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-cos

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