Notice

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

(USDOT) 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 U.S. 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.

i

ii

TECHNICAL REPORT 

DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Introduction..........................................................................................................................ix

Section I: Resources and Information

Case Study 1 – Strategic Highway Safety Plan Involvement.............................................................. 3

Case Study 2 – Crash Mapping Analysis Tool ....................................................................................... 7

Case Study 3 – HSIP Application Guidance Document ................................................................... 11

Case Study 4 – HSIP Application Preparation Assistance.................................................................. 15

Section II: Training and Development

Case Study 5 – Safety Training for Local Agencies............................................................................ 19

Case Study 6 – Local HSIP Advisory Committee ................................................................................ 23

Case Study 7 – Implementing New Technology ................................................................................ 29

Case Study 8 – Local Agency Safety Program .................................................................................. 31

Section III: Technical Assistance

Case Study 9 – Support for Road Safety Assessments....................................................................... 37

Case Study 10 – Local Road Safety Plans........................................................................................... 39

Section IV: Implementation

Case Study 11 – Systemic Safety Evaluation....................................................................................... 49

Case Study 12 – Environmental Documentation Assistance ............................................................ 53

Case Study 13 – Bundled Project Strategy.......................................................................................... 55

Case Study 14 – Local Safety Engineering Assistance Program....................................................... 59

Case Study 15 – Dedicated HSIP Funding Support for

Local System Safety Projects ................................................................................................................ 63

Case Study 16 – Comprehensive Approach to Local Road Safety................................................. 67

Case Study 17 – New Data-driven Approach to Support Safety

Countermeasures with Short Service Lives.......................................................................................... 71

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 75

References ......................................................................................................................... 79

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures

Figure 2-1. Examples of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool Filters........................................................ 8

Figure 2-2. Stacking Function of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool ................................................... 9

Figure 2-3. Examples of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool Reporting Capabilities........................... 9

Figure 4-1. HSIP Project Form Example................................................................................................. 16

Figure 5-1. FHWA Safety Analysis Process ........................................................................................... 20

Figure 6-1. Local/State Fatalities Trend Line........................................................................................ 23

Figure 6-2. HSIP Funding for Local Road Safety in California ............................................................ 24

Figure 6-3. Injury Severity Quantified in California.............................................................................. 25

Figure 6-4. Rural Highway Shoulder Paving in California................................................................... 25

Figure 6-5. Downtown Paradise Road Configuration Change Before ........................................... 26

Figure 6-6. Illustration of Multiple-threat Pedestrian Crash ................................................................ 26

Figure 6-7. Downtown Paradise Road Configuration Change After .............................................. 26

Figure 8-1. Improved Overhead Signage in District 7: Before (top) and After ............................... 33

Figure 10-1. Minnesota County Roadway Systemic Safety Planning Process ................................ 40

Figure 10-2. Example of a Visual Trap – Minor Road Intersects Roadway on a Curve .................. 40

Figure 10-3. Minnesota Fatality Trend Line .......................................................................................... 41

Figure 10-4. North Dakota Counties, Cities, Reservations, and National Parks............................... 43

Figure 10-5. Systemic Safety Project Development Process Flow Chart.......................................... 44

Figure 11-1. FHWA Systemic Safety Tool .............................................................................................. 50

Figure 14-1. Figure 14-1. NJTPA Local Safety and High Risk Rural Roads Program ......................... 59

Figure 14-2. Percentage of Projects Requesting Design Assistance by Fiscal Year (New Jersey).. 60

Figure 16-1. ODOT District and Central Offices................................................................................... 68

Tables

Table 10-1. Program Study Network Summary (Minnesota County Roadway System)................. 40

Table 14-1. Annual Summary of Local Safety Engineering Assistance Program (New Jersey)..... 60

Table 15-1. MnDOT HSIP Funding for Local System Safety Projects 2011 to 2016 ........................... 64

Table 15-2. NDDOT HSIP Funding for Local System Safety Projects 2017 to 2020............................ 64

Appendixes

Appendix A – Members of the Technical Oversight Working Group .............................................. 85

Appendix B – Sample HSIP Project Application Spreadsheet .......................................................... 87

Appendix C – California Local Highway Safety Improvement

Program Advisory Charter..................................................................................................................... 89

Appendix D – Environmental Documentation for

Federal Projects with Minor Impacts.................................................................................................... 93

Appendix E – Sample Determination of No Effect............................................................................. 95

Appendix F – Memo and Joint Powers Agreement for the

Administration of Federal HSIP Safety Grant....................................................................................... 97

vi U.S. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL
INTRODUCTION

Photo credit: Arinahabich © 123RF.com

The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has prioritized increasing 

the level of local agency participation in statewide safety planning efforts. 

The FHWA recommends local agencies take a comprehensive approach 

in addressing safety issues on local roadway systems and work toward 

achieving the long-term vision of zero traffic-related fatalities and serious 

injuries. Local government agencies own and operate approximately 76% of 

public roads (FHWA, 2015). With 38% of traffic fatalities occurring on local 

roads (NHTSA, 2015) states face challenges in achieving zero traffic-related 

fatalities and significantly reducing the number of serious injuries unless 

local roadway system safety is an integral part of their safety planning and 

investment initiatives.

A number of states have identified the value of partnering with local agencies 

to use their state’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding to 

support safety project development. 

The FHWA, state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and local agencies 

have discussed expanding roadway project development through the HSIP. 

Increased safety project development and HSIP support for investment in 

local roadway projects requires an understanding of the needs, resources, and 

staff capabilities of local agencies. Local agencies have fewer professional staff 

than state DOTs, limited budgets for project development, and a wide variety 

of responsibilities. The level of complexity and technical expertise necessary 

to acquire HSIP funding can present substantial barriers to local agency staff. 

Frequently, the additional effort required to implement local safety projects 

supported by HSIP funds results in many local agencies either declining 

funding or being unable to participate in the HSIP.

This Noteworthy Practices Manual identifies several common barriers faced 

by many local agencies in implementing HSIP projects. Best practices—

identified through a series of interviews with state and local agency staff 

nationwide—are broken into four sections—Resources and Information, 

Training and Development, Technical Assistance, and Implementation. 

U.S. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL ix

INTRODUCTION
Within the following four sections, 17 noteworthy practices are presented 

as case studies to illustrate how state and local agencies have overcome 

challenges in implementing local HSIP-funded projects. Agencies include 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), local agencies, and state DOTs. 

State DOTs manage the HSIP; many have developed creative approaches to 

support local agency implementations.

Section 1. Resources and Information – Case studies describe common 

barriers faced by local agency staff during statewide planning activities 

(for example, few best practices resources, a lack of accessible/userfriendly data, and no prior experience in completing the application 

process). The case studies identify highway safety priorities, policies, 

and best practices for overcoming the barriers and engaging local 

agencies in statewide safety planning efforts. 

Section 2. Training and Development – Case studies describe how the 

lack of training is a barrier to identifying and developing safety projects 

for HSIP funding. Without adequate training and staff development, 

safety practitioners cannot address safety challenges and integrate 

road safety (including crash analysis and development of traffic safety 

solutions) into their existing responsibilities. Even though a large 

percentage of fatalities occur on local roads, local agencies do not take 

full advantage of the resources available to counteract those fatalities. 

The case studies provide local agencies with training resources on how 

to perform data-driven evaluations of roadway systems and identify and 

prioritize locations for safety investment. 

Section 3. Technical Assistance – Case studies describe how support 

for technical assistance allows local agencies to overcome such 

barriers as a lack of funding and a limited number of practitioners with 

institutional knowledge. The case studies identify staffing and financial 

resources available to local agencies. 

Section 4. Implementation – Case studies describe how local agencies 

can implement safety strategies using time- and cost-saving efficiencies 

during the final phases of HSIP projects (contracting, permitting, and 

design). Barriers to implementation include limited resources for local 

agencies to comply with FHWA, varying level of expertise, and limited 

funding. The case studies describe how to overcome these barriers. 

x U.S. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL
FHWA developed the Noteworthy Practices Manual for local agencies to use 

when developing and administering federally-funded HSIP projects. It shares 

best practices in implementing federally-funded safety projects and provides 

solutions for local agencies to implement—independently or cooperatively—

with other agencies. By sharing the types of best practices described in 

this Manual, FHWA hopes local agencies and their DOT partners will be 

better prepared to face the challenges of implementing federally-funded 

HSIP projects.

A Technical Oversight Working Group (TOWG) provided guidance in 

developing the Manual. Representatives include city planning, county 

engineer, and state DOT offices, the National Association of County Engineers 

and National League of Cities, and a Native American Tribe. TOWG members 

are listed in Appendix A.

References:

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. Highway Statistics 2014. Public 

Road Length – 2014, Miles By Ownership. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/

statistics/2014/hm10.cfm. Accessed November 20, 2017. 

2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2015. Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) Encyclopedia. https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. Accessed 

November 20, 2017. 

xi INTRODUCTION

Table of Contents

Case Study 1 – Strategic Highway Safety Plan Involvement...... 3

Case Study 2 – Crash Mapping Analysis Tool ............................ 7

Case Study 3 – HSIP Application Guidance Document ........... 11

Case Study 4 – HSIP Application Preparation Assistance........ 15

SECTION I: 

Resources and Information

Source: FHWA

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 3

CASE STUDY 1 – 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan Involvement

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL

Problem

A local agency has not participated in statewide safety planning efforts. The 

agency would like to participate but is unsure how to begin.

Noteworthy Solution 

A state DOT’s collaboration with local agencies who have successfully implemented safety measures 

is critical to planning efforts. Frequently, local agencies are not sufficiently engaged during project 

identification and development to effectively implement the recommended measures. This case study 

shows how North Dakota DOT (NDDOT) and New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) are addressing this issue by 

including commitments in their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to:

» Encourage local agencies to develop safety practices.

» Increase the level of engagement of local agencies in statewide planning.

» Increase available resources for safety on local roads. 

The first step is to identify existing commitments related to local agency participation. These are often 

listed in the state’s SHSP. When reviewing the SHSP, a few questions to ask are: 

» Does the state SHSP have data documenting the distribution of crashes across the state and 

local system? 

» Is there a discussion of how local road safety fits into the total statewide effort? 

» Is there a commitment to engage local agencies in statewide safety planning? 

If this information is provided in the state SHSP, the local agency can contact the SHSP program 

coordinator to ask for information about how to participate in the safety planning process and develop 

safety practices. If not, the local agency can contact the state’s SHSP program coordinator and advocate 

for local agency input to the next SHSP. An agency may offer to participate as either a member of 

an Advisory Committee and/or a representative of a statewide association of counties, cities, or 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

To increase the level of involvement, local agencies should collect updated data, participate in training 

and development, and request technical assistance and implementation support. A state DOT’s 

commitment to increasing available resources for local road safety may include providing:

» Funding to support implementation of projects along local road systems (including, but not limited 

to, HSIP funds).

» Training and technical support for local agency staff.

» Accountability and performance measures to ensure funding and projects are correctly allocated 

and managed.

» Information about roadway safety issues to local practitioners. 
4

NJDOT has provided training on using the Highway Safety Manual and preparing 

contract documents. Between 2013 and 2014 NJDOT funding for local roads increased 

from less than $4 million (2013) annually to an average of $25 million (based on 

a comparison of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 HSIP reports [FHWA, 2013; 2014; 

2015;  2016]).

NDDOT provided technical assistance and funding to prepare safety plans for 

53 counties and 12 cities in the state of North Dakota. In Fiscal Year 2017, the 

state allocated approximately 35% of its HSIP funding to support safety project 

implementation on local roads. In previous years, the allocation was only 2%.

CASE STUDY #1: STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN INVOLVEMENT

The following examples show NDDOT’s and NJDOT’s commitment to local road safety. 

NDDOT SHSP 

As stated in the North Dakota SHSP, NDDOT successfully implemented and documented safety practices. 

“The statewide Highway Safety Improvement Program will include all roads by increasing the level of 

engagement of local highway agencies in the HSIP. The specific steps that NDDOT will take to increase the 

level of participation by local agencies includes the following:

» Prepare safety plans for local systems around the state.

» Dedicate significantly more HSIP funds to improvements on local systems where the majority of fatal 

and injury crashes occur.

» Investigate and identify future data needs to support on‐going participation by local agencies in the 

HSIP (for example, traffic volumes, traffic‐control device inventories, video logs, etc.).

» Identify and then remove the barriers for local participation in the statewide HSIP, such as the current 

practice of deducting any HSIP award from the current formula driven distribution of federal aid.

» Identify needs and then provide safety training to local agency staff” (NDDOT, 2013). 

NJDOT SHSP

NJDOT has increased available resources by committing funding and training/technical support to local 

agencies. The SHSP states, “(NJDOT)...supports safety on local systems through the dedication of HSIP 

funds and by providing technical assistance” (NJDOT, 2015).

NJDOT has also incorporated a system for accountability and performance measures to ensure projects 

are correctly approved and managed. For example, local safety projects must be approved by a 

Technical Review Committee, made up of representatives from MPOs and staff from NJDOT’s Local Aid, 

Environmental Services, and Safety Programs. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also 

sits on the Committee as a non-voting member. Once the project is approved, NJDOT holds recurring 

meetings to track the project’s progress and outcome.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 5

References

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013. New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement 

Program 2013 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2013/nj.pdf.

Accessed November 6, 2018. 

2. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement 

Program 2014 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2014/nj.pdf.

Accessed November 6, 2018.

3. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement 

Program 2015 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2015/nj.pdf.

Accessed November 6, 2018.

4. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement 

Program 2016 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2016/nj.pdf.

Accessed November 6, 2018. 

5. New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). 2015. New Jersey Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/pdf/2015strategichighwaysafetyplan.pdf. 

Accessed July 27, 2017. 

6. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2013. North Dakota’s Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. September. 

Local Agency Action Items

NDDOT and NJDOT have successfully increased local agency participation 

in safety planning through close collaboration and engagement. To become 

engaged, a local agency could: 

» Review the current SHSP to identify existing commitments applicable to 

local roadways and agencies. 

» Participate in the respective state’s 

SHSP update process. A first step 

could be to contact the state’s 

SHSP coordinator to request 

more information and 

discuss opportunities for 

participation.

» Collaborate with or become a 

member of organizations such 

as NACE, the MPO, state and 

county engineer organizations, 

professional societies, and Advisory 

Committees to champion safety 

planning efforts. 

Relevant Contacts

North Dakota

Shawn Kuntz

North Dakota Department

of Transportation

(701) 328-2673

New Jersey

Daniel Lisanti

New Jersey Department

of Transportation

(609) 530-5742

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 7

CASE STUDY 2 – 

Crash Mapping Analysis Tool

Problem

A lack of accessible/user-friendly data prevents local agencies from 

participating in statewide safety planning efforts. 

Noteworthy Solution 

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) developed the Minnesota Crash Mapping 

Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) to increase the accessibility and user-friendly features of its crash 

data. MnDOT’s Division of State Aid for Local Transportation partnered with the Minnesota 

Local Road Research Board and the Minnesota County Engineers Association to develop the 

analysis tool. MnCMAT is a web-based application that provides 10 years of crash data for 

public roads in Minnesota. Individual crashes are spatially located along public roadways and 

up to 67 pieces of information are provided for each crash. 

MnDOT’s original computer-based crash record system was used for more than 40 years and 

used reference points to locate features along a linear element. In addition to providing a 

location for each crash in the state, more than 15 data elements were documented from the 

investigating officers’ crash reports, including: 

» Highway system (state, county, city, and township).

» Route. � Crash causation.

» Reference point. � Weather.

» Date, day, and time. � Road characteristics.

» Severity. � Driver conditions.

The data output was provided to local agencies in response to requests for crash data. 

However, few local agencies used the data regularly because the output was not considered 

user friendly.

The concept of a crash mapping analysis tool was first developed in the 1990s by the Iowa 

DOT and Iowa State University’s Center for Transportation Research and Education. Following 

a demonstration of the desktop-based mapping tool at a county engineer’s peer exchange 

in 2006, MnDOT (with funding support from county engineers) and the Local Road Research 

Board modified the mapping tool to a web-based application meeting the crash data needs 

of Minnesota. 

MnCMAT is currently used by Minnesota’s city and county engineers, law enforcement, and 

other traffic safety experts to conduct analyses across state and local roadways. Users have 

access to crash data in multiple formats in addition to macroscopic (large scale coverage plus 

trends and statistics) and microscopic (small scale coverage showing crash details) analyses.
Figure 2-1. Examples of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool Filters

8 CASE STUDY #2: CRASH MAPPING ANALYSIS TOOL

Key features include:

» Filters that allow analysts to select specific crash data elements—such 

as severity, type, roadway condition, driver conditions, and contributing 

factors (Figure 2-1).

» A multi-dimensional stacking function that shows locations with multiple 

crashes and uses colors to differentiate crashes by level of severity 

(Figure 2-2).

» Visual analysis tools including (Figure 2-3):

– Charts.

– Maps.

– Reports.

– Data files.

Local Agency Action Items

MnDOT has successfully developed a web-based system that improves crash 

data accessibility and analysis capabilities. To expedite the development of 

similar platforms, a local agency could:

» Check with state DOT and university research centers about the 

availability of similar tools.

» Identify data needs (agencies need support with data retrieval, 

management, or analysis) to understand what is essential for using webbased crash data.

» Partner with other local agencies and collectively request that the state 

DOT create web-based systems to access and analyze crash data.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Mark Vizecky

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation

(651) 366-3839

General

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation – State Aid for 

Local Transportation

(651) 296-3000
Figure 2-3. Examples of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool Reporting Capabilities

Figure 2-2. Stacking Function of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool

References

1. Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). Crash Mapping Analysis Tool.

https://iowadot.gov/crashanalysis/cmatmain.aspx. Accessed April 2015.

2. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/crashmapping.html. Accessed April 2015.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 9

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 11

CASE STUDY 3 – 

HSIP Application Guidance Document 

Problem

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding application 

process is a barrier for local agency staff due to the information 

required, a lack of prior experience with the process, limited 

resources, and competition for limited funds.

Noteworthy Solution 

A funding process that considers the constrained resources of local public agencies and 

simplifies the funding applications is critical to enabling local agencies access to HSIP funds. 

One solution is to provide guidance to local agencies to help them successfully complete 

the application. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation’s (NHDOT) HSIP 

Manual and Guidance (2013) document is a good example of this approach.

The purpose of the Manual is, “to provide documentation and guidance to NHDOT staff 

and other safety stakeholders involved with implementing the HSIP in New Hampshire.”

The Manual was developed by an HSIP Committee directed by NHDOT staff and includes 

representatives from NHDOT, U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), local state 

agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and regional development 

commissions.

The HSIP Manual and Guidance document includes an overview of key principles of New 

Hampshire’s HSIP, including (NHDOT, 2013):

» The HSIP funding process directs resources to projects that are most likely to achieve 

results (crash reductions).

» The HSIP is data driven and directs safety funds to the most effective treatments at 

the locations with the greatest needs.

» Funding decisions are based on prioritization and identify projects with the greatest 

return.

» Safety funding is provided to projects that address Critical Emphasis Areas (CEAs) 

identified in New Hampshire’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) (NHDOT, 2012). 

For example, crashes involving animals is an eligible CEA activity in MAP-21, but not 

in New Hampshire’s current SHSP. As a result, HSIP funds would not be allocated for 

that purpose.

» HSIP funds are reserved for standalone projects targeting specific, high-priority safety 

needs whereas other federal funds are eligible to support and leverage the program 

for routine safety features and design elements. For example, providing safety 

features—such as guard rails, paved shoulders, and auxiliary turning lanes—that are 

generally included as part of a larger federal-aid project should be included in funding 

for the larger project, not HSIP. 
12 CASE STUDY #3: HSIP APPLICATION GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

The Manual also describes NHDOT’s three-step HSIP selection process 

(NHDOT, 2013).

1. Eligibility

» Targets CEAs identified in the SHSP.

» Specifies a need for data-driven solutions with benefit/cost ratios greater 

than 1.

» Identifies candidate locations through network screening for high crash 

(fatal and serious injury crashes) or high risk (systemic assessment) and 

presents the results of road safety audits.

2. Prioritization 

» Results of an incremental Benefit/Cost Analysis consider:

– Value of expected safety benefits.

– Countermeasure effectiveness.

– Construction. 

– Maintenance costs and service life.

3. Optimization

» Optimizes available funding to implement the most effective projects. 

» Allows program managers to adjust a prioritized list of projects based on 

project risk, completion date, and level of reduction for serious crashes. 

NHDOT considers projects that are quick, low-cost, have minimal 

environmental and right-of-way impacts, and are expected to make significant 

improvements in safety to be the most effective. Even though systemic and 

non-infrastructure projects may not have all the data required, the HSIP 

Committee uses best judgment in fairly and equally evaluating them alongside 

projects with the necessary data. To help with this evaluation, the Manual 

includes the one-page Application Spreadsheet (Appendix B) that local 

agencies can use to provide the required information, including:

» Requesting agency and contact. 

» Site description.

» Crash data. 

» Traffic data. 

» Improvement description. 

» Economic evaluation (cost/benefit ratio, net benefits, and estimated 

annual fatal and severe injury crash reduction).

In addition, the NHDOT created a Highway Safety Improvement webpage 

(https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/

hwysafetyimprovements). Local communities and local agency staff can use 

this site to obtain additional information and guidance on the HSIP process 
Relevant Contacts

New Hampshire

Michael Dugas

New Hampshire Department

of Transporation

(603) 271-2604

michael.dugas@dot.nh.gov

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 13

in New Hampshire (request forms, links to FHWA requirements, and the 

HSIP Manual). 

Results

The availability of the HSIP Manual has increased the local agency level of 

engagement in New Hampshire’s statewide safety planning. Currently, 10% of 

HSIP projects are implemented on the local system. 

Local Agency Action Items

NHDOT has successfully resolved the funding application process barrier. To 

streamline its HSIP application process, a local agency could:

» Identify state DOT resources through the HSIP application process. 

Agencies can coordinate with the state’s HSIP manager to identify 

available resources.

» Collaborate with or become a member of such organizations as 

DOT, FHWA, local agencies around the state, MPOs, state and county 

engineer associations, advisory committees, and regional development 

commissions to share resources and best practices.

References

1. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2012. Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan.https://www.nh.gov/dot/projects/documents/2012_2016_strategic_highway_safety_

plan_single_pages_suitable_for_printing.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018. 

2. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2013. Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Manual and Guidance. https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/

projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements/documents/hsip_

nhguidance_122013.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018. 

3. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2017. Highway Safety 

Improvement webpage. https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/

highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements. Accessed August 17, 2017. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 15

CASE STUDY 4 – 

HSIP Application Preparation Assistance

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL

Problem

Local agencies implement few Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP)-funded safety projects because project funding applications are seen 

as too complex and difficult.

Noteworthy Solution

To increase local participation in the HSIP process, the Minnesota and North Dakota DOTs developed 

Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs) for each of the state counties (Refer to Case Study 10 for detailed 

information). To expedite project development, they provided local agencies with the HSIP project forms 

and required data for projects identified in the two state safety plans (approximately 14,000 specific 

actions at individual locations in Minnesota [Leuer, 2016, pers. comm.] and 3,000 actions in North 

Dakota [Kuntz, 2016, pers. comm.]). The project forms included the required information to describe the 

safety program for the funding application (Figure 4-1):

» Name of the submitting agency.

» Project description.

» Location information.

» Overview of crash data.

» Risk factors.

» List of safety strategies considered.

» Selected strategy and estimated implementation cost. 

Local agency staff and DOT HSIP manager feedback on this successful program indicated:

» The application process is simple and encourages local agency participation.

» State DOT effort is reduced because returned applications are more consistent and complete. 

Local participation in the North Dakota HSIPs increased after agencies received additional assistance 

(Kuntz, 2016, pers. comm.). In Minnesota 85% of the counties have secured HSIP funding for at least one 

project directly through the assisted applications (Leuer, 2016, pers. comm.).

Local Agency Action Items

Minnesota and North Dakota DOTs have successfully provided local agencies with HSIP project forms 

and relevant data. Local agencies facing complex HSIP funding applications could:

» Contact the state DOT to identify available HSIP application resources.

» Collaborate with other local agencies to standardize and streamline application instructions. 

» Identify opportunities to modify application requirements. 
Image Source: NDDOT, 2017

16 CASE STUDY #4: HSIP APPLICATION PREPARATION ASSISTANCE

Figure 4-1. HSIP Project Form Example

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM JUNE 2015

CHAPTER 5: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

TR0414151003SEA 5-5

23 USC 409: NDDOT Reserves All Objections

Figure 5-4

Title: HSIP Segment Project Form

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) PROJECT APPLICATION

North Dakota Department of Transportation Programming

SFN 59959 (06-2011)

Agency Name: Bottineau County 4

Contact Name: Ritchie Gimbel 701-228-3698

Email Address: ritch.gimbel@co.bottineau.nd.us

Please attach a location map(s). You may use additional sheets to further describe your project.

Location Description

Start: Intersection with 98th St NE Lane Width: 12'

End: Intersection with ND 43 Speed Limit: High

Facility Type: 2-Lane Shoulder Width: 0'

ADT: 606 Shoulder Type: None

Road Type Rural Paved Rumble Installed: No

Length (miles): 10.4 Oil Project: No

County Road: No Designation

Local Name:

Describe Current Safety Issues & Systemic Ranking Review

North Dakota Crashes, 2009 - 2013 5 years

Total Road Dept K+A

Crashes 31 19 2

Density (per mile per year) 0.60 0.37 0.04

Rate (per MVM) 2.70 1.65 0.17

Value Critical Road 

ADT Range 606 450≤ADT≤1000000 

RD Density 0.365 0.054 

Access Density 10.7 8.0 

Curve Critical Radius Density 1.536 0.130 

Edge Risk 2 2 or 3 



Describe Proposed Safety Improvements

Description Type Cost per mi Mileage Cost

4" Edge Lines Proactive $1,320 0.0 $0

6" Edge Lines Proactive $1,980 0.5 $1,030

Edge Rumble Strip Proactive $5,850 9.9 $57,798

Ground In Wet-Reflective Markings Proactive $36,000 0.0 $0

Center Line Rumble Strip Proactive $3,600 0.0 $0

6" Center Line Proactive $1,020 0.0 $0

Project Cost Estimate (attach detailed copy) Proposed Year of Construction

Federal Funds $52,945 

Local Match (10% of Total project cost) $5,883

Total Project Cost $58,828

NDDOT Central Office Only

Project Accepted? Reference Number ID Number

Notes

Page: 2

23 USC 409 Segment ID: 503.01

NDDOT Reserves All Objections Date: 3/18/2015

Notes - 

13th Ave NE from Intersection with 98th St NE to Intersection with ND 43

ND DOT District:

Telephone Number:

SHSP Emphasis Area (check all that apply)

Reduce Alcohol Impaired Driving

Increase the Use of Safety Restraints for all Occupants

Younger Driver/Older Driver Safety

Curb Aggressive Driving

Improvements to Address Lane Departure Crashes

Enhancing EMS Capabilities to Increase Survivability

Improve Intersection Safety

13th Ave NE

Yes No

References

1. Kuntz, Shawn, North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2016. 

Personal communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

2. Leuer, Derek, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2016. Personal 

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

3. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2017. Local Road 

Safety Program. https://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/safety/docs/LSRP/VIEW_

CentralRegion_Agency_BottineauCounty.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Derek Leuer 

Minnesota Department 

of Transportation

(651) 234-7372

North Dakota 

Shawn Kuntz

North Dakota Department 

of Transportation

(701) 328-2673
Table of Contents

Case Study 5 – Safety Training for Local Agencies................... 19

Case Study 6 – Local HSIP Advisory Committee ..................... 23

Case Study 7 – Implementing New Technology ...................... 29

Case Study 8 – Local Agency Safety Program ......................... 31

SECTION II:

Training and Development

Photo credit: Sittichai © 123RF.com

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 19

CASE STUDY 5 – 

Safety Training for Local Agencies

Problem

Local agencies find it difficult to identify and develop safety projects for 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding since very few of 

their staff are trained in safety analysis.

Noteworthy Solution

State and federal entities acknowledge that some local agencies have limited staff and their 

responsibilities cover a broad range of work that often monopolizes their time. They frequently 

are unable to take the necessary training to understand or apply traffic safety methods. In 

response, agencies have developed tools to help guide local practitioners through the HSIP 

safety analysis process. Federal and state agencies have developed the following resources to 

provide local agencies with safety analysis training and tools: 

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Improving Safety on Rural Local and Tribal 

Roads – Safety Toolkit (2014a).

2. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Traffic Safety Fundamentals

Handbook (2015). 

3. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) training course using

the New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Manual (2016).

Improving Safety on Rural Local and Tribal Roads – Safety Toolkit

The Improving Safety on Rural Local and Tribal Roads – Safety Toolkit (FHWA, 2014a) helps 

rural, local, and tribal roadway safety practitioners address safety challenges and integrate 

road safety into their existing responsibilities.

The Toolkit provides a seven-step process to complete traffic safety analyses, identify safety 

issues, identify countermeasures to address the issues, and develop an implementation 

process. Each step contains a set of tools, examples, and links to appropriate resources to 

meet the needs of safety practitioners (Figure 5-1):

1. Compile data.

2. Conduct network screening.

3. Select sites for investigation.

4. Diagnose site conditions and identify countermeasures.

5. Prioritize countermeasures for implementation.

6. Implement countermeasures.

7. Evaluate effectiveness of implemented countermeasures.
20 CASE STUDY #5: SAFETY TRAINING FOR LOCAL AGENCIES

Figure 5-1. FHWA Safety Analysis Process 

The Safety Toolkit, in addition to other FHWA training, tools, guidance, and 

countermeasures for local practitioners, is online at: 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ (FHWA, 2017).

Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook

The Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook (MnDOT, 2015) focuses on 

providing the information most often requested by local agencies. MnDOT 

published the original version in 2001, with updates in 2008 and 2015.

More than 3,500 copies have been distributed through MnDOT’s outreach 

to government agencies and the private sector. In addition, the Handbook is 

used as a resource in undergraduate and graduate traffic engineering classes 

at the University of Minnesota and is available to professionals in other states 

online at: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/fundamentals/2015-

mndot-safety-handbook-reduced.pdf.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 21

The Handbook is organized into three sections:

» Crash Characteristics – National and state crash summaries, including 

basic characteristics as a function of roadway classification, intersection 

control, roadway design, and access density.

» Safety Improvement Process – Site analysis at high-crash locations and 

systemic assessments.

» Traffic Safety Tool Box – Identification of new tools (HSM and Crash 

Modification Factor Clearinghouse [FHWA, 2014b]) and a safety 

strategies update, with an emphasis on effectiveness (crash reduction).

Agency staff refer to this Handbook for guidance on safety context, analysis, 

comparisons, and countermeasures. 

HSIP Training

The New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) requires HSIP applications to be based on the 

state’s HSIP Manual (NJTPA, 2016). To help local agencies comply with this 

requirement, the NJTPA sponsored four, free 2-day workshops on Highway 

Safety Manual (HSM) analytical techniques, key assumptions, and benefit/ 

cost ratio computations. FHWA’s Resource Center, FHWA’s New Jersey 

Division Office, NJDOT’s Bureau of Transportation Data and Safety, and NJTPA 

provided the instructors. The target audience included metropolitan planning 

organizations and local agency engineers. The workshop included 1-hour time 

slots for local agencies considering submitting a project for HSIP funding to 

present details about their projects. Instructors provided feedback to local 

agency engineers about HSM assumptions and the suggested approach for 

analytical techniques.

To date, almost two-thirds of NJTPA’s 15 sub-regions have participated and 

applications for 26 safety projects have been adopted by the NJTPA Board of 

Trustees for funding through the Local Safety Program (NJTPA, 2016). 

Local Agency Action Items

These three noteworthy resources provide local agencies with safety analysis 

training and tools. To ensure staff receive this training, local agencies could:

» Identify document and training resources through the state DOT or 

other agencies.

» Collaborate with local agencies to develop applicable materials 

or training. 

» Request information and training assistance from the state DOT, when 

needed. 

» Incorporate the recommendations found in the guidance documents 

into the local agencies’ internal processes.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Mark Vizecky

Minnesota Department

of Transportation

(651) 366-3839

New Jersey

Lois Goldman

North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority

(973) 639-8413

General

North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority

(973) 639-8400
22 CASE STUDY #5: SAFETY TRAINING FOR LOCAL AGENCIES

References

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014a. Improving Safety on Rural Local 

and Tribal Roads – Safety Toolkit. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/

fhwasa14072/isrltrst.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2017.

2. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014b. Crash Modification Factor (CMF) 

Clearinghouse. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/resources/. Modified October 2014. 

3. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Website. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/. Accessed September 18, 2017. 

4. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Traffic Safety Fundamentals 

Handbook. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/trafficsafety/reference/2015-mndotsafety-handbook-large.pdf. Accessed September 18 2017.

5. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2016. New Jersey Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Manual. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/

pdf/2016hsipmanual.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 23

CASE STUDY 6 – 

Local HSIP Advisory Committee 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL

Problem

Despite a notable percentage of fatalities occurring on local 

roads, there is low county, city, and local agency participation 

in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). 

Noteworthy Solution 

In 2014, California formed a local HSIP Advisory Committee to increase 

local agency participation in California’s HSIP and to support the state’s 

goal to reduce traffic fatalities (Figure 6-1) and serious injuries on California 

public roads. The Advisory Committee provides California’s local HSIP and 

other safety programs with safety guidance on California’s local roadways. 

Committee members include the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance; U.S. Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the Local Technical Assistance Program, and local agencies 

throughout California.

The Advisory Committee’s Charter (Appendix C, Desired Goals, Advisory 

Committee Charter, 2017) identifies six goals:

1. Ensure that California’s Local HSIP and other safety programs and efforts 

are consistent with California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). 

2. Provide vision and strategic priorities for 

improving local safety programs and processes. 

3. Provide recommendations on California Local 

HSIP and processes. 

4 Provide recommendations to streamline 

decision-making, review, and project delivery 

on safety projects. 

5. Identify funding opportunities to meet local 

roadway safety needs. 

6. Encourage, improve, and support traffic 

safety efforts at local agencies.

Fatalities

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Fatalities in locally owned roads

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System [FARS], 2017; Adapted by FHWA

2,000

2,500

1,500

1,000

0

500

Road Fatalities in California

Year

Fatalities in state owned roads

Figure 6-1. Local/State Fatalities Trend Line
24 CASE STUDY #6: LOCAL HSIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

The Advisory Committee is co-chaired by Caltrans and a representative from 

a local agency, and includes 11 members representing cities, counties, and 

regional/metropolitan planning agencies. The goal is for committee members to 

represent urban and rural areas distributed geographically across the state.

The Advisory Committee (Appendix C) adopted four key initiatives:

1. Address systemic risks on local roads with low-cost safety countermeasures, 

including programs focused on roadway departure and high-friction 

surface treatments.

2. Identify funding strategies that reflect unique local needs, including 

webinars focused on preparing applications for safety funding.

3. Target high-risk jurisdictions for funding, training, and technical assistance. 

Recognize that some local systems with the highest number of fatalities and 

serious injuries are smaller jurisdictions without the capacity or technical 

ability to address safety concerns.

4. Implement an effective, consistent, and coordinated traffic incident 

management program at the state and local level to reduce the duration 

and impacts to traffic incidents and improve safety for motorists, crash 

victims, and emergency responders.

Since 2014, the outreach, training, and technical assistance provided by the 

Advisory Committee increased local agency participation by almost 40%. This 

translates to a 70% increase in the level of safety 

funds dedicated to local system projects (from about 

$65 million programmed for Fiscal Years 2012 and 

2013 to $100 million in 2015 and $140 million in 

2019) (Kochevar, 2017, pers. comm) (Figure 6-2).

The types of projects selected for funding as a result 

of the Advisory Committee initiatives are listed 

below and illustrated in Figures 6-3 and 6-4:

» Pedestrian/bicycle improvements – Countdown 

timers, curb ramps, refuge islands, curb 

extensions, rapid flash beacons and signals, 

sidewalks, and bike lanes.

» Access management – Raised medians and 

road diets.

» Intersection improvements – Signal 

modifications and left-turn lanes, roundabouts, 

and street lights. 

» Segment improvements – Shoulder paving, 

pavement markings, clear zone maintenance, and 

guardrail upgrades.

Figure 6-2. HSIP Funding for Local Road Safety in California

$120

$105

$90

$75

$60

$45

$15

$0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

$30

$135

$150

Source: Kochevar, 2017, pers. comm.; Adapted by FHWA

Federal Fiscal Year

$ Millions
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 25

Local Agency Highlights

The Town of Paradise has benefited from state efforts to increase the number 

of cities and counties participating in the HSIP. Prior to securing HSIP funds, 

Paradise’s $1 million annual capital budget focused on expanding the roadway 

system to accommodate growth and managing 100 miles of roads. In the 

past 3 years, Paradise has supplemented its capital budget with $8 million in 

HSIP funds, which has supported adding a shoulder paving/bike lane project, 

adding a two-way left-turn lane to Clark Road, upgrading the town’s signal 

system by adding pedestrian countdown timers and emergency vehicle 

pre-emption, and implementing a road diet along Skyway Road (Mattox, 

2016, pers. comm). A project along Skyway Road (Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-7) 

converted the four-lane undivided cross-section to a three-lane cross-section 

Figure 6-3. Injury Severity Quantified in California

Source: Mattox, 2016, pers. comm..

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

$

2011-2014

Average

$1,854,687.50

2016

$503,150.00

Figure 6-4. Rural Highway Shoulder Paving in California

Source: Kochevar, 2017, pers. comm. 
26 CASE STUDY #6: LOCAL HSIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Figure 6-5. Downtown Paradise Road Configuration Change Before 

Source: Mattox, 2016, pers. comm.

Figure 6-7. Downtown Paradise Road Configuration Change After 

Source: Mattox, 2016, pers. comm.

and improved signal coordination. It also added pedestrian enhancements, 

including crosswalks, curb extensions, refuge islands, and activated flashing 

beacons. Prior to these enhancements the crash rate on Skyway Road was 

more than twice the statewide average for similar facilities. Pedestrian 

crashes were the key component, especially multi-vehicle threat crashes 

common to four-lane roads (Figure 6-6).

According to U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “A multiple-threat 

crash involves a driver stopping in one lane of a multilane road to permit 

pedestrians to cross, and an oncoming vehicle (in the same direction) strikes 

the pedestrian who is crossing in front of the stopped vehicle. This crash type 

involves both the pedestrian and driver failing to see each other in time to 

avoid the collision” (FHWA, 2005). After completing the HSIP-funded safety 

improvements project, the Town of Paradise reported the following successes 

(Mattox, 2016, pers. comm):

Figure 6-6. Illustration of Multiplethreat Pedestrian Crash

Source: FHWA, 2005
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 27

Safety and Other Outcomes

» A 15% reduction in total collisions.

» A 27% decrease in injury collisions.

» A 73% decrease in injury severity.

» Zero pedestrian-involved collisions in 2016.

» Reduced travel time during off-peak and peak hours.

» Drastically improved yield rates at pedestrian crossings.

Local Agency Action Items

The California Advisory Committee has successfully increased local 

participation in California’s HSIP by developing a local HSIP Advisory 

Committee. To develop a similar committee, a local agency could: 

» Communicate with the state HSIP coordinator to obtain information on 

opportunities for local agency HSIP participation.

» Collaborate with the state DOT to provide input on where HSIP funding 

is allocated. 

» Partner with state DOT, FHWA, Local and Tribal Technical Assistance 

Programs, and other local agencies to charter a similar group to 

encourage and increase participation in the HSIP.

References

1. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015. California Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan 2015-2019. http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/shsp/docs/SHSP15_Update.pdf. 

Accessed September 18, 2017.

2. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 2017. Database. https://www.nhtsa.gov/

research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars. Accessed September 25, 2017.

3. Kochevar, Ken, Caltrans. 2017. Personal communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

4. Mattox, Mark, Town of Paradise. 2016. Personal communication with Howard Preston/

CH2M HILL. 

5. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Federal Highway Administration 

Research and Technology Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway 

Transportation Innovations. Chapter 3. Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-04-100. 

September.

Relevant Contacts

California

Richard Ke

California Department 

of Transportation

(916) 653-4727

Ken Kochevar

FHWA, California Division

(916) 498-5853

Marc Mattox

Town of Paradise

(530) 872-6291

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 29

CASE STUDY 7 – 

Implementing New Technology

Problem

Local agencies may have limited expertise with new/innovative safety 

countermeasures. This limits the agency’s ability to address key 

crash factors.

Noteworthy Solution 

In 2012, Thurston County in Washington State conducted a data-driven safety analysis to 

identify and prioritize potential safety projects that would be eligible for Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) funds.

In late 2013, Thurston County determined that wet/icy pavement contributed to 47% 

of crashes and identified high friction surface treatment (HFST)—a new and innovative 

technology proven effective at reducing crashes, particularly on wet pavements—as 

a solution. However, Thurston County had no prior experience with HFST and neither 

the Washington State Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) nor the U.S. Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) could answer Thurston County’s questions about local 

implementation (installation costs, materials, and ongoing maintenance issues). To 

resolve the unanswered HFST inquiries, Thurston County worked with LTAP and FHWA to 

coordinate a peer exchange and pilot project.

Using information received from other agencies with experience in implementing HFST 

Thurston County partnered with Washington State LTAP and FHWA to secure funding 

to cover materials and installation at two demonstration sites, selected to compare 

different installation methods. To share the lessons learned on HFST, the partnering 

agencies hosted a peer exchange, featuring an installation demonstration, and attended by 

37 representatives of various local agencies, the Washington State DOT (WSDOT), FHWA, 

and the Western Federal Lands Division. The demonstration included an application of 

HFST applied by Thurston County traffic and road maintenance crews and was followed by a 

detailed overview of HFST by national experts.

Since the peer exchange and pilot projects, there have been at least 36 planned or installed 

HFST sites in the State of Washington (state and local roads). In addition, eight counties, 

including Thurston County, submitted HSIP funding applications to WSDOT for HFST sites 

in the summer of 2016. In December 2016, WSDOT awarded Thurston County more than 

$2 million for HFST at 29 locations.
30 CASE STUDY #7: ENGAGING NEW TECHNOLOGY

Local Agency Action Items

Thurston County has successfully partnered with Washington State LTAP and 

FHWA to implement a new and innovative, proven safety technology on local 

roads. To begin using a new technology on local roads, an agency could:

» Gauge existing resources and interest in new technologies.

» Participate in a strategic partnership or peer exchange with other 

agencies to share information and promote implementation of 

new technologies.

» Pilot technologies and share information on implementation and 

effectiveness with a local audience.

Relevant Contacts

Washington

Joseph Cheung

FHWA, Office of Safety

(202) 366-6994

Scott Davis

Thurston County, Washington

(360) 867-2345
Problem

Local agencies often do not have the resources/expertise to conduct 

in-depth crash analyses and/or identify traffic safety solutions. 

Noteworthy Solutions

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 7 (Tampa Bay region) has 

developed the Local Agency Safety Program to assist local agencies without the 

resources to identify, develop, and implement safety improvements on local roadways 

as part of their Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) process.

The Local Agency Safety Program includes:

» A yearly traffic safety summit.

» Access to Safety Ambassadors.

» A Local Agency Traffic Safety Academy (LATSA).

» Project delivery assistance.

The Local Agency Safety Program provides resources to local agencies that result in 

improved understanding of traffic safety, project development, and the application 

process for project funding. In fact, “As a result of the improved level of understanding 

regarding the application process, the number of project submissions made by local 

agencies increased from averaging 3 applications each year to 50+ applications” 

(U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2013). 

Yearly Traffic Safety Summit

FDOT District 7 hosts an annual seminar called the Local Agency Traffic Safety Summit. 

This seminar is geared toward local agency staff, elected officials, and independent 

industry consultants. The purpose of the seminar is to (FHWA, 2013):

» Emphasize the need to improve roadway safety by drawing on case studies and 

local examples.

» Describe the process to apply for HSIP funding.

» Review the Local Agency Traffic Safety Program’s success rates.

» Explain how FDOT District 7 can help local agencies improve safety on 

local roads.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 31

CASE STUDY 8 – 

Local Agency Safety Program
Access to Safety Ambassadors 

Local agencies have access to Safety Ambassadors who have been designated 

by District 7 to provide guidance on navigating the HSIP funding process by 

linking local agencies to industry contacts, consultants, and district staff. The 

Ambassadors:

» Are available year round.

» Provide process guidance.

» Provide access to FDOT crash maps and analyses.

» Perform project reviews.

» Guide local agency staff in successful project completion.

Local Agency Traffic Safety Academy

The LATSA is a webinar-based program that trains participants in best 

practices for successful implementation of safety projects. LATSA focuses on 

topics relevant to local agencies in District 7 including:

» Securing funding for HSIP and other local safety projects/programs.

» Local best practices on related topics including data analyses, modern 

infrastructure countermeasures, and project implementation.

» New safety treatments and technologies.

» Project delivery processes.

The webinars are free and presenters are experts in a variety of fields 

including consulting, government, and education and research.

LATSA began in 2013 and is online at (FDOT 2017a):

http://www.tampabaytrafficsafety.com/LATSA/SitePages/Home.aspx.

Project Delivery Assistance

Project Development

FDOT District 7 supports local agencies during project development by 

providing access to crash data and analysis, identifying high-crash locations 

and locations with specific crash patterns, and helping local agencies with 

project identification and design when resources are limited. 

Project Review

FDOT District 7 provides guidance for local agencies submitting project 

funding requests. Since submitted projects are closely reviewed by FDOT, this 

guidance prompts local agencies to consider what FDOT will be looking for 

during its review. For instance:

» Is the project in a high-crash location?

» Have potential countermeasure efforts been exhausted?

» Are cost estimates and constructability reviews complete and accurate?

32 CASE STUDY #8: LOCAL AGENCY SAFETY PROGRAM 

Relevant Contacts

Florida

William S. Riha

Florida Department of 

Transporation, District 7

(813) 402-0320

william.riha@dot.state.fl.us

Cheryl N. Stacks

City of St. Petersburg, Florida

(727) 892-5328

cheryl.stacks@stpete.org 

Kevin Burgess

FHWA, Florida Division

(850) 553-2229

kevin.burgess@dot.gov
Project Implementation

FDOT District 7 supports local agencies during project 

implementation through:

» Material Provisions – FDOT may provide requested materials 

(signage, markings, and signal heads) to local agencies who are 

then responsible for installation and maintenance. 

» Design-Build/Push-Button (DBPB) Contracts – DBPB contracts 

streamline the delivery of projects considered low to medium 

complexity, such as:

– Crosswalks.

– Overhead signage (Figure 8-1).

– Bicycle lanes.

– Pavement markings. 

DBPB projects are expedited and do not require the standard 

FDOT review. In fact, each task is completed in less than 1 year. 

According to FDOT, “The push button framework allowed the 

District to reduce the time it takes to deliver simple or low-cost 

safety improvement from 3-5 years to 3-9 months (FDOT, 2017b).” 

According to FDOT, the DBPB has accomplished the following:

– “Reduced the time it takes to implement a safety improvement; 

at the same time, reduced the potential for fatalities and 

serious injuries during the shortened implementation period.

– Reduced overall costs of the project application process.

– Ensured compliance with Federal guidelines on all submitted 

project proposals.

– Promoted use of these low-cost safety improvements.”

» Local Agency Program support – This Program is used for more 

complex projects that are considered significant based on 

design and construction (e.g., intersection reconstruction). It 

permits funding of projects managed and administered by the 

local agency during the design and construction phases. FDOT 

District 7 uses a Local Agency Program expert to assist local 

agencies in requesting HSIP funds through the local agency 

safety program.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 33

Source: Florida Department of Transportation Improved

overhead signage in District 7: before (top) and after.

Figure 8-1. Improved Overhead Signage in 

District 7: Before (top) and After
Local Agency Action Items

Through its Local Agency Safety Program FDOT District 7 has successfully 

provided resources to help local agencies identify and develop traffic safety 

solutions as part of the HSIP process. To develop a similar program, an 

agency could:

» Identify and participate in available programs offered by the state DOT 

or other agencies.

» Collaborate with other local agencies to collectively identify and develop 

solutions to common needs (e.g., programs, resources, training, and 

funding sources).

» Communicate ideas to the state DOT that improve the consistency and 

manageability of HSIP applications.

References

1. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2017a. Local Agency Traffic Safety Academy. 

http://www.tampabaytrafficsafety.com/LATSA/SitePages/Home.aspx.

Accessed October 9, 2017.

2. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2017b. Florida Department of 

Transportation’s District Seven Design-Build Pushbutton Contract.

http://www.tampabaytrafficsafety.com/DBPB. Accessed October 23, 2017.

3. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013. Safety Summit Yields Tenfold Increase 

in Number of Safety Applications Submitted by Local Agencies – Florida.

https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/html/localrural_fl1.aspx?id=96. Accessed 

October 9, 2017.

34 CASE STUDY #8: LOCAL AGENCY SAFETY PROGRAM 
Table of Contents

Case Study 9 – Support for Road Safety Assessments............ 37

Case Study 10 – Local Road Safety Plans................................. 39

SECTION III: 

Technical Assistance

Photo credit: Earl Walker © 123RF.com

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 37

CASE STUDY 9 – 

Support for Road Safety Assessments

Problem

There is a limited number of safety professionals within local 

agencies to analyze and address complex road safety issues.

Noteworthy Solution

Local road authorities submitted requests to Illinois DOT (IDOT) for assistance 

in evaluating road safety issues. IDOT’s Bureau of Safety Programs and 

Engineering (BSPE) provided funding and technical assistance from in-house 

safety specialists to conduct a large number of Road Safety Assessments 

(RSAs) along local road systems. The final product was a prioritized list of key 

findings and recommendations.

Location Prioritization and Selection

BSPE prioritized requests based on three factors (Sheehan, 2017, 

pers. comm):

» Number and severity of crashes.

» Support of local law enforcement.

» Level of public interest and visibility of the safety issue.

Selected sites to be evaluated through an RSA focused on identifying the 

locations with the potential for the largest impact on the most critical 

fatal and severe injury crashes. Once locations were selected, the RSAs 

were conducted following U.S. Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 

guidelines (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/). At selected RSA sites, the BSPE 

assembled an independent and multidisciplinary team including IDOT, FHWA, 

and the Illinois State Police (ISP), led by a Safety Specialist familiar with 

conducting RSAs.

Local public agencies participated in the RSA kick-off meetings to provide the 

RSA team with relevant information about the selected site. Local agencies 

also participated in a close-out meeting. 

The RSA team answered critical questions about the selected locations, 

diagnosed safety issues, and identified opportunities to eliminate or 

mitigate the local agency’s safety concerns. The team also presented project 

recommendations for locations that the local agency would otherwise not 

have been able to address. 
38 CASE STUDY #9: SUPPORT FOR ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENTS

Examples of requests for RSA assistance approved by the BSPE included:

» A rural county skewed intersection in Iroquois County with a history 

of run-off-the-road nighttime crashes. Low-cost short-term safety 

recommendations included treatments to improve the visibility through 

a skewed intersection between two curvilinear roadways.

» The business extension of Interstate 55 in Bloomington. 

Recommendations included improving the visibility of traffic signals and 

minimizing or eliminating the visual clutter that exists throughout the 

complex visual environment along the corridor. 

» The Illinois Medical District in Chicago. A combination of limited 

pedestrian features, overhead signal indicators, and turn lanes were 

contributing to an over representation of pedestrian, angle, and turning 

crashes. Recommended improvements included adding signal hardware 

with timing upgrades and adding left-turn lanes to provide more 

protection for pedestrians and improved intersection operation. 

For all RSAs, BSPE’s technical expertise has resulted in project 

recommendations for key locations. 

Local Agency Action Items

Safety specialists have successfully conducted RSAs along local Illinois road 

systems. To obtain safety specialist support, an agency could:

» Request the state DOT or FHWA to provide additional funding, staff, and 

resources to conduct an RSA or similar safety analyses.

» Use safety specialists from another agency or a consultant to address 

complex safety issues. 

» Leverage the experiences of safety specialists to identify best practices 

and ideas for different safety strategies that have proven successful.

References

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. Road Safety Audits (RSA). https://

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/. Accessed February 11, 2018.

2. Sheehan, Timothy, Safety Design Unit Chief Bureau of Safety Programs and Engineering 

for Illinois Department of Transportation. 2017. Personal communication with Howard 

Preston/CH2M HILL.

Relevant Contact

Illinois

Filiberto Sotelo

Illinois Department of 

Transportation

(217) 557-2563
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 39

CASE STUDY 10 – 

Local Road Safety Plans

Problem

While local agencies support safety initiatives, they have limited experience 

and few resources for conducting system-wide, data-driven crash analysis.

Noteworthy Solution

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) pioneered new methodologies to 

supplement their traditional hot-spot/high-crash location analysis based on crash frequency using 

a systemic analysis based on crash potential. These methodologies were first described in MnDOT’s 

2008 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). North Dakota DOT (NDDOT) adapted the Minnesota 

process to fit North Dakota’s needs and developed a Local Road Safety Program (2013-2015). The 

system-wide crash analysis processes can be applied to other local agencies if their crash analysis 

experience and resources are limited. 

Minnesota Department of Transportation 

The SHSP (MnDOT, 2008) presented four findings from the system-wide crash analysis, illustrating 

the importance of incorporating local road systems into broader safety planning efforts:

1. Approximately 50% of severe crashes (involving a fatality or an incapacitating injury) occurred 

on local roads.

2. Local agencies were responsible for more than 90% of Minnesota’s 140,000 miles of roads. 

3. Even though MnDOT’s HSIP funds were open to public roads projects, most HSIP funds were 

invested in the state system.

4. Minnesota’s long-term vision of zero traffic deaths would be difficult to achieve if there was no 

investment in safety on local roads where one-half of fatal crashes occurred.

MnDOT, assisted by Minnesota’s county engineers and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), developed a plan to integrate local systems into its statewide safety program. MnDOT 

dedicated HSIP funding to exclusively support local road improvements and provided each county 

with technical assistance to conduct a data-driven systemic assessment and prepare a County Road 

Safety Plan. MnDOT’s seven-step systemic process (Figure 10-1) evaluated each county’s roadway 

system, based on attributes common to locations with crash histories and responses to the following 

three questions. 

» What were the priority crash types?

» What were the priority safety strategies?

» What were the priority locations that were candidates for safety investment? 

MnDOT applied the systemic safety planning process to each of Minnesota’s 87 counties. Table 10-1 

summarizes the program study network for the county road system.
Figure 10-1. Minnesota County 

Roadway Systemic Safety 

Planning Process 

Figure 10-2. Example of a Visual Trap – Minor Road Intersects Roadway on a Curve

40 CASE STUDY #10: LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLANS

Key findings from the analysis include:

» Priority crash types on rural roads were lane departure crashes (more 

than 50% occurred in horizontal curves and accounted for less than 5% 

of the system by mileage) and right-angle crashes at intersections. 

» Priority crash types on urban roads were head-on/rear-end/sideswipe 

and right-angle and vehicle-pedestrian at intersections.

» Density of the priority crash types was very low: 

– 0.01 severe road departure crashes per mile per year.

– 0.005 severe crashes per curve per year.

– 0.01 severe crashes per rural intersection per year.

– 0.02 severe right-angle crashes per urban intersection per year.

– 0.01 severe vehicle-pedestrian crashes per urban intersection per year.

» While no identified locations met the adopted state thresholds for 

a high-crash location, the results supported the decision to use the 

systemic approach to identify candidate locations with high potential for 

crash reduction for HSIP investments.

» High-potential locations had identified systemic crash potential factors 

for each rural and urban facility type. Locations with systemic crash 

potential factors had higher crash densities than comparable locations 

without systemic crash potential factors. Also, the greater the number of 

factors present, the higher the density of crashes. For example: 

– In rural horizontal curves, the presence of an intersection in the curve 

and a visual trap (where the road curves but visual cues lead the driver 

to think the road continues straight) were identified as systemic factors 

(Figure 10-2). The data showed that curves with these factors had 

crash densities more than twice that of curves without. 

– At rural intersections, the systemic factors identified included: 

geometry, traffic volume, commercial development, proximity to a 

rail grade crossing, and the distance to the previous STOP sign. Data 

showed that the crash density at intersections with these features was 

higher than at intersections without these features.

Table 10-1. Program Study Network Summary

(Minnesota County Roadway System)
Figure 10-3. Minnesota Fatality Trend Line

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: Minnesota Roadway & Crash Data Facts 2005-2014; Adapted by FHWA

Crashes per Year as Percent of 2005 Crashes (MN)

State System County System Statewide

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 41

» The large size of the county road system combined with the low density 

of the priority crash types supported the development of safety projects 

using low-cost measures. This would allow a public agency to use its 

limited budget to deploy safety countermeasures at as many locations as 

possible. Strategies identified for Minnesota County roads include:

– Enhanced edge lines ($2,000 per mile).

– Upgraded traffic signs and markings and the installation of street lights 

at rural intersections (between $3,000 and $6,000 per intersection).

– Enhanced warning signs/chevrons along rural curves ($4,000 per curve).

– Edge rumbles along rural segments ($6,000 per mile). 

– Red-signal enforcement lights, pedestrian countdown timers, and 

leading pedestrian intervals (between $1,000 and $12,000 per 

intersection) at urban signalized intersections. 

– Road diets along urban segments ($50,000 per mile).

» More than 17,000 individual safety projects were identified with an 

estimated implementation cost of approximately $246 million –averaging 

$14,000 per project.

» To further encourage counties to submit projects for HSIP funding, a 

submittal form for each identified project was included in each county’s 

Road Safety Plan. When a county engineer requested funding for a 

project listed in the county’s Road Safety Plan, a copy of the submittal 

form was included with the local HSIP solicitation application submission.

MnDOT has implemented a successful system-wide safety analysis. Since 

completing the County Road Safety Plan project in 2012 (MnDOT, 2018), 

MnDOT has met its goal of appropriating approximately $15 million per 

year in HSIP funds for the deployment of safety improvements throughout 

the county system (approximately $75 million to date). Almost 85% of 

Minnesota’s counties have had at least 1 safety project funded (1 county 

has already implemented safety projects 

worth more than $7 million (Vizecky, 

2017, pers. comm). A recent evaluation of 

statewide fatalities found a 25% reduction 

throughout the county system since 2011 

(Vizecky, 2017, pers. comm) when MnDOT 

first set aside HSIP funding for local system 

safety improvements (Figure 10-3).
42

North Dakota Department of Transportation 

North Dakota’s SHSP (NDDOT, 2013) highlighted the following safety facts: 

» Based on crash records from 2007 to 2011, 56% of severe crashes in 

North Dakota (those involving a fatality or serious injury) occurred on 

roads operated by local agencies. Crash data between 2009 and 2013 

indicated that severe crashes occurring on local roads declined to 44% 

(NDDOT, 2013).

» NDDOT historically used HSIP funds to support projects on the interstate, 

U.S. highways, and state highway systems, even though on average only 

slightly more than half the severe crashes occurred on these roads. 

Before implementing the Local Road Safety Program, less than 5% of 

HSIP funding was used to improve the local system—with most of this 

work funding the upgrade of local road approaches to intersections with 

state or U.S. highways (NDDOT, 2013).

In view of these findings, NDDOT committed to support goals to increase local 

agency participation in the statewide safety planning process and dedicated 

HSIP funds to improvements on local roads (NDDOT, 2013).

However, NDDOT recognized that majority of local agencies had insufficient 

staffing and limited experience conducting the kind of data-driven analysis 

required to develop HSIP-eligible safety projects.

Local Road Safety Program

To address these concerns NDDOT initiated a Local Road Safety Program in 

which NDDOT partnered with local agencies to conduct a system-wide safety 

analysis and prepare safety plans for 53 counties, 12 major cities, 4 sovereign 

reservations, and 1 national park (Figure 10-4). North Dakota’s local road 

system encompasses more than 79,000 miles of the state’s approximately 

107,000 miles. Historically, about 50% of severe crashes have occurred on 

local roads, but the density of these crashes was very low (0.002 severe 

crashes per mile per year). Prior efforts (studies, investigations, and projects) 

failed to identify high-crash locations along local roads based on traditional 

analysis methods that relied heavily on crash density. This has meant local 

agencies have been unable to identify HSIP-eligible safety projects.

To find out more about the high percentage of severe crashes occurring 

on NDDOT’s local roads, NDDOT implemented an alternative systemic 

assessment using road and traffic characteristics to identify, evaluate, and 

prioritize at-risk locations to consider for safety investment. Because this type 

of systemic assessment was in line with FHWA guidance, NDDOT expanded 

the scope of its HSIP policy—which previously only included projects 

CASE STUDY #10: LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLANS
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 43

identified through traditional site analysis—to include projects identified 

through the systemic analysis of local roads. NDDOT also determined that 

neither DOT staff nor local agencies had experience applying the systemic 

approach to safety and allocated $1.5 million to fund the systemic assessment 

of the local system and preparation of 70 safety plans.

The systemic risk assessment addressed both rural and urban local roads and 

focused on two types of key roadway facility types: rural paved (county, tribal, 

and national park) and urban arterials/collectors in North Dakota’s larger cities 

(i.e., 5,000 population). Rural paved roads were selected for analysis based on 

statewide crash data that showed even though rural paved roads accounted 

for less than 10% of the local roads, they accounted for approximately half of 

all severe crashes on local roads. Further analysis indicated that on these rural 

roads, the most at-risk elements in severe crashes were:

» Road segments – 75% of severe crashes. 

» Horizontal curves – 32% of severe crashes.

» Intersections – 20% of severe crashes.

Major cities in North Dakota (considered cities with a population of 5,000) 

were selected for systemic risk assessment because approximately 90% of 

severe crashes on local roads in urban areas occurred within the 12 cities with 

populations exceeding 5,000.

NDDOT used a data-driven systemic safety analysis approach to prepare 

the safety plans for the local agencies by identifying priority crash types 

and effective, low-cost safety strategies and prioritizing locations along the 

local road system. NDDOT prepared individual safety plans documenting 

the strategies that could be deployed at specific locations for each of the 

Figure 10-4. North Dakota Counties, Cities, Reservations, and National Parks

Source: NDDOT, 2015 
44 CASE STUDY #10: LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLANS

Figure 10-5. Systemic Safety Project Development Process Flow Chart

Source: NDDOT, 2015 

counties, cities, tribes, and national parks. Each plan addressed the typical 

barriers local agencies face when implementing HSIP projects, including:

» Linking crashes to emphasis areas.

» Conducting systemic risk analysis and prioritization of locations for 

implementing safety strategies.

» Identifying priority countermeasures.

» Completing HSIP project application forms. 

Safety projects generated from the Local Road Safety Program (Figure 10-5) 

were consistent with the priorities in North Dakota’s SHSP and eligible for 

HSIP funding.

NDDOT considers participation in the HSIP voluntary. If local agencies choose 

to participate, they must:

» Submit HSIP applications.

» Agree to contribute the local share of the construction cost.

» Manage the project’s design and construction as part of their capital 

improvement program. 

One goal for NDDOT was to identify low-cost projects that deployed safety 

strategies across the highest number of at-risk locations throughout North 

Dakota’s local road system. The local safety plans identified approximately 

3,000 individual projects with a total estimated implementation cost 

approaching $55 million. The average project cost was around $18,000. 

NDDOT also looked into increasing the level of local agency engagement in 

the statewide safety planning process and into funding more local agency 

projects. The first HSIP developed after completing the Local Road Safety 

Program contained 15 projects submitted by local agencies (they were 

identified as part of the Program) valued at almost $5 million, representing 

approximately 35% of the Safety Program budget.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 45

To assist local agencies when applying for funding, the safety plans included a 

project sheet for each project. These sheets accomplished two key objectives:

1. Describe each project: the suggested strategy, the specific location where 

the strategy was to be implemented, the risk factors at each site, and the 

estimated cost of the project.

2. Create an easy-to-use format for local agencies to respond to NDDOT’s 

annual solicitation for HSIP funding. The project sheets included 

information required by NDDOT staff to evaluate candidate projects for 

the state’s HSIP. 

Feedback on the local and state levels is very positive. For local agency 

staff the project sheets have simplified the HSIP process. For NDDOT staff 

submissions using the project sheets are complete, accurate, and require no 

additional effort to make corrections or search for missing information.

Local Agency Action Items

MnDOT and NDDOT successfully developed safety plans using processes that 

can be applied by other state DOTs with less experienced staff or unused 

resources. Both agencies modified their SHSP process so that systemic 

analysis of the local roadway system could be used as a baseline for HSIP 

funding requests. Each agency has also prepared local road safety plans to 

help local agencies navigate the HSIP process and apply for local system 

project funding. To develop a safety plan, a local agency could:

» Collaborate with other local agencies in the region to engage the state, 

district, or MPO in developing a cooperative effort to conduct a systemic 

safety analysis.

» Request funding from state, MPO, or other sources to develop a LRSP.

» Encourage the state DOT to include a local system component and 

commitments in the next SHSP update.

References

1. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2008. Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

2. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2014. Final Report for the Minnesota 

County Roadway Safety Plans. January. 

3. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Facts about Crashes, Budget, Fatality 

Rates. Database. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/. Accessed 

February 11, 2018. 

4. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2013. North Dakota Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan. September. 

5. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2015. North Dakota Local Road 

Safety Program. June.

6. Vizecky, Mark, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2017. Personal 

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

7. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2018. Safety Plan Handout. http://

www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/trafficsafety/county/tzd-handout-final.pdf. Access October 

15, 2018.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Mark Vizecky

Minnesota Department

of Transportation

(651) 366-3839

North Dakota

Karin Mongeon

North Dakota Department 

of Transportation

(701) 328-4434

Table of Contents

Case Study 11 – Systemic Safety Evaluation............................ 49

Case Study 12 – Environmental Documentation Assistance... 53

Case Study 13 – Bundled Project Strategy .............................. 55

Case Study 14 – Local Safety Engineering

Assistance Program....................................... 59

Case Study 15 – Dedicated HSIP Funding Support for

Local System Safety Projects........................ 63

Case Study 16 – Comprehensive Approach to 

Local Road Safety.......................................... 67

Case Study 17 – New Data-driven Approach to Support

Safety Countermeasures with

Short Service Lives........................................ 71

SECTION IV: 

Implementation

Photo credit: Maciej Btedowski © 123RF.com

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 49

CASE STUDY 11 – 

Systemic Safety Evaluation

Problem

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding is usually allocated to projects 

meeting an established definition of high-crash location. Local systems tend to experience 

low-crash density, which can be a challenge in qualifying for HSIP funding. 

Noteworthy Solution

Thurston County in Washington State has developed a systemic safety analysis 

approach that can be used by locations with low-crash density and provide 

Thurston County with a proactive, data-driven, and defensible method of 

identifying projects eligible for WSDOT HSIP funding. 

Thurston County, Washington 

Washington State has adopted the Target Zero program—with the goal to 

reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Washington’s roadways to zero 

by the year 2030 (Washington Traffic Safety Commission [WTSC], 2016). As 

part of this initiative WSDOT dedicates approximately 70% of HSIP funding to 

local safety projects. Since 2010, WSDOT has awarded more than $170 million 

in HSIP funding to local agencies. However, to qualify for funding, agencies 

must show that the candidate projects were identified through a data-driven 

process (WTSC, 2016).

Thurston County decided to proactively reduce the number of annual, 

severe crashes on Thurston County’s 1,000-mile system (an average of 35 

crashes per year based on 2006 to 2010 data [Davis, 2016, pers. comm.]). 

Thurston County’s primary challenge was identifying an analytical process 

that identified the low density of severe crashes typical of rural, local systems 

(0.035 severe crashes per mile per year [Davis, 2016, pers. comm.]).

Thurston County’s initial analysis found no severe crashes at locations 

meeting WSDOT’s high-crash definition and concluded that the traditional site 

analysis approach could not identify candidate projects for safety funding or 

support the safety project development process. To address issues associated 

with reporting low density of severe crashes, Thurston County followed the 

systemic safety analysis approach, described in the U.S. Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA)’s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (FHWA, 

2013). This approach provided the County with a proactive, data- driven, 

and defensible method of identifying projects eligible for WSDOT HSIP funds 

(Figure 11-1).
50 CASE STUDY #11: SYSTEMIC SAFETY EVALUATION

Using the systemic approach, Thurston County analyzed 5 years of crash 

data and found that 58% of severe crashes in the County were classified as 

road departure—compared to an average of 38% for the state system (Davis, 

2016, pers. comm.). The results of the systemic analysis identified locations 

with the greatest potential for crash reduction and also identified two key 

characteristics of severe road departure crashes (Davis, 2016, pers. comm.):

» 45% of collisions occurred on horizontal curves on the county system 

versus 26% for the comparable state system.

» More than 80% of the collisions on horizontal curves occurred on the 

arterial/collector roadways.

This analysis also identified a group of roadway and traffic characteristics 

over-represented at crash locations, including:

» Functional classification.

» Edge clearance.

» Shoulder type.

» Advance warning, speed differential, and geometric features 

(intersections, vertical curves, and visual traps).

» Traffic volume. 

These characteristics—common at locations with a crash history—were 

used as systemic factors to conduct the assessment of the 337-mile arterial/

collector system and to identify candidate locations for improvements 

with similar characteristics from more than 270 signed horizontal curves 

(Davis, 2016, pers. comm.). In addition, the characteristics determined the 

prioritization and selection of low-cost countermeasures—including enhanced 

Figure 11-1. FHWA Systemic Safety Tool
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 51

edge delineation, new/upgraded warning signs, shoulder and center rumble 

strips, and new/upgraded guardrails

Thurston County used the analysis findings to identify and prioritize the 

following safety projects (Davis, 2016, pers. comm.):

» 50 miles of shoulder and center rumble strips.

» 8 miles of wide edge lines.

» More than 1,700 new/upgraded warning signs.

» Almost 7,000 feet of new/upgraded guardrails.

» More than 26,000 raised reflective pavement markers.

» More than 75,000 lineal feet of guardrail delineation.

» Dotted Edge Line Extensions at 85 curves with intersections.

Using skills acquired during training to become a best practices manager 

in highway safety, Thurston County’s engineer Scott Davis identified and 

prioritized a list of safety projects totaling more than $4 million. The County 

received HSIP funding from WSDOT for all submitted safety projects. Thurston 

County has implemented these projects and is conducting a follow-up 

evaluation to determine the level of crash reduction resulting from the riskbased, proactive deployment of low-cost countermeasures.

The County has since used the systemic safety process to identify three 

potential high friction surface treatment project locations and address 

speeding-related concerns by identifying candidate corridors for speed 

feedback sign deployment.

These efforts are a model for Washington State where 31 of its 39 counties 

have developed data-driven county road safety plans to obtain HSIP funding. In 

2014, WSDOT awarded Thurston County HSIP funding to update the systemic 

study and create a countywide traffic safety plan to guide future HSIP safety 

investments (Davis, 2016, pers. comm.).

Local Agency Action Items

Thurston County successfully addressed the issue of high-crash density using a 

systemic, data-driven process. To incorporate this approach into crash analysis 

a local agency could:

» Work with the state DOT to identify funding and other resources to 

support a systemic or other data-driven process in conjunction with HSIP 

project identification and application.

» Cooperate with other local agencies in the region to conduct a systemic 

analysis for the region.

» Collaborate with other agencies to incorporate systemic methodology in 

the HSIP.
Relevant Contacts

Washington

Scott Davis

Thurston County, Washington

(360) 867-2345

davissa@co.thurston.wa.us

52

References

1. Davis, Scott, Traffic Engineering and Operations Manager, Thurston County. 2016. Personal 

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL. 

2. U.S. Federal Highway Association (FHWA). 2013. Systemic Safety Project Selection 

Tool. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/sspst.pdf. Accessed 

September 19, 2017.

3. Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC). 2016. Washington State Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan. http://wtsc.wa.gov/target-zero/. Accessed September 19, 2017.

CASE STUDY #11: SYSTEMIC SAFETY EVALUATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 53

CASE STUDY 12 – 

Environmental Documentation Assistance

Problem

Many agencies do not participate in the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) process because they have not previously (or regularly) prepared the 

complex environmental documentation required for federally funded projects 

that use federal funding. 

Noteworthy Solution 

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) streamlined the environmental 

documentation process for low-cost safety countermeasures designed for minimal 

environmental impacts, including:

» Enhanced pavement markings.

» Upgraded traffic signs.

» Street lighting.

» Edge and centerline rumble strips. 

These countermeasures do not require reconstruction and are typically confined to the 

existing roadway. If outside the road edge, they do not require grading. Even though 

the list of project types is short, it represents the majority of projects proposed by local 

agencies for implementation through the state’s HSIP.

The first step of the streamlined process is developing a one-page (two sided) 

spreadsheet— the Environmental Documentation for Federal Projects with Minor 

Impacts (Appendix D). This form is completed by local agency staff and includes such 

basic information as:

» Project location.

» Project purpose and need.

» Contact information for the project manager.

» Estimated cost.

» Date for beginning work.

» Project type (i.e., traffic markings, rumble strips, signs, guardrail installation, 

lighting).

» Confirmation that the project will not affect historic properties or threatened and 

endangered species.

» Federal Action Determination Statement concluding the improvement is a Class II 

Action (categorical exclusion) with no foreseeable change to the quality of the 

human environment.
54 CASE STUDY #12: ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ASSISTANCE

The local agency engineer signs the completed form and sends it to MnDOT’s 

Division of State Aid for Local Transportation for review and approval (Refer to 

Appendix D). This form also is online at (MnDOT, 2017):

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/environmental-forms.html.

After selecting local project applications for funding through the HSIP, 

the Division of State Aid assembles a comprehensive list of proposed 

improvement projects across all local agencies and forwards this list to 

MnDOT’s Office of Environmental Stewardship to review for possible impacts 

on Historic Properties and Endangered Species. Once there is confirmation 

of no impact, MnDOT, acting on behalf of the U.S. Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), makes a Determination of No Effect for each project 

on the list (Appendix E). The majority of projects that pass review are cleared 

for further project development and implementation. In certain instances, 

projects that pass review may be subject to further study.

When local agencies focus on low-cost safety strategies that do not require 

regrading or reconstruction, they can obtain environmental clearance for 

project implementation with minimum effort 

Local Agency Action Items

MnDOT successfully streamlined the environmental documentation 

process for low-cost safety countermeasures. To develop a single-review 

process, a local agency could:

» Discuss project documentation and implementation barriers, procedural 

alternatives, and streamlining opportunities in the environmental 

process with the state HSIP coordinator.

» Identify safety countermeasures expected to have minimum or 

negligible environmental impact.

» Consolidate the environmental documentation workload through a 

workshare agreement with other local agencies.

Reference

1. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2017. State Aid for Local 

Transportation, Environmental Forms & Information. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/

environmental-forms.html. Accessed September 19, 2017.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Gary Reihl

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation

(651) 366-3819
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 55

CASE STUDY 13 – 

Bundled Project Strategy

Problem

Complying with U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines 

for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding may be time and 

cost prohibitive for individual (small) projects. 

Noteworthy Solution

To help local agencies comply with FHWA guidelines and taking into account 

the need for cost and time efficiencies given agencies’ limited/finite 

resources, Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) decided to bundle local agency projects 

collectively by district. Each MnDOT district created one single project 

containing numerous safety improvements to local roads. This has led to 

reduced complexity and paperwork. MnDOT has contacted county engineers 

to share experiences, workloads, and materials with other local agencies to 

promote more efficient and cost-effective projects.

The bundling approach has been successful in implementing HSIP-funded 

projects across Minnesota. Examples include (Tasa, 2017, pers. comm):

» Installation of chevrons at more than 1,000 horizontal curves in 

22 counties.

» Installation of more than 2,000 miles of enhanced road edges

(6-inch edge lines and rumble strips/stripes).

» Addition of street lights to almost 100 rural intersections. 

This approach has also resulted in the following cost savings

(Tasa, 2017, pers. comm): 

» A reduction in unit costs because of the large quantities of materials 

purchased and equipment provided for bundling.

» A reduction in project development and administrative costs.

» Greater efficiencies in providing oversight to a single large project.
56 CASE STUDY #13: BUNDLED PROJECT STRATEGY

Even though the bundling approach was successful overall, MnDOT identified 

three potential barriers to implementing bundled projects. Barriers and 

solutions are as follows. 

Barrier 1. Identifying Project Location and Scope

Solution: MnDOT developed safety plans in every Minnesota county to 

document the systemic risk assessment of county facilities (Case Study 10 in 

this Manual). These plans included a comprehensive list of suggested safety 

improvements and corresponding project forms that could be submitted by 

counties during the HSIP solicitation process. This enables county engineers to 

discuss multicounty safety projects with their peers.

Barrier 2. Performing Contract Administration

Solution: MnDOT’s state aid staff developed a process that assigned 

responsibility to a lead county for administering the contract, paying the 

contractor, and working with participating counties.

Barrier 3. Completing Interagency Working Agreements

Solution: MnDOT developed an interagency agreement describing the working 

arrangements between agencies: 

» Counties involved.

» Designated lead county and their responsibilities.

» Responsibilities of the participating counties for reimbursing the lead 

county.

» Insurance requirements.

» Effective dates.

» A process for changing the terms and conditions of the agreement. 

Benefits of Bundling

1. Promotes greater participation – more counties 

involved in a wider deployment of safety 

countermeasures.

2. Promotes greater project development efficiencies 

– a single, large contract instead of multiple small 

contracts.

3. Creates partnerships – local agencies collaborate for 

future multiagency highway improvement projects.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 57

Appendix F provides an example of an interagency agreement. This first 

multicounty project plan can be used as a guide by county engineers.

Local Agency Action Items

MnDOT successfully developed a bundling process involving multicounty 

participation that reduces documentation and streamlines processes for 

easier HSIP delivery. To develop a streamlined process, a local agency could:

» Work with other regional agencies to develop an agreement for 

collaboration on HSIP planning and contracting.

» Bundle existing planned projects with regional agencies to reduce 

project administration and oversight time and effort and reduce 

project costs.

» Identify a local/regional agency with experience in complying with 

federal procurement guidelines.

Reference

1. Tasa, Lou, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2017. Personal 

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota 

Rick West

Otter Tail County, Minnesota

(218) 998-8470

Lou Tasa

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation, District 2 

(218) 755-6570

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 59

CASE STUDY 14 –

Local Safety Engineering Assistance Program

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL

Problem

Participating in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

requires a major effort to prepare construction documents and plans. 

This can be a barrier to local agency participation. 

Noteworthy Solution 

In fiscal year (FY) 2013, the New Jersey Transportation Planning 

Authority (NJTPA) created the Local Safety Engineering Assistance 

Program (LSEAP) to help implement projects administered under the 

Local Safety Program (LSP) and High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) 

(NJTPA, 2013). The LSEAP provides design assistance through plans, 

specifications, and cost estimates (PS&Es). In order to make LSEAP 

viable, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) increased 

funding for authorizations from $2.8 million in FY 2013 (when LSEAP was 

implemented) to an average of $17 million per year for FYs 2014 -2016 

(Figure 14-1). Details on the LSP and HRRRP are online at (NJTPA, 2017): 

http://www.njtpa.org/local-safety.

Figure 14-1. NJTPA Local Safety and High Risk Rural Roads Program
60 CASE STUDY #14: LOCAL SAFETY ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Under the LSEAP, consultants are co-managed by the NJTPA and sub-regions. 

Consultant contracts are HSIP-funded; NJTPA administers these contracts and 

provides project oversight. Each project sponsor is responsible for technical 

direction, supervision, and reviews the development of the project’s PS&Es. 

The scope of work for the consultant contracts includes survey, right-of-way, 

engineering, design, and the necessary permitting services to prepare PS&Es.

Projects are divided into preliminary engineering and final design phases. 

Funds for preliminary engineering are released when the contracts are 

executed. Preliminary engineering plans and environmental documents are 

submitted to NJDOT Bureau of Programmatic Resources, which reviews and 

approves project Categorical Exclusion Documents (CEDs). Once the CEDs 

are approved, NJTPA authorizes the final design phase and the consultant 

prepares the full PS&E package. PS&Es are submitted to NJDOT Local Aid for 

review and federal construction authorization is requested.

Table 14-1 summarizes the LSEAP and Figure 14-2 shows the percentage 

of projects requesting design assistance by fiscal year. The percentage 

of projects has grown from 38% requesting assistance in FY 2013 to 75% 

requesting assistance in FY 2016. 

Table 14-1. Annual Summary of Local Safety Engineering Assistance Program (New Jersey)

Figure 14-2. Percentage of Projects Requesting Design Assistance by Fiscal Year (New Jersey)

Relevant Contacts

New Jersey 

Christine Mittman

North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority

(973) 639-8448

North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority

(973) 639-8400
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 61

Local Agency Action Items

NJTPA successfully created a local agency assistance program to help advance 

projects selected under the LSP and HRRRP and prepare construction 

documents. To develop a similar program, local agencies could:

» Consolidate HSIP project implementation efforts by cooperating 

with other local agencies or obtaining assistance from the state HSIP 

coordinator.

» Use outside resources and assistance for HSIP project design 

and construction administration.

» Discuss opportunities with the state DOT for developing local assistance 

programs that access either in-house DOT support or consultants 

funded under the HSIP. This will provide local agencies with design and 

construction administration of safety projects. 

References

1. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2013. The Local Safety and High 

Risk Rural Roads Programs. http://www.njtpa.org/getmedia/42817bbf-6fcf-4c8b-a7c1-

910c4174e9a7/LSP_revised.pdf.aspx. Accessed September 21, 2017. 

2. Mittman, Christine, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2017. 

Personal Communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

3. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2017. NJTPA Local Safety and 

High Risk Rural Roads Program webpage. http://www.njtpa.org/local-safety. Accessed 

September 21, 2017.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 63

CASE STUDY 15 – 

Dedicated HSIP Funding Support for

Local System Safety Projects

Problem

Some local agencies believe that local road safety projects cannot compete 

for funds with state road safety projects on an even playing field.

Noteworthy Solution

Minnesota and North Dakota committed to support local system safety 

projects by dedicating federal safety funding from their states’ Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Each state dedicates a portion of its 

HSIP funding for local system projects to address severe crashes (involving 

fatalities plus incapacitating injuries) that occur on local systems. The funding 

designated for local systems is set aside so that local agencies are only 

competing with each other, and not competing with the state system for the 

same allotment of funding. 

MnDOT

In 2011, Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) first set aside HSIP funding for local 

system safety improvements. Since then, MnDOT has committed more 

than $80 million of HSIP funding, which has benefitted many of the state’s 

87 counties. Between 2011 and 2016, approximately 300 local system safety 

projects were funded by HSIP and 85% of the counties have implemented 

at least 1 HSIP-funded project. Most projects incorporated 1 or more of the 

following safety improvements (Devoe, 2016, pers. comm.):

» Enhanced road edges – $37 million for 6-inch edge lines, grooved-in, wet 

reflective markings and edge line rumble strips.

» Enhancements at horizontal curves – $7 million for chevrons, shoulder 

paving, and edge line rumble strips.

» Improvements at rural intersections – $10 million for street lighting, 

improved signs and markings, and dynamic warning systems.

MnDOT indicates that establishing the set aside and corresponding safety 

improvements has resulted in an approximate 25% reduction in the number 

of county traffic fatalities (Devoe, 2016, pers. comm.).

Crow Wing County has implemented more than 12 HSIP-funded safety 

projects totaling approximately $1.5 million. These 12 projects have 

included $1 million for 162 miles of enhanced 6-inch grooved-in edge lines, 

$0.3 million for 389 miles of enhanced curve warning signs, and $0.2 million 

for street lighting at 31 rural intersections (Bray, 2016, pers. comm.).
64

Crow Wing County also completed a follow-up study of these projects to 

document effectiveness. The county found that road departure crashes 

along the segments with enhanced edge lines decreased by 58% and crashes 

in the curves with the enhanced warning signs (chevrons) decreased 34% 

(Bray, 2016, pers. comm.). The County also found the crash reduction at 

the lighted rural intersections was small (possibly due to the relatively small 

number of crashes in the previous period), but also noted two unexpected 

complimentary benefits (Table 15-1).

» Maintenance personnel stated snow and ice removal operations at the 

lighted intersections were faster and more efficient.

» County residents commented that greater nighttime visibility at 

intersections enhanced safety.

NDDOT

North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) developed its Local 

Road Safety Program in 2015 and, like MnDOT, committed to earmarking 

part of its HSIP for implementing local system safety improvements. 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to FY 2020 HSIP includes participation by 

18 counties, 3 cities, and 2 tribes (Table 15-2) (Kuntz, 2016, pers. comm.). 

CASE STUDY #15: DEDICATED HSIP FUNDING SUPPORT FOR LOCAL SYSTEM SAFETY PROJECTS

Table 15-2. NDDOT HSIP Funding for Local System Safety Projects 2017 to 2020

Table 15-1. MnDOT HSIP Funding for Local System Safety Projects 2011 to 2016
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 65

The 30 programmed safety projects on the local system are valued at 

approximately $6.3 million—$2.5 million for city projects, $3 million for 

county projects, and $0.8 million for tribal projects. These projects are the 

result of a data-driven analytical process and use effective, low-cost safety 

countermeasures including:

» Rural Countermeasures: Counties and tribes submitted HSIP funding 

applications for projects providing enhanced road edges (grooved- in 

edge lines and edge rumble strips), chevrons, and advanced curve 

warning signs and intersection street lighting.

» Urban Countermeasures: The cities of Bismarck, Grand Forks, and 

Valley City submitted applications for projects providing pedestrian 

enhancements (countdown timers and advance pedestrian interval), red 

signal enforcement lights at signalized intersections, and road diet (fourlane undivided to three-lane) conversions along roadway segments.

Local Agency Action Items

MnDOT and NDDOT successfully committed to support local system safety 

projects by using federal safety funding from the state’s HSIP. To support local 

system safety projects, a local agency could:

» Work with the state HSIP coordinators to dedicate HSIP funds for local 

agency projects and establish processes that improve access to HSIP 

funds for local agencies.

» Apply for HSIP funding for a wider variety of safety projects.

» Identify a champion to encourage other local agencies to increase local 

project representation in the statewide HSIP distribution.

References

1. Bray, Tim, Crow Wing County. 2016. Personal communication with Howard Preston/

CH2M HILL.

2. Devoe, Eric, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2016. Personal 

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

3. Kuntz, Shawn, North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2016. Personal 

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Eric Devoe

Minnesota Department

of Transportation

(651) 234-7016

eric.devoe@state.mn.us

North Dakota

Shawn Kuntz

North Dakota Department of 

Transportation

(701) 328-2673

skuntz@nd.gov

Crow Wing County

Tim Bray

Crow Wing County, Minnesota

(218) 824-1110

tim.bray@crowwing.co.mn.us

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 67

CASE STUDY 16 – 

Comprehensive Approach to Local Road Safety

Problem

Local agencies manage a high percentage of roads but have varying levels of 

expertise and funding to develop and implement traffic safety projects. 

Noteworthy Solution

Local road safety improvements are emphasized in Ohio’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

and in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The Ohio Department of Transportation 

(ODOT) spends about $102 million each year on improving high-crash and severe-crash locations on 

local roads.

ODOT also works with local partners to fund investments that improve safety on Ohio roads (ODOT, 

2017a). ODOT collaborates with the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), the County Engineers 

Association of Ohio (CEAO), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and local governments and 

agencies to comprehensively expand training, technical assistance, and funding opportunities to local 

partners. These collaborative relationships have evolved into resources that can help local agencies 

when applying for federal HSIP funding:

» District Office Highway Safety Resources.

» Statewide Steering Committee.

» Program Resource Guide.

» The Township Sign Safety Program.

» County Roadway Safety Audits Program.

» County Engineers Association Funding. 

Highway Safety District Offices 

ODOT’s district offices facilitate discussions with local governments and agencies about safety 

program planning and development. In each district, a dedicated Highway Safety Coordinator is the 

liaison between local agencies and department staff and helps agencies navigate the HSIP process.

ODOT has 12 district offices and one central office (Figure 16-1) with planning and engineering 

staff at each District office (ODOT, 2014), allowing ODOT district staff to develop close working 

relationships with local agencies. District staff are also encouraged to participate in local government 

meetings, including (ODOT, 2014):

» City council meetings.

» Regional planning commission meetings.

» Economic development meetings.

» County commissioner meetings.
68 CASE STUDY #16: COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY

The ODOT district safety coordinator is the first point of contact and works 

directly with local officials to develop projects using the statewide planning 

process. Local agencies applying for HSIP funding can use their ODOT district 

office for HSIP application assistance (ODOT, 2014).

Requests for low-cost safety improvements may qualify for an abbreviated 

application, allowing a shorter, more cost-efficient study to be conducted 

instead of a more detailed and costly formal study (ODOT, 2017b). HSIP 

applications are reviewed by the local district office before they are submitted 

to the central office, where 

they are reviewed by a multidiscipline committee.

The Ohio Highway Safety 

Improvement Program 2016 

Annual Report describes 

the HSIP application process 

(OH, 2016).

“A multi-discipline committee 

at ODOT headquarters reviews 

all applications and supporting 

safety studies. The committee 

can approve a proposal, select 

a different safety strategy or 

request further study before 

allocating money. ODOT spends 

approximately $85 million 

dollars in safety funds annually 

through this program. Once 

funding is secured, safety 

projects are scheduled for 

construction. How quickly 

projects proceed to construction 

depends on the available 

funding and complexity of the 

project. Short-term, low-cost 

projects can be implemented 

within a few months. Other projects that require environmental mitigation, 

complex engineering design and/or utility and right of way relocation may 

take several years. In all cases, ODOT encourages sponsors to act as quickly 

as possible. Upon project completion, the department monitors locations to 

make sure the improvements are reducing crashes as designed.”

ODOT’s innovative partnerships with LTAP and ODOT, along with an emphasis 

on a data-driven analysis process, are instrumental in improving local 

road safety. 

Figure 16-1. ODOT District and Central Offices

Source: ODOT, 2017c
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 69

Statewide Steering Committee

ODOT created the Statewide Steering Committee to share information/ 

resources and create a central repository for distributing crash data and 

trends. The Committee includes representatives from local, state, and federal 

government agencies who have access to and share crash information with 

hundreds of other safety organizations across Ohio. Since crash data and 

many available crash analysis resources are centrally located, this statewide 

information strategy is the most effective way to implement strategies that 

address fatalities on Ohio roads. It informs local agencies, provides highquality data without increasing costs, and helps increase local agency staff 

expertise on data analysis and crash trends (OH, 2016). Members of this 

Committee are also the primary contributors to and reviewers of ODOT’s SHSP

Program Resource Guide 

ODOT publishes the Program Resource Guide (ODOT, 2017d), which 

documents available funding opportunities for local governments, 

transportation advocacy groups, planning organizations, and citizens. The 

Guide provides best practices for soliciting funding and locating points of 

contact when applying for funding and will, “improve access to funding 

programs and resources and help continue the development of Ohio’s 

transportation infrastructure” (ODOT, 2017d).

ODOT Signal Timing Program

ODOT consults with district offices and local communities in providing signal 

timing upgrades in areas with high intersection crashes and prioritizes 

upgrades in locations where crashes are linked to poor signal timing 

(ODOT, 2017e).

Township Safety Sign Grant Program

Each year, ODOT allocates $1 million under the Township Safety Sign Grant 

Program for safety signage upgrades, including signs (typically curves and 

intersection), posts, and applicable hardware (ODOT, 2017a). Townships can 

apply for up to $50,000 in funding if the Township: 

1. Has a greater than average crash rating based on a 5-year history.

2. Has not previously received funding under the program.

County RSA Program

ODOT partners with LTAP and CEAO to conduct safety audits as part of the 

HSIP-funded Roadway Safety Audit (RSA) Program. The RSA Program focuses 

on making improvements to roads where serious injuries and fatalities are 

higher than the state average.
70 CASE STUDY #16: COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY

County Engineers Association Safety Set Aside

Each year, members of the CEAO can request funding for safety upgrades 

on county-maintained roads. If applications are accepted, CEAO allocates a 

portion of its total $12 million CEAO safety set aside budget to the approved 

applicant for various road improvements. The applicant can then request 

additional HSIP funds from ODOT. ODOT prioritizes applications eligible for 

safety funding by funding match (such as a CEAO safety set aside).

Local Agency Action Items

The ODOT successfully developed a comprehensive range of resources to 

engage and encourage local agencies with varying levels of experience to 

participate in the HSIP. To develop similar partnerships, an agency could:

» Identify the gaps in the HSIP process that deter local agency 

participation and collaborate with other local agencies on 

addressing gaps.

» Communicate needs for expanded training, technical assistance, local 

programs, and funding opportunities to the DOT/U.S. Federal Highway 

Administration. 

» Collaborate with other agencies, associations, and safety stakeholders 

to form a steering committee to distribute information on available 

programs and resources. 

References:

1. OH. 2016. Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program 2016 Annual Report

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2016/oh.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2017. 

2. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2014. Rural Consultation Process.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPR/StatewidePlanning/Documents/

ODOT%20Rural%20Consultation%20Process.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2017. 

3. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017a. Township Safety Sign Grant Program. 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/LocalPrograms/Pages/Township_Safety_

Sign_Grant_Program.aspx. Accessed November 30, 2018. 

4. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017b. Highway Safety Improvement 

Program – Funding Application Process. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/

ProgramManagement/HighwaySafety/HSIP/Pages/Funding-Application-Process.aspx. 

Accessed October 23, 2017.

5. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017c. ODOT District Map and Contact 

Information. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 

October 23, 2017. 

6. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017d. Program Resource Guide.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/LocalPrograms/Documents/

ProgramResourceGuide.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2017. 

7. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017e. Other Highway Safety Programs. 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/HighwaySafety/

HSIP/Documents/Other%20Safety%20Programs.pdf. Accessed February 8, 2018.

Relevant Contacts

Ohio

Derek Troyer

Ohio Department of 

Transportation

(614) 387-5164

derek.troyer@dot.ohio.gov 
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 71

CASE STUDY 17 – 

New Data-driven Approach to Support Safety 

Countermeasures with Short Service Lives

Problem

Local agency engineers have declined participation in the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) because the one-time infusion of safety funds is overshadowed by 

increasing maintenance costs, which are the sole responsibility of the local agency.

Noteworthy Solution 

FHWA’s Minnesota Division partnered with Minnesota Department of 

Transportation (MnDOT) and Minnesota’s county engineers to develop a new 

project funding approach for the state that removes the maintenance funding 

barrier. This approach changes the classification for some projects typically 

classified as maintenance so they are eligible for HSIP funding. For example, 

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had previously determined that 

the HSIP should not fund pavement markings on rehabilitation projects (Stein, 

2017, pers. comm.). Under this new data-driven approach, maintenance costs 

of countermeasures with short design lives (such as pavement markings) 

would be classified as periodic refreshing (instead of maintenance) and 

considered eligible for HSIP funding, providing that: 

» The local agency completes a systemic assessment of its system that 

includes prioritizing facilities and identifying high-risk locations.

» The local agency prepares a safety plan for its system that includes the 

results of the systemic assessment and the prioritized listing of high-risk 

locations, and identifies suggested safety projects.

» The local agency submits the safety projects to the state DOT as part of 

the HSIP solicitation process.

» State DOT HSIP managers determine that the proposed project is 

consistent with local agency and statewide priorities and include the 

project in the annual HSIP.

» The local agency implements the initial safety project, which includes 

pavement markings.

» After the safety project is complete, if in the future the location still has 

potential for crashes based on site roadway and traffic characteristics, 

refreshing markings would be considered a new project and eligible for 

HSIP funding.
72 CASE STUDY #17: NEW APPROACH TO HSIP FUNDING SUPPORT FOR

SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES WITH SHORT SERVICE LIVES

The key to this new project funding approach is collaboration between the 

local agency, state DOT, and FHWA. The local agency conducts the systemic 

assessment, prepares a safety plan, and submits projects to state safety 

program managers for funding. The state DOT identifies statewide priorities 

and commits to including local agencies in the HSIP. FHWA provides technical 

oversight and funding support.

This partnership has resulted in several positive outcomes, including

(Vizecky, 2017, pers. comm.):

» More counties participated in the HSIP (about 85% of Minnesota’s 

87 counties have had at least 1 project funded).

» MnDOT met its commitment to dedicate more than 50% of HSIP funding 

to safety projects on local systems.

» Counties have installed almost $16 million of enhanced edge lines.

» Fatal crashes on the county roadway system have been reduced by 25%.

Local Agency Action Items

FHWA’s Minnesota Division successfully worked with MnDOT and local 

agencies to reclassify projects requiring HSIP funding. To participate in a 

similar program, other local agencies could:

» Identify obstacles preventing applications for HSIP funding and projects.

» Maintain a data-driven assessment of the roadway system for future 

confirmation of safety priority.

» Collaborate with FHWA, state, and other local agencies to resolve 

identified obstacles using innovative approaches to justify HSIP funding 

eligibility.

References

1. Stein, Will, U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Personal communication 

with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

2. Vizecky, Mark, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2017. Personal 

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Mark Vizecky

Minnesota Department

of Transportation

(651) 366-3839

Will Stein

FHWA, Minnesota 

Division

(651) 291-6122
SUMMARY

Source: FHWA

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 75

SUMMARY

This Noteworthy Practices Manual presents solutions to some of the common 

barriers faced by local agencies when implementing federally-funded HSIP 

projects. The Manual also shares best practices to support local agencies’ 

efforts to implement federally-funded safety projects. A series of example 

case studies draw on previous state and local agency experiences and provide 

a model for local agencies to overcome barriers hindering participation in 

HSIP. Finally, this Manual provides action items for local agencies to follow 

independently or cooperatively with state DOT’s or other local agencies to 

implement federally-funded HSIP projects.

The FHWA, state, and local agencies provided source material for the 

Noteworthy Practices Manual. 

REFERENCES

Source: FHWA

Introduction

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. Highway Statistics 2014. Public

Road Length – 2014, Miles By Ownership. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/

statistics/2014/hm10.cfm. Accessed November 20, 2017.

2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2015. Fatality Analysis Reporting

System (FARS) Encyclopedia. https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. Accessed

November 20, 2017.

Case Study 1 ‒ Strategic Highway Safety Plan Involvement

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013. New Jersey Highway Safety

Improvement Program 2013 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/

pdf/2013/nj.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2018.

2. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. New Jersey Highway Safety

Improvement Program 2014 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/

pdf/2014/nj.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2018.

3. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. New Jersey Highway Safety

Improvement Program 2015 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/

pdf/2015/nj.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2018.

4. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. New Jersey Highway Safety

Improvement Program 2016 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/

pdf/2016/nj.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2018.

5. New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). 2015. New Jersey Strategic

Highway Safety Plan. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/

pdf/2015strategichighwaysafetyplan.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2017.

6. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2013. North Dakota’s Strategic

Highway Safety Plan. September.

Case Study 2 – Crash Mapping Analysis Tool 

1. Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). Crash Mapping Analysis Tool.

https://icat.iowadot.gov/. Accessed May 2020.

2. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Minnesota Crash Mapping

Analysis Tool. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/crashmapping.html.

Accessed April 2015.

Case Study 3 – HSIP Application Guidance Document 

1. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2012. Strategic Highway Safety

Plan. https://www.nh.gov/dot/projects/documents/2012_2016_strategic_highway_

safety_plan_single_pages_suitable_for_printing.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018.

2. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2013. Highway Safety

Improvement Program Manual and Guidance. https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/

projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements/documents/hsip_

nhguidance_122013.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018.

3. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2017. Highway Safety

Improvement webpage. https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/

highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements. Accessed August 17, 2017.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 79

REFERENCES
Case Study 4 – HSIP Application Preparation Assistance

1. Kuntz, Shawn, North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2016. Personal

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

2. Leuer, Derek, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2016. Personal

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

3. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2017. Local Road Safety Program.

https://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/safety/docs/LSRP/VIEW_CentralRegion_Agency_

BottineauCounty.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018.

Case Study 5 – Safety Training for Local Agencies

1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014a. Improving Safety on Rural Local and Tribal

Roads – Safety Toolkit. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa14072/

isrltrst.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2017.

2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014b. Crash Modification Factor (CMF)

Clearinghouse. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/resources/. Modified October 2014.

3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Website. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/. Accessed September 18, 2017. Lois Goldman

New Jersey

4. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Traffic Safety Fundamentals

Handbook. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/trafficsafety/reference/2015-mndotsafety-handbook-large.pdf. Accessed September 18 2017.

5. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2016. New Jersey Highway Safety

Improvement Program Manual. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/

pdf/2016hsipmanual.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018.

6. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2016b. Internal Database.

Case Study 6 – Local HSIP Advisory Committee

1. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015. California Strategic Highway

Safety Plan 2015-2019. http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/shsp/docs/SHSP15_Update.pdf.

Accessed September 18, 2017.

2. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 2017. Database. https://www.nhtsa.gov/

research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars. Accessed September 25, 2017.

3. Kochevar, Ken, Caltrans. 2017. Personal communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

4. Mattox, Mark, Town of Paradise. 2016. Personal communication with Howard Preston/

CH2M HILL.

5. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Federal Highway Administration

Research and Technology Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway

Transportation Innovations. Chapter 3. Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-04-100.

September.

Case Study 8 – Local Agency Safety Program

1. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2017a. Local Agency Traffic Safety Academy.

http://www.tampabaytrafficsafety.com/LATSA/SitePages/Home.aspx.

Accessed October 9, 2017.

2. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2017b. Florida Department of

Transportation’s District Seven Design-Build Pushbutton Contract.

http://www.tampabaytrafficsafety.com/DBPB. Accessed October 23, 2017.

3. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013. Safety Summit Yields Tenfold Increase

in Number of Safety Applications Submitted by Local Agencies – Florida.

https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/html/localrural_fl1.aspx?id=96. Accessed

October 9, 2017.

80 REFERENCES
Case Study 9 – Support for Road Safety Assessments 

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. Road Safety Audits (RSA).

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/. Accessed May 2020.

2. Sheehan, Timothy, Safety Design Unit Chief Bureau of Safety Programs and Engineering for Illinois

Department of Transportation. 2017. Personal communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

Case Study 10 – Local Road Safety Plans

1. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2008. Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

2. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2014. Final Report for the Minnesota County

Roadway Safety Plans. January.

3. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Facts about Crashes, Budget, Fatality Rates.

Database. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/. Accessed February 11, 2018.

4. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2013. North Dakota Strategic Highway Safety

Plan. September.

5. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2015. North Dakota Local Road Safety Program.

June.

6. Vizecky, Mark, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2017. Personal communication with

Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

7. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2018. Safety Plan Handout. http://www.dot.state.

mn.us/stateaid/trafficsafety/county/tzd-handout-final.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2018.

Case Study 11 – Systemic Safety Evaluation

1. Davis, Scott, Traffic Engineering and Operations Manager, Thurston County. 2016. Personal

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

2. U.S. Federal Highway Association (FHWA). 2013. Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/sspst.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2017.

3 Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC). 2016. Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

http://wtsc.wa.gov/target-zero/. Accessed September 19, 2017.

Case Study 12 – Environmental Documentation Assistance

1. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2017. State Aid for Local Transportation,

Environmental Forms & Information. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/environmental-forms.html.

Accessed September 19, 2017

Case Study 13 – Bundled Project Strategy

1. Tasa, Lou, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2017. Personal communication with

Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

Case Study 14 – Local Safety Engineering Assistance Program

1. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2013. The Local Safety and High Risk Rural

Roads Programs. http://www.njtpa.org/getmedia/42817bbf-6fcf-4c8b-a7c1-910c4174e9a7/LSP_

revised.pdf.aspx. Accessed September 21, 2017.

2. Mittman, Christine, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2017. Personal

Communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

3. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 2017. NJTPA Local Safety and High Risk Rural

Roads Program webpage. https://www.njtpa.org/localsafety.aspx. Accessed May 2020.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 81
Case Study 15 – Dedicated HSIP Funding Support for Local 

System Safety Projects

1. Bray, Tim, Crow Wing County. 2016. Personal communication with Howard Preston/

CH2M HILL.

2. Devoe, Eric, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2016. Personal

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

3. Kuntz, Shawn, North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2016. Personal

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

Case Study 16 – Comprehensive Approach to

Local Road Safety

1. OH. 2016. Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program 2016 Annual Report.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2016/oh.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2017.

2. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2014. Rural Consultation Process.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPR/StatewidePlanning/Documents/

ODOT%20Rural%20Consultation%20Process.pdf.

Accessed October 23, 2017.

3. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017a. Township Safety Sign Grant Program.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/LocalPrograms/Pages/Township_Safety_

Sign_Grant_Program.aspx. Accessed November 30, 2018.

4. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017b. Highway Safety Improvement

Program – Funding Application Process. https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/

ProgramManagement/HighwaySafety/HSIP/Pages/Funding-Application-Process.aspx.

Access Date of October 23, 2017.

5. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017c. ODOT District Map and Contact

Information. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed

October 23, 2017.

6. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017d. Program Resource Guide.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/LocalPrograms/Documents/

ProgramResourceGuide.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2017.

7. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2017e. Other Highway Safety Programs.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/HighwaySafety/

HSIP/Documents/Other%20Safety%20Programs.pdf.

Accessed February 8, 2018.

Case Study 17 – New Data-driven Approach to Support 

Safety Countermeasures with Short Service Lives

1. Stein, Will, U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Personal communication

with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

2. Vizecky, Mark, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2017. Personal

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

82 REFERENCES
Table of Contents

A. Members of the Technical Oversight Working Group ........ 85

B. Sample HSIP Project Application Spreadsheet.................... 87

C. California Local Highway Safety Improvement

Program Advisory Charter................................................... 89

D. Environmental Documentation for

Federal Projects with Minor Impacts.................................. 93

E. Sample Determination of No Effect .................................... 95

F. Memo and Joint Powers Agreement for the

Administration of Federal HSIP Safety Grant...................... 97

APPENDIXES

Photo credit is: Haveseen © 123RF.com

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 85

» Scott Davis – Thurston County, Washington Traffic Engineering & Operations 

Manager and NACE Safety and Technology Committee Chair.

» Lois Goldman – North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Director of 

Regional Planning.

» Dirk Gowan – Louisville Metro Public Works, Senior Transportation Planner.

» Daniel Helms – Mississippi DOT, Manager of Traffic Safety Engineering.

» Emran Rahaman – Seminole Tribe of Florida, Senior Manager.

» Brian Roberts – NACE, Executive Director.

» Mark Vizecky – Minnesota DOT, Local Systems Safety Engineer.

» Patrick Wojahn – National League of Cities, Board Member, College Park, Maryland.

APPENDIX A – 

Members of the Technical Oversight Working Group 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 87

APPENDIX B – 

Sample HSIP Project Application Spreadsheet

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 89

APPENDIX C – 

California Local Highway Safety

Improvement Program Advisory Charter
90 APPENDIX C. CALIFORNIA LOCAL HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ADVISORY CHARTER
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 91

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 93

APPENDIX D – 

Environmental Documentation for

Federal Projects with Minor Impacts
94 APPENDIX D. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS WITH MINOR IMPACTS
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 95

APPENDIX E – 

Sample Determination of No Effect

Memo

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 97

APPENDIX F – 

Memo and Joint Powers Agreement for the

Administration of Federal HSIP Safety Grant
98 APPENDIX F. MEMO AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE

ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL HSIP SAFETY GRANT
Joint Powers Agreement for the Administration of Federal HSIP Safety Grant

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 99
100 APPENDIX F. MEMO AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE

ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL HSIP SAFETY GRANT
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 101
102 APPENDIX F. MEMO AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE

ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL HSIP SAFETY GRANT
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 103