also provide potentially valuable 

data about the safety challenges facing a state. For example, 

SHSP contain emphasis areas (e.g., lane departures, intersections, occupant protection, etc.) identifi ed through the 

data analysis. The emphasis areas, and the analyses associated with them, provide a rich data source for the development of safety performance measures. Similar analyses 

from other safety programs and plans, such as the highway 

safety improvement program, can serve the same purpose. 

Stakeholders/Constituencies

Transportation planning stakeholders often identify safety issues critical to their interests. For example, Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving, AAA, pedestrian and bicycling advocacy groups, the trucking industry, and the public 

health/medical establishment are interested in transportation safety issues specifi c to their missions. Transportation offi cials might consider developing safety performance measures that align with major public safety issues 

and with the concerns of important interest groups. For example, performance measures could be used to monitor the proportion of all fatalities involving lane departures, impaired drivers, or commercial motor vehicles.

Legislative/Program Requirements

Sometimes transportation offi cials develop safety performance measures in response to legislative, regulatory 

or other higher authority requirements, such as the NHTSA/GHSA requirements referenced in Table 1. Such 

requirements will likely increase as government programs become more performance-oriented with a greater concern for transparency to the public. 

S k h ld /Ci i

• Reduce traffi c crashes, particularly between modes 

– Percent of total Regional Transportation Plan investment 

spent on safety 

– Frequency and rate of traffi c/injury/fatal crashes 

– Frequency and rate of traffi c crashes between modes: 

autos, trucks, rail, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists 

• Increase transit safety and security for riders and employees 

• Number of transit crashes 

• Number of transit incidents 

• Percent accessible bus stops 

 (Source 6)

Figure 4. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

Safety Performance Indicators 
7

Decision-Makers

People who make investment or operational decisions and establish laws or policies might identify the information 

required to make better decisions in the future. Indeed, one of the original motivations for developing transportation performance measures was the state legislature’s desire to know the benefi ts of transportation investments 

and expenditures. Some commonly used information include the following: data on the safety of the transportation system (e.g., fatalities, injuries, or crashes); results of targeted initiatives (e.g., the reduction in crashes after 

installation of traffi c signal upgrades or the number of driving under the infl uence (DUI) arrests or crashes where 

alcohol was a factor following an impaired driving program), and data on the safety concerns of interest to key 

constituencies (e.g., fatalities and injuries to young drivers or pedestrians). Decision-makers also focus on output 

measures such as the number of citations issued, number of road miles with guardrails, or the number of highcrash sites that received treatment. These types of performance measure-based information are the foundation 

of a transparent and accountable policy-making process. 

SELECT SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

A process for selecting candidate safety performance measures is shown in Figure 5 below. It recognizes that 

the most important issue transportation agencies face when considering candidate performance measures is data 

availability. 

Figure 5. Selecting Safety Performance Measures for the Transportation Planning Process

Identify Candidate 

Performance Measures

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Feedback

No

Do Data Currently 

Exist for First/Next 

Performance Measures?

Develop Systematic Strategy for Data Collection QA/QC

(Quality Assurance/Quality Control)

Do We Proceed

with the Performance

Measure?

Is an Additional

Performance Measure

Desired?

Is an Additional

Performance Measure

Desired?

Incorporate Performance

Measures into 

Transportation Planning
8

 The candidate performance measures identifi ed in the previous section are reviewed and examined as follows:

• Do data supporting the performance measure exist? 

• If data exist, then a strategy for collecting it systematically over time should be identifi ed. 

• If data do not exist, the question then becomes, “Do we proceed with the safety performance measure anyway?” 

• If yes, then one has to identify a strategy for systematically collecting the data. 

• If no, one proceeds to examine the next candidate measure.

While the selection of safety performance measures is described as a sequential process, in reality all performance 

measures will likely be reviewed at the same time. After the candidate safety performance measures have been 

considered, those that are selected need to be incorporated into the transportation planning process.

Determine if Data Exist to Support the Candidate Performance Measure 

The question should always be asked, “Are suffi cient data available to support a candidate safety performance 

measure?” Experience has shown that performance measures are often selected based on their appeal as “good 

information to have,” only to discover that the necessary data do not exist and/or that data collection is prohibitively expensive. This initial step simply determines if data resources are currently available to support the 

performance measure. Such a determination relies on interaction with the data collection and processing units 

within the responsible agencies.

Often, the required data are collected by various agencies for a variety of purposes. Transportation planners 

should build the necessary relationships to enable them to access and use the data sources to measure transportation safety performance.

The NHTSA has identifi ed six core data systems for use in a highway safety performance measurement system 

(Source 8):

• Crash – available police offi cer crash reports;

• Vehicle – information on licensed vehicles (also known as the vehicle registration system);

• Driver – information on licensed drivers and driver histories – also known as the driver license and driver 

history system; 

• Roadway – information about all publicly owned roadways, including roadway centerline and geometric 

data, location reference data, geographical information system data, travel and exposure data, etc.;

• Citation and adjudication – information on traffi c citations from the time they are assigned to an offi cer, 

through the court adjudication system and ultimately into the driver history fi le data system; and

• Injury surveillance – information on motor vehicle injuries and deaths. 

Some of these systems are more obviously related to the transportation planning process, such as crash and 

roadway data systems, than others are. While the level of relevance varies depending on the priorities of a given 

agency, each of these systems generates useful data for highway safety performance measurement.

For transit, the most frequently-used types of data include ridership (broken down by demographics), vehicle and 

passenger miles traveled, and number of trips. To estimate crash risk for example, one might use measures such 

as 0.24 injuries per 100 million passenger miles traveled or 0.15 injuries per 100,000 riders.
9

The most commonly used safety data source for transportation planning is a crash data management system. It 

provides the time, location, environment, characteristics, 

and contributing crash factors, such as obstructed view, 

alcohol impaired driver or pedestrian, red light running, 

etc. Crash information should link to other sources of 

information as well, (i.e., roadway inventory, driver history, etc.) and provide details on the roadway, vehicles, 

and people involved in the crash. Crash consequences, 

such as fatalities, injuries, property damage, and traffi c 

violations are also available through the crash data management system. 

Crash data can be used for analysis of a single crash or 

aggregated for statewide, regional, or corridor planning. 

A State crash data system should accommodate information on all reportable motor vehicle crashes on any public 

roadway. In most States, a Traffi c Records Coordinating 

Committee (TRCC) or Traffi c Records Committee provides oversight and guidance for developing consistent 

traffi c safety records. The TRCC is helpful for coordinating the many different safety-related data collection 

and data management activities in a State. If not already 

involved, transportation planners are encouraged to work 

with their State TRCC.

The results of a recent survey of State DOTs and MPOs 

on the types of safety data used in transportation planning are shown in Table 2. Not surprisingly, vehicle crashes, vehicle miles traveled, and roadway characteristics 

are in the top fi ve for both State DOTs and MPOs. Pedestrian crashes also are highly ranked. Rail crashes are 

in the top fi ve for State DOTs because of their special responsibility for highway/railroad grade crossing safety 

programs, particularly in rural areas.

Ensure a Strategic Data Collection Plan is in Place with Appropriate Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

If data to support a safety performance measure are available, a strategy for systematic data collection over time 

must exist. Such strategies require that data collection schedules, organizational roles and responsibilities, needed 

resource allocations, and data collection methodologies are incorporated into the standard procedures of the 

implementing agencies. Importantly, a careful examination of the collection strategy should be made to assure the 

data meet the quality standards and schedule needs to support the safety performance measures. The following 

characteristics, identifi ed by NHTSA (Source 8), are critical data collection factors for consideration as part of an 

overall data management strategy: 

• Timeliness – the data system custodian should produce crash reports and crash data in a timely manner 

to inform the performance measurement process;

• Accuracy – the data need to be accurate, whether as originally collected or in their fi nal electronic format;

• Completeness – data records should include all crash characteristics so the analyses incorporate all factors 

and improve understanding of the behavioral and/or physical contributing crash and injury factors;

Data Source MPO State DOT

Vehicle crashes 1 1

Vehicle miles traveled 2 4

Roadway inventories 3 2

Injury/fatality 4 3

Pedestrian crashes/injuries 5 6

Bicycle crashes/injuries 6 7

Property damage 7 8

Air quality/emissions 8 9

Air transport crashes 9 10 (tie)

Transit/paratransit incidents 10 (tie) 10 (tie)

Water navigation crashes 10 (tie) 15

Safety belt/restraint use data 12 14

Emergency medical response 13 16

DUIs 14 12

Rail crashes 15 5

Accident investigation 16 12

(Source 7)

Table 2. Ranking of Safety Data Used 

by State DOTs and MPOs
10

• Uniformity/Consistency – uniformity and consistency in the data base is critical – for example, statewide 

uniform codes and single crash report forms assure consistency in reporting;

• Integration – at the State level, databases should be developed to allow the compatible transfer of data 

from one database to another – ideally one database is used by all safety-related agencies at all levels of 

government; and 

• Accessibility – data need to be accessible for safety analyses and planning studies.

Other characteristics of performance measures to consider include (Source 8): 

• Multimodality – does this measure or set of measures encompass all relevant modes, and thus require 

data from a variety of sources?

• Geographic Scale – is the measure applicable to all areas of the State, region, or locality and does it require 

data at different levels of aggregation? Can it discriminate between freeways and other facilities? Is it useful at a regional, subarea, or corridor level?

• Forecastability – will the measure compare future alternative projects or strategies? Is it diffi cult to predict future conditions using the measure given existing forecasting tools?

INCORPORATE SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Although transportation planning is performed in numerous jurisdictions for a variety of reasons, several elements 

of the planning process are common among them. Figure 6 below outlines the general transportation planning 

process from developing vision and goals to monitoring system performance (Source 9). The fi gure shows that 

linkages between safety performance measures and the transportation planning process exist for each element. 

Element 1 – Regional Vision and Goals

Incorporating safety performance measures into a transportation plan’s vision, goals, and objectives leads to the 

implementation of more projects with safety components and benefi ts. This is primarily because integrating performance measures in this initial step results in subsequent planning steps also doing so (e.g., use of safety criteria 

in project evaluation). A community’s transportation vision and corresponding goals and objectives should have a 

strong, two-way linkage to safety through the establishment of performance measures. Safety performance measures that support the plan’s goals and objectives are then aligned with what decision-makers, stakeholders and 

others in the community value. Another benefi t of incorporating safety into the visioning process is that those 

involved become aware of safety’s importance, which is instrumental in building constituencies to support safety 

projects through the remaining planning steps.

Element 2 – Alternate Improvement Strategies

Linking safety performance measures to the identifi cation of improvement strategies can lead to the implementation of projects and strategies that save lives and reduce safety-related economic costs to society. For example, 

performance measures that focus on reducing pedestrian-vehicle crashes could encourage the development of 

programs to identify and improve locations where such crashes are likely to occur. Likewise, performance measures 

that focus on lane departure crashes can lead to programs to reduce their occurrence and limit their severity. Strategies developed in response to robust safety-related performance measures can be either operations-oriented (e.g., 

improving incident management programs or using intelligent transportation systems to monitor crash occurrences), 

infrastructure-oriented (e.g., implementing a “hot-spot” program to improve geometric designs at high crash locations or improving transit station confi gurations to reduce vehicle-pedestrian confl icts), or both.
11

Identify Candidate Performance Measures

Regional Vision and Goals

Alternate Improvement Strategies

Operations Capital

Evaluation and Prioritization of Strategies

Development of Transportation Plan (LRP)

Development of Transportation 

Improvement Programs

Project Development

Systems Operation (Implementation)

Monitor System Performance (Data)

Select Performance Measures

Feedback

Strong Linkage between Performance Measures and Planning Step

Linkage between Performance Measures and Planning Step

Figure 6. Relating Safety Performance Measures to Individual Steps in the Transportation Planning Process
12

Element 3 – Evaluation and Prioritization of Strategies

Properly designed safety performance measures are essential to the evaluation and prioritization of strategies. 

This is where improving safety takes its rightful place next to the other planning considerations (e.g., system 

preservation, improving accessibility, reducing congestion, etc.). The planning process estimates the relative 

effectiveness of various strategies and prioritizes capital and maintenance investments based on evaluation criteria. Effective safety performance measures lead to safety-related evaluation criteria. For example, if “number of 

crashes” is a safety performance measure, it would be important to evaluate proposed projects and strategies from 

the perspective of their impact on the number of crashes. The benefi t of linking safety performance measures to 

the evaluation and prioritization step is that more safety-related projects will emerge from the planning process. 

This will ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of crashes and fatalities. 

Element 4 – Development of Transportation Plan (Long-Range Plan)

The use of safety performance measures throughout the planning process will lead to the selection of more projects and strategies with safety benefi ts. Given that the Long-Range Plan (LRP) represents a strategic perspective 

on the future of the State or regional transportation system, incorporating safety into the LRP, through the use of 

safety performance measures, ultimately leads to reductions in crashes and fatalities.

Element 5 – Development of Transportation Improvement Programs

The linkage between performance measures and S/TIP 

adoption is one of the most crucial in the transportation 

planning process. Having strong safety performance measures leads to the development of prioritization criteria 

that include safety and result in more safety-related projects being selected for the S/TIP. For example, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) applies 

more weight, or safety points, to roadway improvements 

that have higher crash reduction potential (see Figure 7). 

This results in a capital program for a State or region that 

includes projects that reduce the number and severity 

of crashes. If decision-makers want a greater emphasis 

on one type of project over another (e.g., those having a 

greater impact on system safety), assigning greater weight 

to the related prioritization criteria is one way to do so. 

Element 6 – Project Development

To the extent that it is identifi ed as a planning concern and incorporated into the planning process, safety will have 

a role in detailed project analysis. The project development step examines specifi c engineering and environmental 

details in designing and preparing a project for construction. Depending on the size and expected signifi cance of 

environmental impacts, the project development process may also entail substantial environmental analysis. Safety 

performance measures provide additional guidance on the types of designs and operational strategies that should 

be considered as part of the project design (e.g., median barriers to reduce cross lane crashes, refl ective signage, 

sidewalks and bike paths, or construction work zone safety initiatives).

Estimated Crash Reduction Potential

(crashes over 3 years per mile)

Crash Range

Low

0-9 Fewer

Medium

10-19

High

20-29

Very High

30+

Safety Points to Be Awarded

< State Average

1-2 x State Average

2-3 x State Average

> 3 x State Average

01 34

12 45

24 56

35 67

Figure 7. Safety Points for Roadway Reconstruction 

or Operational Improvements − Denver

(Source 10)
13

Element 7 – Systems Operations (Implementation)

The impact of safety performance measures in this step can be identifi ed by the manner in which projects and 

strategies are implemented. An emphasis on safety in program implementation may be refl ected in safety conscious land use and urban design standards; enhanced safety design standards; improved safety operational strategies for vehicles (i.e., congestion), pedestrians, and bicyclists; and work zone safety programs. 

Element 8 – Monitor System Performance (Data)

The benefi t of including safety performance measures as part of a system monitoring program is that safety 

issues are identifi ed earlier and addressed as part of the planning process, leading to the adoption of strategies or 

the implementation of projects that will improve the safety performance of the transportation system. This early 

identifi cation of safety challenges and eventual solutions can result in implementation savings in that investments 

can be made before the safety challenge reaches a point where higher levels of resources would be necessary. 

Ongoing monitoring of system performance provides data and information that should be fed back into the 

goals and performance measures. A well designed monitoring process can indicate where and when course 

corrections are needed to improve safety performance. System monitoring consists of the traffi c surveillance, 

traffi c counting, transit ridership, review of traffi c records databases (including crash data), and other means of 

determining the performance of the transportation system. Monitoring is done by a variety of agencies and the 

results are incorporated back into the planning process.

Feedback on Program Effectiveness

Accurately measuring the impact of implemented actions benefi ts the planning process and decision makers in 

that both become aware of what types of safety projects, strategies, and countermeasures are most cost effective. 

This permits decision-makers to target their limited resources on those projects and strategies that are likely to 

result in the greatest reduction in crashes and fatalities. The post-implementation evaluation or assessment process helps determine the effectiveness of such countermeasures. Without it, no information is available to assess 

the actual benefi t of the countermeasure and justify its future use. Funds should be set aside to allow a proper, 

scientifi c evaluation of the countermeasures whenever possible. A proper evaluation considers other variables 

that could have an effect on the number and/or severity of crashes, such as changes in the number of vehicles 

using the corridor (e.g., exposure), changes in demographics (proportion of older or younger drivers in the area), 

etc. While transportation planners do not perform the evaluations themselves, they should be kept informed of 

the results.
14

ASSESSING YOUR ORGANIZATION’S USE OF 

SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The following questions will help stakeholders review opportunities for developing safety performance measures 

and linking them to transportation planning and programming. This checklist is a tool for assessing an organization’s current status in using safety performance measures in the transportation planning and decision-making 

process. The answers to these questions should be used to strategically identify actions that lead to the use of 

safety performance measures in planning and programming.

1. Is safety included in your agency’s vision?

2. What safety challenges are facing your transportation system?

3. Is safety included in your planning vision, goals, and objectives?

4. Are safety performance measures currently used as part of the planning and decision-making process?

5. Are the safety performance measures related to the safety challenges? 

6. Are (additional) safety performance measures needed or desired? 

7. Who will be responsible for data collection and interpretation?

8. Has the proposed set of performance measures been discussed with those in the agency responsible for 

collecting data to ensure feasibility and accuracy of data collection? 

9. Has a data collection strategy been formulated and implemented for the safety performance measures?

10. Do the evaluation criteria used in the planning process include criteria relating to safety performance 

measures?

11. Will the safety performance of the transportation system (as defi ned in the performance measures) likely 

respond to the types of strategies and projects that result from the planning process? If not, how are 

such strategies or projects furthered as part of the planning process?

12. Does the project prioritization or ranking scheme include criteria or indices related to the safety performance measures? 

13. Are safety performance measures included in the system monitoring process? 

Once these questions have been answered and an overall assessment of the current use of safety performance 

measures has been conducted, the process described in this document should be used to identify additional safety 

performance measures. In addition, the existing safety performance measures can be modifi ed to increase their 

effectiveness.
15

SOURCES CITED

1. National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration (NHTSA), (2009). Traffi c Safety Facts: 2008 Traffi c Safety 

Annual Assessment – Highlights, DOT HS 811 172, Washington, DC.

2. AASHTO, (2004). Optimizing the System. American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Offi cials, Washington, D.C., Publication No.: OTS-1.

3. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and M. Meyer. 2008. Crashes vs. Congestion: What’s the Cost to Society? Washington 

D.C.: AAA Foundation.

4. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., PB Consult, Inc., and Texas Transportation Institute. 2006. Performance 

Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset Management, NCHRP Report 551, Washington D.C.: National 

Academy Press.

5. National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2007. Performance Measures Discussion. 

408 Team Document #005, October 29, 2007. National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration, on-line 

document, accessible at: http://www.nhtsa-tsis.net/TRIPRS/Resources/Resources.htm.

6. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), Detroit, Michigan.

7. Washington, Simon, Michael Meyer, Ida Vah Schalkwyk, Eric Dumbaugh, Sudeshna Mitra, and Matthew 

Zoll. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning, NCHRP Report 546, Washington D.C.: 

National Academy Press.

8. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2000. A Guidebook for Performance-Based Transportation Planning, NCHRP 

Report 446, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

9. Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration (FHWA/FTA). 2007. “The Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues, A Briefi ng Book for Transportation Decision-makers, Offi cials, and 

Staff,” Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-07-039, U.S. Department of Transportation, on-line document 

accessible at: http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/Briefi ngBook/BBook.htm

10. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), Denver, Colorado.
16

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO). 2006. Measuring Performance 

among State DOTs. http://quality.transportation.org/sites/quality/docs/MeasuringPerformance.pdf.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2006. Effective Organization of Performance Measurement. NCHRP 8-36 Task 47. 

http://www.transportation.org/sites/planning/docs/NCHRP%208-36%2847%29%20Final%20Report.doc.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2004. Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, Japan, and 

New Zealand. http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/performance/04transperfmeasure.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Performance Measure Exchange Website. http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.

gov/cops/p.m..nsf/home. Last accessed: July 30, 2009.

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2008. U.S. and International Approaches to Performance Measurement for Transportation Systems: Summary of a Conference. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/CP44.pdf.
17

CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING 

AND INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) uses 

safety-related planning performance measures to identify investment needs. District-Level Investment Plans identify priorities 

based on projected revenue and investments needed to adhere to 

policies and meet performance goals as outlined in the Statewide 

Transportation Plan.

Minnesota’s Statewide Transportation Plan (2009 to 2028) focuses 

on 10 policies, one of which is Traveler Safety. The numbers of 

fatalities and serious injuries for all travel modes are identifi ed as 

the highest level safety performance measures. Additional submeasures related to specifi c modes include, among others, motorcycle, pedestrian, and commercial-related fatalities. MnDOT also tracks the share of fatal and severe or incapacitating injuries on urban and rural roads and dollars spent on Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Stand Alone Safety Projects to understand how well 

traveler safety is being addressed. MnDOT developed system performance targets using historical data, customer 

research, engineering analysis, economic analysis, fi scal trends, and institutional values. 

As a part of the statewide transportation plan update, MnDOT districts updated their long-range Highway Investment Plans. These 20-year investment plans provide the link between the policies and strategies established in the 

Statewide Plan and capital improvements on the State highway system. 

MnDOT established a process and guidelines to ensure District Investment Plans were developed in a consistent 

manner and planned improvements address statewide goals and investment priorities. The development process 

began with the identifi cation of highway system needs and revenue projections for each of the three planning 

periods. Investment goals were then used to develop the State Highway Safety Investment Plan. Unfunded needs 

also are prioritized. A working group of MnDOT and FHWA safety and traffi c engineers established treatments, 

application criteria, and cost estimates for roadway enhancements. Application criteria are used to assess all State 

highways and identify when and where improvements are needed. 

Investments can be broadly characterized as roadway enhancements or capacity improvements. Roadway enhancements emphasize systemwide, cost-effective strategies that target the types of crashes occurring most frequently 

on rural highways in the State. The most frequent crash types account for nearly 70 percent of the State’s fatalities. 

Typical enhancements may include, but are not limited to, edge treatments, centerline rumble strips, rural intersection enhancements, turn lanes, passing lanes, full shoulders, and cable median barriers. In most cases roadway 

enhancement improvements are constructed as part of other, larger highway projects. Capacity improvements 

are intended to reduce or eliminate vehicle confl icts at locations meeting specifi c traffi c volume thresholds. These 

projects are generally higher-cost strategies and are initiated as stand-alone projects.

Results

MnDOT’s performance-based investment plan enables the State to estimate the investments needed to meet 

established performance measure targets for traveler safety. MnDOT has created a vertically integrated structure ensuring policies made at headquarters are implemented in the districts. A consistent level of investment 

effort across districts toward achieving statewide system performance targets was accomplished by establishing 

a consistent process and guidelines for district-level investment plans. 

CASE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

• Utilizes overall safety performance measures and 

sub measures specifi c to safety issues, modes, etc.

• Provides uniform, performance-based process to 

identify safety investments.

• Identifi es specifi c countermeasures needed to 

target most frequent crash types.
18

CASE STUDY: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SAFETY

New Jersey takes an “asset management” approach to address 

transportation needs through its 10-year Statewide Capital Investment Strategy (SCIS), which recommends transportation programs 

based on goals, objectives, and performance measures. The SCIS 

identifi es annual spending levels needed to achieve the performance 

objectives of the New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) and various transit 

agencies. The SCIS develops scenarios to estimate resulting system 

performance given different levels of funding, while staying within 

the fi scal constraints of available State transportation resources. 

Safety management is one of nine categories of investment within 

the SCIS. 

A separate “Asset Management Plan for Safety” was developed to 

support the SCIS decision-making process to “make the right choices in investments in those safety programs that 

will provide for the greatest continual reduction in crashes, injuries, and deaths.” This Plan is consistent with the 

overall goal of the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to “continually reduce the frequency and severity 

of crashes statewide.” Underlying the Asset Management Plan is a Safety Management System (SMS), which is 

used in project selection and prioritization. The SMS provides a basis for “data-driven decision-making” that balances funding among the State’s various safety programs.

Using these tools, New Jersey has established target service levels. Although a range of service levels and performance measures were established through the State’s SHSP, the Long-Range Transportation Plan, and SCIS, they 

all have the common goal of continually reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths on the State’s roadways. The Asset 

Management Plan presents specifi c service levels for the DOT’s safety programs based on a number of identifi ed locations per year along with an associated dollar value. For FY 2009, the annual targets for these programs 

included the following:

• Intersection Improvement Program – Improvements at 20 intersection locations;

• Median Crossover Crash Prevention – Construct 20 miles of median barrier treatments;

• Accident Reduction Program – Construct 10 skid-resistant sites;

• Accident Reduction Program – Implement improvements at 14 roadway departure locations;

• Pedestrian Program – Build 160,000 square yards of sidewalk along the state highway system, around 

schools and transit stations; and

• Safe Corridor Program – Review, recommend, and implement safety improvements along three 

Safe Corridors.

A

CASE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

• Establishes an objective and quantifi able methodology for allocating safety funding between 

various safety programs.

• Illustrates the implications of alternative investment decisions.

• Provides a basis for budgeting within the 

context of the State’s overall ten year Capital 

Investment Strategy.
19

The Asset Management Plan defi nes performance scenarios for the entire Safety Investment Program based 

on the 10-year Statewide Capital Investment Strategy. The most recent scenarios are both funding-based and 

outcome-based as follows:

• Funding-Based Scenarios

– Continued funding;

– 25 percent decrease in funding; and

– 25 percent increase in funding

• Outcome-Based Scenarios

– Maintain condition level;

– 50 percent backlog reduction; and

– 100 percent backlog reduction (total need)

Based on scenario analysis, the State determined a 25 percent increase in funding would be necessary to maintain 

current conditions given no major unexpected safety needs. Any substantial reduction in the backlog of safety 

projects would require much higher investments in safety projects than currently were programmed.

Results

New Jersey conducted a strategic resource allocation process that applies performance measures to guide the 

determination of program investment targets to achieve agency goals and objectives over a 10-year period. 

Based on alternative funding scenarios, the Asset Management Plan for Safety identifi es specifi c funding allocations 

for the State’s individual safety programs. The Plan defi nes desired investment targets along with recommended 

constrained investment targets based on reasonable revenue expectations incorporated into the 10-year Statewide 

Capital Investment Strategy (SCIS), providing a basis for long-range capital planning for safety. 
20

CASE STUDY: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

In a typical year, the North Jersey Transportation Planning 

Authority (NJTPA) considers more than 300 project proposals 

eligible for funding in the Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP). Given limited resources, NJTPA has developed a 

prioritization procedure consisting of the following two steps:

1. Application of Project Prioritization Criteria – During 

development of the Project Development Work Program, projects are evaluated and scored based on technical measures of how well they fulfi ll the goals of the 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Scores are based on Project Prioritization Criteria (see below) and 

all eligible projects are ranked according to their scores.

2. Application of Additional Priority Factors – Factors such as the feasibility of project delivery, 

funding availability, and project timing also are taken into account. This evaluation involves consultation and negotiation among MPO staff, municipal staff and elected officials,, the State DOT, 

and local transit agencies.

NJTPA’s current Regional Transportation Plan is guided by six policy goals, one of which is to “Maintain a safe 

and reliable transportation system in a state of good repair.”2

 It is the stated intent of the RTP to translate these 

goals into specifi c actions, programs, and projects. The Project Prioritization Criteria enable NJTPA to select 

projects based on a system that awards points according to how well the project satisfi es RTP goals. Criteria are 

grouped in accordance with the six goals of the RTP. The maximum number of points a highway and state bridge 

project can receive based on all selection criteria is 1,000. The maximum number of points that can be awarded 

within the criterion of Repair/Maintenance/Safety/Security is 286. Within this category, the criterion of “Will 

the project improve a safety problem?” is worth up to 110 points, which are awarded as follows:

• High – Safety improvements to roadways or intersections designated by the MPO or state DOT as safety 

priority locations or included in “Safe Corridor” programs. (110 points)

• Medium/High – Safety improvements to roadway segments where the severity-weighted accident rate 

exceeds that of the regionwide average for the same facility type. (83 points)

• Medium – Improvements to local roadways or pedestrian areas to address safety issues of local concern, 

e.g., traffi c calming projects. (55 points)

• Low – Drainage, rockfall, and pavement rehabilitation/resurfacing projects. (28 points)

NJTPA staff administers the project prioritization process with participation by implementing agencies, the 

Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, and the Project Prioritization Committee of NJTPA’s Board of 

Trustees. Project scores resulting from the process are considered during the development of the Capital Construction Program, which is the basis for development of the TIP.

Results

NJTPA applies a project prioritization process to rank projects according to their ability to satisfy the goals of 

NJTPA’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). With improved transportation safety as one of the six goals of the 

RTP, the process enables NJTPA to consider safety in the evaluation of projects for inclusion in the TIP. 

2

 Note that the RTP is currently going through an update.

CASE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

• Provides a rational, performance-based process for 

prioritizing projects for inclusion in the TIP.

• Applies safety-based criteria in the selection of 

projects, refl ecting the goals of the Regional 

Transportation Plan.
21

CASE STUDY: DEVELOPING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, 

AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) developed 

goals, objectives, and performance measures to provide strategic 

direction to its state long-range transportation plan and to establish 

a framework for tracking and reporting system performance. The 

process followed four basic steps: conduct background research, 

develop new goals and objectives, develop new performance measures, and apply new performance measures to plan analysis. 

The Michigan Transportation Plan Team established a Performance Measure Subteam to work through the fi rst three steps of 

the process. The team researched the goals, objectives, and performance measures in the current long-range plan and identifi ed their 

pros and cons. Through a peer state review the team identifi ed 

additional goals, objectives, and performance measure approaches 

for consideration. Public involvement activities with the Economic Advisory Group, stakeholders, and citizens 

helped the team gain insight into how stakeholders and citizens view system performance. The team developed 

seven performance measurement selection criteria, including the following:

1. Is the measure currently used by MDOT?

2. Is the measure in the current state long-range plan?

3. Does the measure indicate the level of achievement toward Michigan Transportation Plan goals?

4. Does the measure focus on one or more of the plan’s emphasis areas – integration, economic benefi t, 

and quality of life?

5. Do the measures adequately address a cross section of modes?

6. Is high-quality data readily available to support the measure?

7. Is the measure easily understood?

Following six performance workshops that identifi ed the goals, objectives, and a short list of measures, changes in 

the goals and objectives were developed to refl ect the current long-range plan goals, current and emerging agency 

priorities, the department mission, Federal planning factors, and the preferred public vision. To keep the strategic 

framework for the MI Transportation Plan simple and to establish a strong linkage between goals and objectives, 

the team identifi ed four theme-based goal areas refl ecting the Department’s highest priorities: Stewardship, Safety 

and Security, System Improvement, and Effi cient and Effective Operations. Objectives under each goal area were 

organized into three categories: 1) Integration; 2) Economic Benefi t; and 3) Quality of Life. The team refi ned 

the list of recommended performance measures to 19 core measures and seven subordinate measures based on 

the selection criteria. The performance measures were presented and applied in a way that both refl ects the plan’s 

focus on integration and aligns with MDOT’s program structure. Fatality rates and crash rates are two of the 19 

CASE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

• Establishes a framework for developing goals, 

objectives, and performance measures.

• Develops performance measurement selection 

criteria to keep performance measures concise 

and meaningful.

• Incorporates expectations related to safety performance measures into department, work area, 

and individual level performance evaluations.
22

core measures. Five subordinate measures are rail-roadway crossing crashes, local transit crashes, highway crashes, 

bicycle/pedestrian incidents/injuries, and deer-related incidents. The performance measures are used to support 

corridor-level analysis and development of statewide gap analysis. 

The Michigan Transportation Plan goals and objectives link directly to MDOT’s Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan 

provides high level visionary guidance and practical direction as the department plans, develops, and implements 

an enhanced and integrated transportation system. Seven goals, of which one is safety, are aligned with the MI 

Transportation Plan and integrated into the department’s implementation process. 

Implementation of the MDOT Strategic Plan occurs at the department, work area, and individual levels. Teams 

implement a specifi c process or plan at the department-level. Work area objectives are identifi ed and communicated through action plans that fulfi ll the Strategic Plan. Individual Employee Performance Plans set individual 

goals and competencies for employees based on the Strategic Plan’s seven goals. 

One goal of the MDOT Strategic Plan is to enhance and continue to improve safety within the transportation systems and workplace. Employee Performance Plans include expectations related to safety such as ensuring timely 

crash reports, complying with and enforcing personal protection equipment policy, keeping work zones compliant, and setting priorities based on safety risks to public, direct force, and contract agency crews.

Results

Performance measures established by MDOT provide a means for tracking performance with respect to stated 

goals and objectives, and support the development of investment scenarios and future decision-making. The 

measures also establish a basis for MDOT to measure progress in its long-range transportation plan implementation. Integrating safety-related performance objectives into department, work area, and individual-level 

performance plans provides specifi c actions for MDOT employees to take to improve safety. The MDOT 

Strategic Plan enhances the link between the MI Transportation Plan and department-level goals and objectives. 

Measuring performance helps the public understand how money is invested and why investment priorities are 

selected. MDOT is in the process of developing a web page to provide performance measures and progress to 

the public. 
23

CASE STUDY: IDENTIFYING REGIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY NEEDS

Local governments play a key role in identifying regional traffi c 

safety needs. Goals, objectives, and performance measures developed though the regional transportation planning process should 

refl ect statewide planning efforts and be incorporated into problem identifi cation and project selection processes at the local level. 

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) 

incorporates safety planning goals and performance measures into 

its regional transportation planning process by aligning its longrange transportation plan with the State’s Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP), providing data analysis support for project identifi -

cation to local governments, and using safety performance measures to plan investments. The SEMCOG Traffi c Safety Program 

provides data collection and technical analysis support to local governments by identifying high-crash locations 

and recommending potential solutions. The program ensures data collection, technical analysis and planning processes support SEMCOG’s long-range planning goals and objectives. 

The region’s long-range transportation plan identifi es fi ve strategic goals, one of which is to promote a safe and 

secure transportation system. SEMCOG developed performance indicators for each goal and identifi ed data 

analysis tools to track and analyze each measure. SEMCOG’s long-range transportation plan is aligned with the 

SHSP fatality goal to set target performance measures for the region. 

SEMCOG has developed quantitative tools for relating investment to performance for the transportation system. 

The MPO uses an asset management approach to develop a regional transportation investment plan based on the 

benefi ts meeting-specifi c performance targets. The approach estimates the budget needed to achieve specifi c performance targets, one of which is safety. The tools allow the region to estimate the benefi ts of various investment 

scenarios and compare to system performance at current investment levels. The MPO determines the percentage 

of regional investments needed to meet the performance measure goals and prioritizes safety mitigation strategies. 

SEMCOG conducts an analysis of various scenarios for allocating available safety funds. Based on that analysis, 

an investment approach for funding various safety mitigation strategies is recommended. Safety mitigation strategies include intersection signal improvements, intersection geometric improvements (i.e., turn lanes), and segment 

improvements (i.e., median barriers and center left-turn lanes). 

To promote a comprehensive approach to traffi c safety analysis, SEMCOG provides a central location for traffi c crash data and a Traffi c Safety Manual, which describes a comprehensive approach to traffi c safety analysis. 

The innovative traffi c records system uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to spatially analyze crash data 

obtained from the Michigan Department of State Police’s Criminal Justice Information Center (CJIC). Traffi c 

data reports on specifi c intersections and segments of roadway are available. The traffi c data reports, high-crash 

location, transportation data map, and intersection and roadway segments databases allow users to identify issues 

related to SHSP emphasis areas or view community profi les.

The Traffi c Safety Program develops maps and defi ciency analyses for each goal and performance measure area. 

SEMCOG identifi es road segments and intersections with safety defi ciencies related to the SHSP emphasis areas 

and tags crashes in the regional crash database related to specifi c emphasis areas. The MPO provides lists of 

defi ciencies to its local governments so they can identify projects for the State’s annual call for safety projects and 

consider them in long-range planning.

CASE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

• Uses safety performance measure to prioritize 

regional investment decisions.

• Develops uniform approach to traffi c 

safety analysis.

• Integrates regional goals, objectives, and performance measures into traffi c safety analysis 

process.
24

The Traffi c Safety Manual provides guidance for local transportation planning, ranging from collecting potentially useful information to ranking potential solutions. The guide describes what data to collect and how to 

analyze data to identify high-crash locations. The Traffi c Safety Manual describes how to propose and prioritize 

appropriate mitigation strategies using the same benefi t/cost analysis incorporated into Michigan’s annual call 

for safety projects. 

Results

SEMCOG sets investment levels based on safety performance measures that align with statewide goals. The 

agency uses a comprehensive regional approach to identify and prioritize projects. SEMCOG provides crash data 

to local agencies for high-risk location analysis and cost-benefi t analysis. This approach ensures local safety analysis and project prioritization is aligned with the region’s and State’s long-range goals, objectives, and performance 

measures. The region has exceeded the statewide goal of reducing traffi c crash fatalities to one per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled.

Federal Highway Administration

Offi ce of Safety E71-115

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-2288 Fax: 202-493-3222

Federal Highway Administration

Offi ce of Planning E72-123

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-0106 Fax: 202-493-2198

FHWA-HEP-09-043

September 2009