Speed Management 

Action Plan Template

Problem Identification, Solutions, Implementation, Evaluation

FHWA Safety Program

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

How to Use This Model Plan Template 

Purpose: This Model Plan template is part of the Jurisdiction Speed Management Action Plan 

Development Package. This template was developed to provide a framework for State and local 

agencies to use in developing speed management safety action plans. The plan template 

provides guidance but allows the user to develop tailored actions, safety goals and a plan for 

countermeasures implementation through a systematic process, as well as to address larger 

speed management issues that often limit program effectiveness and durability. 

Users may also refer to two pilot plans already developed: one is a plan for a local jurisdiction (a 

County) and the other is a statewide action plan. These plans provide examples that were 

developed using data and other input specific for those jurisdictions. 

Process: To develop a Plan, the user should first begin with Chapter 2, the problem 

identification process. Identify system-wide safety issues and location-specific issues or risks. 

Appendix A provides more information about the network screening process to identify 

speeding-related safety problems at particular locations. Proceed with Chapter 3 to identify 

alternate countermeasures and strategies and the actions to prioritize and implement them. 

Finally develop Chapter 4, the prioritized and detailed Action Plan. Appendix B may aid in 

developing and organizing implementation strategies for Chapter 4. 

After chapters 2 through 4 are developed, complete Chapter 1. Chapter 1 provides a summary 

and overview of the findings from the other chapters, an overview of the Action Plan, and a 

description of the Plan contents. 
How to Use this Template 

ii

The template assumes a working knowledge of problem identification (data analysis, network 

screening, etc.), and other plan development processes, and knowledge of whom to coordinate 

with for relevant information. The Plan template provides descriptions of content rather than 

providing step-by-step instructions on developing the content. More information is available on 

all steps of the process including countermeasure identification, in the Speed Management 

Toolkit and resources mentioned in that companion document to this template. 

Data sources that may be used include: crash data, roadway inventory data, and speed data, if 

available. Other sources of information include results of public or driver surveys, speed 

complaint databases that law enforcement agencies may compile, or public input from other 

transportation plans as well as citation data or other law enforcement data. However, note that 

speeding citation data should be used in conjunction with crash data; citations alone may not 

reflect where safety problems are greatest. 

Plan Development Team - Expertise needed: Varied types of stakeholders and expertise are 

needed to identify problems and develop the plans. Data managers and analysts will be needed 

to provide, compile and analyze crash and other data to assist with problem identification in 

Chapter 2. 

Chapter 2 and the other chapters also require engineering and other expert stakeholder input 

regarding current speed limit setting practices, enforcement and education practices,

engineering/design policies, and practices and guidelines that may be in need of improvement. 

Planning, design, engineering, injury prevention, law enforcement, education, and 

communications expertise are also needed to identify alternate strategies (Chapter 3), conduct 

economic assessments, and prioritize the actions and strategies to implement (Chapter 4). 

Chapter 4 requires Plan development. Many resources are available to assist with this process, 

including two pilot Action Plans already developed and mentioned above. Other resources are 

also mentioned in the Toolkit. 

Speed Management Toolkit document: To help develop the Plan and select the most effective 

strategies, information on expected safety effects of different speed-related countermeasures 

is provided in the Speed Management Countermeasures section of the Speed Management 

Toolkit companion document. In addition, the Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse 

(also described in the Toolkit), and in-State sources may be consulted for up-to-date 

information about effective countermeasures. 

Guidance for using the Template: 

 Non-highlighted plain text is “boilerplate” text that may be general enough for use as is, 

although it may be modified as needed. 

 Within boilerplate text, <Yellow> highlighted text, enclosed by angle brackets (< and >),

is text intended for the user to adapt to their specific needs. Remove the brackets and 

highlights once the local information has replaced the generic content.
How to Use this Template 

iii

 Text highlighted inside gray tables, and also enclosed by angle brackets (< and >), 

describes intended Plan content for each section. In some cases, illustrative examples 

are provided. Users may find the examples relevant for their jurisdiction and adapt 

these to their use. The text boxes start off with action words (e.g. “Describe”, 

“Summarize”, “State,” etc.) that provide guidance to the Plan developers. These text 

boxes and text enclosed in the angle brackets should also be removed from the Plan as 

the content for each relevant section is developed.

 <Bracketed, italicized notes, which are also highlighted in green, provide additional 

instructions or information that may be useful to the Plan developers, but should be 

removed from the final Plan, as the notes could prove confusing for others not involved 

in developing the Plan.>

 Appropriate tables should be used to summarize key plan elements: 

 Tables 1 and 2 in Chapter 1 (action items and implementation steps). 

 Table 3 (example presentation of speeding-related crash factors) in Chapter 2. 

 Tables 4 and 5 in Chapter 3 (action items and strategies to address problems 

identified). 

 Tables 7-12 in Chapter 4 (action items and implementation steps). 

These tables provide, in some cases, an empty template that might be useful for presenting 

data or other plan elements, and in others, rather detailed lists of problem types, or alternate 

actions, strategies, and countermeasures. 

In the latter cases, appropriate elements may be kept in the tables while others that are not 

appropriate or are not selected for focus may be eliminated. Any of these tables may be 

adapted or modified to provide a locally-tailored plan that will address identified needs. Figures 

and charts may also help to illustrate analysis results or other information. 
1 

Contents 

How to Use This Model Plan Template ............................................................................................ i

Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 1. Overview of the Plan ..................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Plan Purpose and Description ........................................................................................... 4

1.2 Safety Goals of the Plan ..................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Coordination with Strategic Plan or Other Comprehensive Safety Goals...................... 5

1.3 Need for the Plan ............................................................................................................... 5

1.3.1 Crashes and Injuries related to Speeding <Too Fast for Conditions and/or Exceeding 

Limits> ..................................................................................................................................... 6

1.3.2 Estimated Comprehensive Cost of Crashes to Society. .................................................. 6

1.3.3 Prevalence of Speeding .................................................................................................. 6

1.3.4 Other Major Issues and Challenges .......................................................................... 7

1.4 Plan Approaches ................................................................................................................ 9

1.5 Organization of this Document ......................................................................................... 9

1.6 Action Plan Summary ...................................................................................................... 10

1.7 Evaluation and Performance Measures .......................................................................... 14

1.8 Sustaining and Updating the Plan ................................................................................... 15

1.9 Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 2. Speeding-related Safety Problems .............................................................................. 19

2.1 Problem Identification ..................................................................................................... 19

2.1.1 Data Used ..................................................................................................................... 19

2.1.2 Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................... 20

2.1.3 Other Problem Identification Processes....................................................................... 21

<2.2 Jurisdiction-wide <State/locality>> Problems ............................................................... 21

2.2.1 Crashes and Injuries ..................................................................................................... 21

2.2.3 Other Issues .................................................................................................................. 23

2.3 High Crash <Corridor/Route/Roadway Segment/Intersection> Problems ..................... 25

2.3.1 <Urban, Undivided, Multi-lane Corridors> ................................................................... 26

2.3.2 <Urban, Two-lane Corridors> ....................................................................................... 27

2.3.3 <Rural, Two-Lane Routes> ............................................................................................ 27

2.3.4 <Other Route Types> .................................................................................................... 28

2.4. <Other> Site-specific Crash Problems ............................................................................ 28

Chapter 3. Action Items, Strategies and Countermeasures ......................................................... 29

<3.1 Jurisdiction-wide> Speed Management Actions and Strategies ................................... 29
2 

3.2 Actions, Strategies, and Countermeasures to Address High Crash <Corridors / Zones or 

Sites> ..................................................................................................................................... 34

3.2.1 Countermeasures for <Urban, Multi-Lane Corridors> ................................................. 38

3.2.2 Countermeasures for <Urban, Two-lane Corridors> .................................................... 39

3.2.3 Countermeasures for <Rural, Two-Lane Routes> ........................................................ 39

3.2.4 Countermeasures for <Other Route Types> ................................................................ 40

3.2.5 Countermeasures for School Zone/Work Zone /Other Site-specific Crash Problems . 40

3.2.6 Coordination with Spot Safety and Other Safety Plans and Programs ........................ 40

3.2.7 High Crash <Corridors or Zones> Crash Reduction Targets ......................................... 40

Chapter 4. Multi-year Implementation Plan ................................................................................. 42

4.1 Detailed Proposed Implementation Actions ................................................................... 42

Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures - Action Item 4.E. continued ........................... 46

Implementation Steps following Project Approval ............................................................... 51

4.2 Evaluation Plan ................................................................................................................ 52

4.3 Action Plan Update .......................................................................................................... 53

Appendix A. Supplemental Materials for Chapter 2 ..................................................................... 54

Network Screening for Speeding-related and/or Severe or Other Crash Types ................... 54

Network Screening using Crash and Other Data ................................................................... 54

Diagnosis ................................................................................................................................ 58

Appendix B. Supplemental Materials for Chapter 4 .................................................................... 60
3 

Tables 

Table 1. Action Items for <Plan Jurisdiction> Speed Management Safety Action Plan and 

Implementation Timeline. ............................................................................................................ 12

Table 2. Key Next Steps for Action Plan Implementation. ............................................................ 14

Table 3. Crash Characteristics Associated with Speeding-related (SR) and Severe Crashes 

<Jurisdiction-wide OR Urban/Rural, etc., and analysis Period>. .................................................. 22

Table 4. Communications Action and Strategies to Address <Jurisdiction>-wide Safety and 

Speed Management Issues. .......................................................................................................... 31

Table 5. Setting Speed Limits Action and Strategies to Address <Jurisdiction>-wide Safety and 

Speed Management Issues. .......................................................................................................... 32

Table 6. Plan/Design for Speed Management (Action and Strategies) to Address <Jurisdiction>-

wide Safety and Speed Management Issues. ............................................................................... 33

Table 7. Systematic Action and Strategies to Address Speeding and Severe Crashes in High Crash 

<Corridors / Zones.> ..................................................................................................................... 35

Table 8. Enforcement and Publicity Action and Strategies to Address Speeding and Severe 

Crashes in High Crash <Corridors / Zones.> .................................................................................. 36

Table 9. Systematic Speed and Safety Review within HSIP and other Safety Plans and Programs.

....................................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 10. Economic Analysis for Speed Management Action Plan Countermeasures. ................ 41

Table 11. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 1. ............................................. 43

Table 12. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 2. ............................................. 44

Table 13. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 3. ............................................. 45

Table 14. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 4. ............................................. 46

Table 15. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 5 .............................................. 50

Table 16. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 6 .............................................. 51

Table 17. Safety Performance Measures and Data Needs. .......................................................... 56

Table 18. Example Cost-benefit Analysis of Road Diet Implementations. ................................... 60

Table 19. Example Plan Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................... 61

Table 20. Example Countermeasure Safety Evaluation Matrix. ................................................... 63
4 

Chapter 1. Overview of the Plan 

<Remember to develop the content for Chapters 2, 3 and 4 before completing Chapter 1. Start 

with Chapter 2, Problem Identification.>1

1.1 Plan Purpose and Description 

This Speed Management Action Plan characterizes the <State or Local Jurisdiction Name>

speeding-related safety problems and speed management issues, identifies appropriate

engineering, enforcement, and educational countermeasures and strategies, and outlines

actions the <State / Locality, and other partners> can take to implement these strategies to 

reduce speeding and speeding-related fatal and injury crashes. This Plan will facilitate 

coordination and cooperation among various agency stakeholders including road planners, 

designers and managers, enforcement officials, public health practitioners, and policy-makers 

to implement a sustainable speed management program, and to target the most cost-effective 

and feasible countermeasures where they will have the greatest safety benefits.

The remainder of this chapter outlines the safety goals of the Plan, the need for the Plan, 

broadly describes the speed management approaches and the remaining Plan content, defines 

terms used, and provides an overview of the problems and the action items for implementing 

Plan strategies. 

1.2 Safety Goals of the Plan 

<The safety goals of the Plan are to reduce fatal and injury crashes in support of the Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan. A related goal may be to improve compliance with speed limits since lower 

operating speeds are expected to reduce the frequency of fatal and injury crashes. Include other 

introductory sentences such as a Vision Statement if desired. A typical plan timeline is five 

years.>

 

1

 - Non-highlighted (plain) text is “boilerplate” text that may be general enough for use as is, or modified as 

needed. 

- Text enclosed by <angle brackets>, and highlighted in yellow should be replaced with specific text for the 

jurisdiction Plan. Remove the highlights once jurisdiction information has replaced the generic content.

- Tables highlighted in light gray contain descriptions enclosed by angle brackets (< >) of specific types of Plan 

content with illustrative examples. These sections begin with action words (e.g. “Describe”, “Summarize”, 

“State,” etc.) for the Plan developers. These tables and text enclosed by angle brackets should also be adapted 

or removed from the Plan as the specific content for each section is developed.

- <Bracketed notes in italics emphasis, and also highlighted in light green> provide additional instructions or 

information that may useful to the Plan developers, and should also be removed from the final Plan.
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

5 

The safety goals of this Action Plan are as follows: 

< State goals here and remove instructions and unused examples in this box:

Short term and long-term goals may be desirable. Goals may be stated in terms of numeric 

reductions, percent reductions, crash rate reductions, population-based rate reductions, or 

other relevant measures.

 Goal 1: e.g. Reduce fatal and injury crashes, especially those attributed to speeding by 

{__ percent} within {# years}. Speeding includes operating a vehicle at speeds above 

limits and exceeding a safe speed for existing conditions. 

 Goal 2: Improve compliance with speed limits by {__ percent within # years}. >

<Note that the short-term safety goal reflects analysis of the problem, the potential solutions 

available, and assessment of what portion of the problem might be targeted by 

countermeasures within a five-year implementation period and what expected effects may be 

compared to if no action is taken. Plan implementers may adjust the crash reduction target to 

reflect the strategies selected and a more detailed determination of extent of planned 

implementation. Improved speed compliance serves as a nearer-term measure of effectiveness 

of countermeasures intended to reduce travel speeds. Plan implementers may wish to establish 

a specific speed compliance target as more data are gathered about the extent of speeding. 

They may also establish a long-term crash reduction target.>

1.2.1 Coordination with Strategic Plan or Other Comprehensive Safety Goals 

Achieving the goals set forth in this Plan will contribute to the <State/Local jurisdiction meeting 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)> safety goals. 

<Describe the State’s SHSP goals, of other relevant Safety Plan goals.

State the recent issues or progress in meeting those goals here and how this plan can help to 

achieve strategic or other plan goals. 

Are there existing speeding-related safety goals or specific speed management objectives or 

strategies within the strategic or other transportation safety plan? How will implementing this 

Plan help in meeting those objectives or strategies? >

1.3 Need for the Plan 

<This section describes the general magnitude of the safety problems related to speeding. It also 

provides an overview of speed management challenges relating to public policies and support 

for speed management, or speed management practices, guidance, and other issues that may 

affect the selection and application of effective speed and safety countermeasures and 

strategies. If the State or local jurisdiction has adopted a Toward Zero Deaths vision/framework, 

that may also be discussed in this section.>
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

6 

1.3.1 Crashes and Injuries related to Speeding <Too Fast for Conditions and/or Exceeding 

Limits>

<Provide an overview of crash, fatality, and injury problem and proportion of the problem 

related to speeding as identified in Chapter 2:

Describe the big picture:

 Numbers and proportions of total crashes, injury and fatal crashes related to speeding 

for the analysis time period. 

 Both speeding-related indicators and crash severity indicators may be useful to help 

identify problems.

 Figures illustrating crash and injury trends over time and space may be desirable. 

 Other high level descriptors such as rural/urban location, road classes or types, may be 

included if they are to be a key focus of the Plan or are significant portions of the 

problem, but more details can also be saved for Chapter 2, problem description.>

1.3.2 Estimated Comprehensive Cost of Crashes to Society. 

<This section describes the comprehensive and / or the direct economic cost of crashes to the 

State/community.>

<If desired, describe the cost of crashes related to speeding; this may help to raise awareness of 

the comprehensive costs to society in addition to the personal loss of life and health. Also, 

comparing costs with expected benefits of treatments is a common way of estimating how 

resources may be allocated to achieve the most benefits from crash and injury-reducing 

countermeasures.>

1.3.3 Prevalence of Speeding 

<This section describes the prevalence of driver speeding, and if sufficient data or other

information is available to do so, may relate speeding to other safety concerns (e.g., pedestrian 

safety, rural road safety, etc.). This section also may describe driver attitudes to speed and 

speeding, cultural acceptance of speeding, attitudes towards enforcement, etc., if sufficient

information is available.>

<Summarize the extent of the driver speeding problem, culture, etc., as documented in Chapter 

2:

 Trends from collected speed data.

 Driver attitudes, beliefs, self-reported speeding from scientific surveys.

 Input from Traffic Law Enforcement and other experts.

 Input from other Safety Plans or Programs (community goals about speed 

management).>
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

7 

1.3.4 Other Major Issues and Challenges 

<This section describes challenges and issues in speed management that were identified 

through the problem identification process. Focus on key areas where policies, processes and 

practices are not up to recommended best practice.>

 Speed Limit Setting Issues 

<This section describes current policies, practices and other issues that may limit effectiveness of 

speed limits as a safety measure> 

Appropriately set speed limits represent a concerted effort to balance safety and travel 

efficiency for all modes of travel. 

<Summarize issues with setting speed limits, as documented in Chapter 2:

 Speed limit setting methods (statutory and zoning, variations by jurisdictions, etc.)

 Driver, community, stakeholder perceptions about credibility of limits and safe limits, 

and extent that a collaborative process is used to gain commitment of all partner and 

meet safety needs.>

 Planning, Design, Engineering and Other Challenges 

<This section describes issues or problems with implementing appropriate speed limits and 

integrating speed management into a systematic process to identify and prioritize existing roads

that need treatment.>

<Summarize issues with coordination of speed management, planning, and design from 

Chapter 2:

 Incompatibility of speed limits and designs with each other or with road purposes, user 

needs, land uses, resulting in issues with safety and credibility of speed limits. 

 Issues with systematic identification and prioritization of roads for speed limit and 

safety review, followed by implementing appropriate limits and supporting engineering 

and enforcement countermeasures.>

 Enforcement Issues 

<This section describes issues relating to speed enforcement and providing an enforcement 

program designed to deter speeding.>

<Summarize challenges with enforcement of speeds from Chapter 2:

 E.g. Amount, targeting, coverage (of the crash problem) by enforcement.

 Enforcement-related laws or policies limiting speed enforcement or tools that can be 

used.

 Problems in consistency and swiftness of adjudication or consistency of penalties.>
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

8 

 Public Information and Education 

<This section describes issues relating to educating the public and policy-makers about speed 

and safety and providing effective enhancements of enforcement and engineering measures.>

<Summarize challenges with public information and education from Chapter 2:

 Conveying the importance of managing the risks of speeding to decision-makers and the 

public.

 Publicizing and promoting effective programs (enforcement and engineering).>

 Overcoming Barriers 

This Plan identifies engineering and road design measures to help better manage speeds and to 

target related safety issues that may contribute to excessive speed for conditions types of 

crashes. Since it is only possible for engineering countermeasures to treat a small portion of the 

road network each year, the <State/Local Jurisdiction> also needs to seek ways to improve 

enforcement and adjudication to support established limits. Even if all roads are well-designed 

to support reasonable and safe speed limits, highly visible and committed enforcement is 

needed to support those limits. Chapter 2 describes the problems in more detail. Speed 

management is a complex endeavor that requires commitment of all stakeholders to work 

together. In addition, many strategies will require the support of policy-makers. Accordingly, 

this Plan includes much technical information that may be useful to planners, designers, and 

engineers, as well as information relevant for law enforcement, injury prevention specialists, 

policy-makers and other public stakeholders. 

Some of the challenges of implementing effective speed management countermeasures can be 

met through Speed Plan activities that: 1) specifically address the barriers to a more systematic 

approach to implementing effective solutions; 2) prioritize strategies based on factual 

information and best practice knowledge; and 3) strengthen existing partnerships, 

communication, and working toward mutually-agreeable solutions. For example, some 

engineering measures with proven safety benefits (e.g. roundabout intersection designs), are 

likely to improve mobility as well as safety. Road diets or conversions of traffic lanes may help 

to reduce speeds and crashes while providing space for other uses such as bicycle lanes or 

parking for local businesses. Other speed management measures may similarly support 

multiple goals. The Plan’s action steps should foster inter-agency and inter-departmental 

collaboration and implementation of effective strategies. 

Challenging some of the existing beliefs about speed may also be important to maximize 

success. For example, widespread, low-level speeding may be as much or even more of a safety 

problem as flagrant, but less frequent speeding by large amounts. The Highway Safety Manual 
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

9 

estimates that a 2 mph reduction in average operating speed from 30 mph will yield a reduction 

in fatal crashes of 34 percent (AASHTO, 20102). 

This Speed Management Action Plan will help <the Plan State or other jurisdiction> 

stakeholders, including the department of transportation <__DOT>, public safety agencies, 

injury prevention partners, and other stakeholders work together to identify optimal solutions 

to reduce opportunities and motivations to speed and to improve road designs to reduce 

serious injuries and fatalities in a cost-effective manner. 

1.4 Plan Approaches 

<What speed management approaches and types of strategies will be used to help the State or 

local jurisdiction meet strategic or other overall traffic safety and injury reduction goals?>

<Describe the Plan objectives or approaches that will be used to meet the safety goals and 

develop and sustain an effective speed management program. Example: The Plan incorporates 

the following types of approaches to help meet the safety goals and sustain the program: 

 Develop proactive and coordinated approaches to speed limit setting, roadway planning, 

roadway design, and other speed management measures to reduce the opportunities to 

speed and lower the risk of serious harm on improved or new roads. 

 Use a systematic approach to identify and target treatments to locations with speed or 

safety issues. 

 Use comprehensive and coordinated enforcement, educational, and engineering 

countermeasures to improve motorist compliance with speed limits and with the basic 

speed rule. Seek the support of multiple stakeholders and the public for effective speed 

management and crash reduction strategies.

These approaches and associated strategies and countermeasures are described in greater detail 

in later sections.>

1.5 Organization of this Document 

The following descriptions of organization and content should aid users of this document: 

Chapter 1 – Overview of the Plan – This chapter describes the Safety Goals of the Plan, Need 

for the Plan, the general Plan Approaches, a Summary of Action Items of the Plan, Evaluation 

and Update of the Plan, and Definitions of Terms used in the Plan. 

Chapter 2 – Speeding-related Safety Problems – Chapter 2 describes the 

<State/local/jurisdiction-wide> speeding-related safety and severe crash problems identified. It 

 

2

 AASHTO (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials: Washington, D.C. 
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

10

also describes general speed management issues that may limit effectiveness of the speed 

management program. 

In addition, Chapter 2 describes <any particular> Plan focus areas for a systematic approach 

that were identified through data analysis or other safety problem identification.

Countermeasures will be prioritized using feasibility and economic comparisons of alternate 

strategies.>

Chapter 3 Speed Management Action Items, Strategies, and Countermeasures – Chapter 3 

describes the solutions to problems described in Chapter 2. 

Jurisdiction-wide Speed Management Actions and Strategies. This sub-section 

describes the types of proactive and comprehensive action steps and strategies needed 

to address comprehensive safety problems and speed management issues. 

Actions, Strategies, and Countermeasures to Address High Crash Corridors/Roadway 

Segments/Zones. This sub-section describes systematic and comprehensive actions and 

countermeasures to target existing speeding-related safety problems. 

Chapter 4 – Multi-year Implementation Plan – Chapter 4 outlines the Detailed Proposed 

Implementation Actions and specific strategies that may be implemented within each Action 

Item, Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures, additional Implementation Steps, Evaluation 

Plan, and plan renewal processes (Action Plan Update). 

References – A reference section may be included in the plan. References include sources for 

additional information that were used to develop the plan. In this template, cited references 

are included in footnotes on each page. 

Appendix A – This supplemental information for Chapter 2 provides more information on 

network screening. 

Appendix B – This supplemental information for Chapter 4 provides information on evaluation 

and performance measures. 

Speed Management Toolkit – The Speed Management Toolkit is a companion document for 

the Action Plan template that contains additional information that may be useful to Plan 

developers. It includes countermeasures with expected crash and speed effects, tip sheets for 

communications and publicity efforts, and an annotated bibliography with links to key speed 

management resources that provide significant background on various aspects of Plan 

development and implementation. The Toolkit is mentioned throughout this template, as are 

specific resources included in that document. 

1.6 Action Plan Summary 

<Adapt the following as needed.> Speed limit review, engineering, and design strategies, 

enforcement and educational measures will be implemented through this Plan. As mentioned, 
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

11

there are three basic approaches to implementation of strategies and countermeasures: 

Proactive, Comprehensive, and Systematic. A brief description of the approaches follows: 

 A Proactive approach aims to foster creation of self-enforcing roadway designs 

appropriate to the land use and user needs (functions of the road) to reduce future 

speeding and injury risk. The approach aims to develop collaborative and consistent 

policies, procedures, and safety guidance in speed-limit setting and design for new 

projects and roadway improvements. 

 The overarching objectives of Comprehensive strategies are to: seek community 

support for the program; coordinate various stakeholders and engage the community in 

setting and enforcing appropriate limits; and to complement and enhance the 

effectiveness of design and engineering measures with locally-tailored communications 

and educational measures. 

 A Systematic approach is used to identify and coordinate treatment of existing speeding 

and safety problems with cost-effective countermeasures (engineering and 

enforcement-related measures), and to integrate this approach with other safety plans 

and safety focus areas. 

For implementing the Systematic approach, the Plan uses problem screening (based on prior 

crashes) and follow-up diagnosis to identify and prioritize <corridors/routes/segments> with 

speeding-related problems to treat. The main road types to be treated through the Systematic 

approach within the current five-year period are: 

<Below are some of the road types that may have speeding-related crash problem identified 

through a systematic analysis process. Plan analysts will identify the types for the jurisdiction>

<Multi-lane, but not physically-divided, urban routes.

Two-lane urban corridors.

Rural, two-lane roads.

Other site-specific problems (e.g. work zones/school zones).>

In addition, the systematic approach <may be> integrated into identification and problem 

diagnosis through:

<Spot safety programs.

Other safety plans, programs or transportation plans.>

The Systematic approach aims to make use of the following strategies: 

 Reviewing speed limits, improving the relationship among speed limits, target operating 

speeds, and road design. 

 Setting appropriate limits considering area land use, and user needs for safety as well as 

mobility. 

 Implementing appropriate safety improvements and design changes to the roadway. 
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

12

 Seeking support from enforcement, the courts, and public health professionals and 

communications experts to support reasonable and safe limits, and speed compliance 

by drivers. 

 Determining the need for more extensive improvements such as major redesign. 

The Proactive approach also makes use of similar processes, with some changes, but 

implements these for new projects and major upgrades. 

The Comprehensive approach <might be used to frame(s)> the problems in an injury prevention 

context in order to improve decision-making and use of effective laws, policies, and speed 

management practices (enforcement, engineering, design, and communications). 

Table 1 provides an overview of the Speed Management Plan Action Items that were selected 

as most promising or needed by <key stakeholders/Speed Management Work Group/Task 

Force considering problems identified in Chapter 2>. Each Action Item involves processes, 

coordinated actions, and policies to use to develop and implement the most appropriate types 

of countermeasures. Table 1 also identifies agency roles and prospective timelines for these 

Action Items. 

Chapter 3 describes alternate countermeasures and strategies available to address identified 

problems through each planned Action. 

Table 1. Action Items for <Plan Jurisdiction> Speed Management Safety Action Plan and 

Implementation Timeline.

<Plan developers adapt or modify Actions, Roles, or Timeline in Table 1 as needed, from Chapter 4.>

Table 1 - Action Item Stakeholder Roles

Approach and

Timeline for 

Startup

<1) Frame the Speeding and Safety 

Problem through a Public Information 

and Education Program to build support 

for effective policies and comprehensive 

strategies, to seek and leverage funding, 

and to improve effectiveness of 

enforcement and engineering

countermeasures. (Comprehensive 

approach)>

<Lead: Injury prevention experts (e.g. 

State or local public health Dept., injury 

prevention office)

Others: DOT communications and safety 

offices, courts representatives, law 

enforcement, emergency responders 

and medical profession, insurance 

industry, other business and private 

partners>

<Comprehensive

1 – 3 years>
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

13

Table 1 - Action Item Stakeholder Roles

Approach and

Timeline for 

Startup

<2) Develop a State task force to engage 

on speed limit setting and safety, 

improving consistency of outcomes, and 

restoring credibility of speed limits. 

Training and outreach, data collection 

and policies and guidelines may be 

addressed through this Action Item. 

(Proactive and Comprehensive; supports 

Systematic approach)>

<Lead: State/local DOTs

and Injury Prevention offices

Others: Elected Officials, Law 

Enforcement, Judicial Officials, Public 

and Private Stakeholders as appropriate

Need support: Local elected and public 

officials>

<Proactive & 

Comprehensive

2 – 5>

<3) Develop an inter-agency speed and 

safety review process to assess land use 

and transportation plans, designs, and 

implemented projects to ensure that 

new and improved roads meet sound 

speed management design and safety 

principles for the area land uses and 

intended purposes of the street or 

highway. (Proactive approach)>

<Lead: Potentially – a liaison group such 

as regional or metropolitan planning 

organizations 

Others: roadway designers, engineering 

safety and mobility, bicycle and 

pedestrian divisions, county and local 

planning staff, elected officials, law 

enforcement representatives, injury 

prevention>

<Proactive 

1 –3 years>

<4) Review existing speed limits, 

conduct additional diagnosis, and 

develop treatment plans for prioritized 

lists of problem corridors identified 

through network screening. (Systematic 

approach)>

<Lead: DOT safety and mobility office

Others: Municipal Staff (city streets), 

County staff (rural routes), law 

enforcement agencies, judicial officials 

and prosecutors, health officials, 

regional planning organization, 

municipal planning organization

Need support: Local elected officials if 

speed limits are changed>

<Systematic

2 – 5 years>

<5) Implement a sustainable, high 

visibility enforcement, and adjudication 

program. Target more of the network 

where serious crashes occur.

(Comprehensive treatment in 

conjunction with Systematic approach)>

<Lead: State public safety/highway 

patrol agency, local law enforcement 

agencies Others: DOT units may assist 

with prioritization through systematic 

data analysis and review process;

courts officials; injury prevention 

partners and communications experts>

<Systematic and 

Comprehensive

2 – 5 years>
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

14

Table 1 - Action Item Stakeholder Roles

Approach and

Timeline for 

Startup

<6) Implement speed and safety reviews 

of roadway segments or intersections 

within the HSIP (spot safety) program, 

and coordinate with other 

transportation safety plans and 

programs. (Systematic approach)>

<Lead: DOT safety & mobility 

offices/units

Others: Law enforcement agencies, 

traffic engineers, bicycle and pedestrian 

transportation offices (esp. for urban 

areas), county/city transportation 

agency staff >

<Systematic

2- 5 years>

Table 2 describes Initial steps for Plan implementation. 

Table 2. Key Next Steps for Action Plan Implementation. 

<Plan developers tailor implementation steps, and add table content.>

Implementation steps Timeline for 

Startup Leadership Steps Completed

Stakeholders review plan elements 

including problem types, potential 

countermeasures, and proposed action 

steps.

Schedule meeting to prioritize most 

promising Action Steps and speed 

management countermeasures.

Verify lead agencies, staff leadership and 

others to be involved in individual Action 

Step planning and implementation 

activities.

Schedule workgroup meetings or 

coordinate with existing meetings for 

individual or combined action steps.

Seek support of local elected officials and 

potentially private sponsors by conducting 

additional outreach.

1.7 Evaluation and Performance Measures 

The primary measures of program effectiveness are: 

<Changes in crash frequency and severity. 

Changes in operating speed distributions.> 
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

15

Process and implementation measures will also be used to track and link program efforts to 

safety outcomes, and to improve and sustain the program. Specific countermeasures may be 

evaluated, as feasible, to determine treatment effects in the local context. 

See Chapter 4, Evaluation Plan section, for more information. 

1.8 Sustaining and Updating the Plan 

As the stakeholders continue to meet and prioritize the Action Items and particular strategies, 

consider the following: 

 The implementation timeline for this initial plan is <five> years, but can be changed as 

needed. Depending on the Action Items advanced, some strategies will likely require a 

longer timeframe to fully develop and implement, or may be on-going strategies to 

maintain.

 The plan is a working document, and may be updated and revised as actions or 

strategies are refined and revised. 

 As already mentioned, a Plan evaluation using relevant performance measures is part of 

the implementation. Plan implementation and safety progress should be monitored 

with appropriate measures throughout the implementation period. The plan should be 

fully evaluated around the end of the implementation period as to how much of the 

plan was implemented and whether Safety Goals were met. 

 To sustain and build the program, update the plan near the end of the initial plan 

period. The update will incorporate input from the Plan evaluation, an updated problem 

identification, and incorporation of new proven countermeasures. 

1.9 Definitions of Terms 

<Note: Users may prefer to include the glossary of needed terms for their jurisdiction Plan in 

other locations in the Plan such as before the main text or in an appendix.>

The following are definitions for terms used in this document: 

Basic Speed Rule – "The Basic Speed Rule requires vehicle operators to drive at a speed that is 

reasonable and prudent. As a corollary to this rule, State laws usually provide that every person 

shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or 

railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill 

crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist 

with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.” 

<This State’s Basic Speed Rule states “No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is 

reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing. “ > 
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

16

<See NHTSA’s Summary of State Speed Laws for information on each state’s speed laws.>

3

Comprehensive approach – A comprehensive approach aims to make use of the full range of 

strategies to address speeding-related safety problems related to the road user, the streets and 

highways, the vehicle, the environment, and the management system. Comprehensive 

strategies in this Plan include engineering and design, enforcement and judicial measures, 

education and publicity, management strategies, policies, evaluation, and coordinating the 

strategies to achieve the bottom-line safety targets. 

Coordinated approach – The goal of a coordinated approach to any traffic safety area, including 

speed management “is to move away from independent activities of engineers, law 

enforcement, educators, judges, and other highway-safety specialists,” including injury 

prevention and publicity experts, and to promote the formation of working groups and alliances 

that represent all of the elements of the safety system. In so doing, the team can draw upon 

their combined expertise and resources to reach the bottom-line goal of targeted reduction of 

crash fatalities and injuries. 

Countermeasure – Essentially, a treatment to reduce the frequency and/or severity of crashes. 

Treatments may include design or engineering, enforcement, and education and awarenessrelated measures. 

Crash modification factor (CMF) – Multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number 

of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure. Standard errors of the estimate give an 

idea of the quality of the estimate and potential variation of effect. If available, calibrated State 

estimates may provide a better estimate of effects for the State.4

Crash reduction factor (CRF) – Estimate of the percentage reduction in crashes due to a 

particular countermeasure.5

 The crash modification factor (CMF) estimates in tables in this 

document can be used to estimate expected crash reduction percentages <(1 – CMF) * 100>. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program – The “Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

<is> a core Federal-aid program. The goal of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in 

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads 

and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving 

 

3

NHTSA (2011b). Summary of State Speed Laws. Eleventh Edition. Current as of February 1, 2010. DOT HS 811 457. 

U.S. DOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

4

 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

5

 Ibid. 
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

17

highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.” This program was continued 

by MAP-21, the federal transportation law that went into effect October 21, 2012.6 

Operating speed(s) – The speeds at which vehicles actually travel under free-flow 

(unconstrained or uncongested) conditions. The most often used measure of operating speed is 

the 85th percentile speed (see definition), but average or mean speed and other speed 

distributional measures may also be used.7

Proactive approach – A proactive approach, as described in this document, is a practice of 

planning and designing new roads or street improvements that considers intended operating 

speed and appropriate speed limits in the very earliest stages. A proactive approach aims to 

engage safety and mobility goals and various stakeholders in the planning, design, and 

operations of streets and highways to target speeds appropriate to the land uses and purposes 

of the road to minimize future problems. (See self-enforcing road design.) 

Roadway Safety Audit – RSAs offer a formalized way for an expert, multi-disciplinary team to 

make a qualitative assessment of safety conditions from the perspective of different road users, 

and to identify potential treatment alternatives.8

Rural/urban crash – A rural or urban crash indicates whether the crash was reported to occur 

inside municipal boundaries (urban) or outside any municipality (rural). 

Rural/urban road section – Rural or urban was defined by whether or not a road section was 

within municipality boundaries (urban) or outside (rural). 

Self-enforcing road design – A self-enforcing roadway design, which may be an objective of the 

proactive approach, is road design that reinforces established limits and reduces opportunities

to speed.9

 The goal of such designs is to increase consistency of design with limits, and to 

minimize the need for traffic law enforcement to enforce speed limits because the road itself 

induces drivers to adopt operating speeds that are within established limits. 

Self-explaining road design – The development of a consistent design and appearance for each 

roadway purpose or function category.9 Self-explaining designs complement self-enforcing 

 

6

See FHWA’s HSIP webpage for more information on eligibility and requirements: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/gen_info/resources_npr.cfm

7

 Donnell, E.T., Hines, S.C., Mahoney, K.M., Porter, R.J., McGee, H. (2009). Speed Concepts: Informational Guide. 

Report No. FHWA-SA-10-001, Washington, D.C.: Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration. 

8

See FHWA Roadway Safety Audit Guidelines (2006) and other resources on FHWA’s RSA webpages 

(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/) for more information. Include speed limit review and assessment of speedingrelated safety issues as part of the audit process. 

9

 Brewer, J. et al. (2001). Geometric Design Practices for European Roads. Report No. FHWA-PL-01-026, 

Washington, D.C.: FHWA. Available at: http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/geometric-designpractices/resources/geometric-design-practices/ 
Chapter 1 – Plan Overview 

18

design by making the type of road, and associated speed limit(s), more readily evident to 

drivers.

Severe crash –Crashes involving more severe injuries include those with fatalities (K-type), 

disabling-type injuries (A-type), or evident (B-type) injuries, as indicated in the crash reporting 

system. The other two severities of crashes in the KABCO 10 scale are C-type, possible injury, 

and O, or non-injury/property damage only types. Some analysts may include crashes with 

possible injuries as a “severe crash” as well. 

Speeding-related crash – Depending on availability, the definition of speeding-related crash 

used may be based on indications that any driver involved in the crash contributed to the crash 

by travelling “in excess of the posted limit” or “in excess of safe speed for conditions.” The 

latter definition flows from Basic Speed Rule statutes. The public safety officers responding to 

and reporting on the crash make these assessments. 

Systematic approach – In this document, the systematic approach is a process to identify and 

prioritize locations where speeding-related crashes are concentrated or greater than expected, 

and to apply systematic diagnosis and treatment of the problems. Diagnosis will include checks 

for consistency between speed limits, road design and operations (such as signal timing), and 

operating speeds. The systematic approach then follows up with application of appropriate 

remedies, including potential changes to speed limits to rectify inconsistencies and improve 

safety. Remedies may include design and engineering changes as well as application of 

enforcement and educational measures. 

85th percentile speed – The speed at or below which 85 percent of vehicles travel.

 

10 The KABCO injury severity scale was developed by the National Safety Council. More information is available on 

FHWA’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) manual web pages including in the following section on 

project prioritization http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec4.cfm. The full HSIP manual is 

available here: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/fhwasa09029.pdf 
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

19

 Chapter 2. Speeding-related Safety Problems 

<Start Plan development with this chapter: the problem identification process.>

11

This chapter provides a brief description of the problem identification processes. It also 

describes the speeding-related safety problems and speed management issues identified 

through these processes. The safety problems are the targets for strategies and 

countermeasures outlined in Chapter 3. The general speed management issues and challenges 

are addressed through the Action Items and strategies outlined in the Plan as well as in some 

cases by specific countermeasures. 

2.1 Problem Identification 

<This section describes the types of analyses and other methods used to identify safety issues

and speed management problems.>

2.1.1 Data Used 

<Describe the data used for analyses and any limitations of the data available. (Descriptions of 

the data used may also be combined with analysis methods.)

 Crash data.

 Roadway inventory with road characteristics and traffic volume data.

 Spatial data such as land use data, jurisdictional overlays, etc.

 Speed data.

 Survey data – e.g. driver surveys about speeding, attitudes toward countermeasures, etc.

 Enforcement citation and conviction data.

Data limitations may include completeness, ability to identify speeding-related crashes, ability to 

match crashes to roadway sections; lack of traffic volume or other roadway characteristics in the 

roadway inventory file, or other factors that limit the ability to identify locations or other 

problem characteristics.>

 

11 Non-highlighted (plain) text is “boilerplate” text that may be general enough for use as is, or modified as needed.

- Text enclosed by <angle brackets>, and highlighted in yellow should be replaced with specific text for the 

jurisdiction Plan. Remove the highlights once jurisdiction information has replaced the generic content.

- Tables highlighted in light gray contain descriptions enclosed by angle brackets (< >) of specific types of Plan 

content with illustrative examples. These sections begin with action words (e.g. “Describe”, “Summarize”, 

“State,” etc.) for the Plan developers. These tables and text enclosed by angle brackets should also be adapted 

or removed from the Plan as the specific content for each section is developed.

- <Bracketed notes in italics emphasis, and also highlighted in light green> provide additional instructions or 

information that may useful to the Plan developers, and should also be removed from the final Plan.
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

20

2.1.2 Analysis Methods 

Crash analysis was used to identify general characteristics of the speeding and severe crash 

problems in the jurisdiction. Analysis of speed data or other measurement of the speeding 

problem was used to identify locations or area types where speeding above limits is also 

prevalent.

<Operating speed is a measure of risk associated with frequency of severe and fatal crashes. 

12>

<Summarize the analysis methods and what they were used for.

 Jurisdiction-wide analyses using crash data: Describe the years of data and types of 

analyses used to identify speeding-related crash trends and factors associated with 

significant proportions of speeding-related or severe crashes. These are issues that may 

be treated on a widespread basis, or form the basis for jurisdiction-wide enforcement 

and educational activities or uniform application of engineering measures.

 Analysis of speed data, survey or citation data, road safety audits, focus groups, etc., to 

identify issues with driver compliance with limits, enforcement, and design issues –

either jurisdiction-wide, or for particular areas.>

Network screening was used to identify<corridors/sections/intersections> with speedingrelated and severe crash problems. 

<The start of a systematic process to effectively allocate resources is to identify particular 

corridors, segments, intersections, or other zones that may have more than expected or a higher 

than average proportion of speeding-related or severe crashes for the type of road (for example, 

an undivided, multi-lane, urban arterial) or road section. Network screening is one process used 

to identify locations, such as road sections or corridors, where speeding may be contributing to 

crash and injury problems <see Appendix A>. The roads or areas identified through screening 

may be good candidates for further assessment of speeding-related safety problems and 

potential treatment.>

 

12 AASHTO (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials: 

Washington, DC. 
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

21

<Describe the analysis methods used to identify high crash zones or areas for systematic 

diagnosis and treatment: 

 Network screening or other analyses performed on subsets of the data. Provide a 

general description of the methods and the data used. Crash data and roadway 

inventory data are the most likely data sources, but land use and other types of spatiallydistributed data might also be used. Details documenting the approach used may be 

included in appendices if desired. 

Appendix A of this document and the Highway Safety Manual13will also assist in the network 

screening process. >

2.1.3 Other Problem Identification Processes 

<Describe other problem identification activities.

 Field assessments or Roadway Safety Audits14 could be used to identify speedingrelated safety problems.

 Other safety program analyses or plans may have already identified speeding-related 

crash problems or other speed management issues.

 Stakeholder interviews or meetings are also used to identify issues with speed limit 

setting, design and engineering, enforcement, and education-related speed 

management practices, policies, laws, or guidelines that have a bearing on utilization and 

effectiveness of speeding-related crash countermeasures.>

<2.2 Jurisdiction-wide <State/locality> Problems

This section characterizes crashes and injuries related to speeding, and identifies where and 

when crashes are concentrated or other significant aspects of the problem system-wide. 

2.2.1 Crashes and Injuries 

This section characterizes the crash and injury problem for the entire <State/locality>.

 

13 AASHTO (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. American Association of State Highway Transportation 

Officials: Washington, DC. 

14 See FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines (2006) and other resources on FHWA’s RSA webpages 

(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/). Include speed limit review and assessment of speeding-related safety issues as 

part of the audit process. 
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

22

<Describe the total crashes reported for the jurisdiction, the analysis period and other relevant 

information about the crash data. Provide an overview of:

 Number and percentage of total crashes that involved speeding.

 Number and percentage of various severity levels of crashes that involved speeding.

 If desired, include descriptors of urban or rural location, road classification or other 

jurisdictional types that are associated with the management and treatment of the 

problem.>

<Describe in more detail, the major findings identified from crash analyses of the problem. 

Detailed findings may be subset by area/jurisdictional type (rural or urban jurisdiction or 

ownership), road classification or function types, or other categories of interest.

Characterize the number and percentage of various factors associated with speeding and/or 

severe crashes within the desired subsets or jurisdictions. Factors that may be related to 

speeding include:

 Crash types.

 Crash location characteristics.

 Environmental conditions.

 Driver factors.

 Potentially, interactions of various factors.>

<Table 3 provides describes crash factors most associated with speeding-related or severe 

crashes in the Jurisdiction.>

Table 3. Crash Characteristics Associated with Speeding-related (SR) and Severe Crashes 

<Jurisdiction-wide OR Urban/Rural, etc., and analysis Period>. 

<Example only - other formats, variables, or multi-variable analyses may be preferred.>

Crash Characteristic

Number and Percent of

Speeding-related crashes

(total number)

Number and Percent of

Severe crashes

(total number)

Rural/urban location

Two-lane, undivided

Multi-lane, divided

Multi-lane, undivided

Crash at curve

Road/lane departure type

Dark (unlighted roadways)

Dark (lighted roadways) 

Crash at Intersection

Alcohol-involved

Wet roads

Teen driver
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

23

2.2.2 Prevalence of Speeding 

<This section describes the prevalence of speeding, driver or public attitudes toward speeding, 

and may include information about speeding from other plans, stakeholder input, or other 

measurement of the problem. Note that operating speed data are recognized as a safety 

surrogate measure because of the association with fatal and injury crashes.

15However, speed 

data may only be available for certain types of corridors or areas and may be included under 

other sub-headings if more appropriate.>

<Describe results characterizing the extent of the driver speeding problem, widespread 

speeding above limits, speeding in certain areas or on certain road types, the culture and 

political acceptance of speeding, etc. Include key findings from:

 Jurisdiction-wide speed trends such as from a monitoring program or other 

jurisdiction-wide representative sample. If there is no data, consider developing a 

speed data collection/monitoring program to track speeding trends and program 

progress.

 Summaries of information from multiple spot speed studies conducted in the area; 

targeted speed studies may also be used to help identify corridor-specific problems.

See next section.

 Driver surveys – attitudes, beliefs, self-reported speeding, attitudes toward 

enforcement, etc. from scientific surveys. If data are not currently being collected, 

consider collecting such data to better understand the problem and inform decisions 

about potential solutions.

 Input from Traffic Law Enforcement and other experts.

 Input from other Safety Plans or Programs (such as Safety Zone plans, Pedestrian 

Plans).>

2.2.3 Other Issues 

<This section describes other speed management or policy issues that affect the safety, 

credibility, and enforceability of speed limits, or the improvement, design, safe operation and 

maintenance of roads in ways to help reduce speeding-related injurious crashes and support 

strategic highway safety goals. Some issues identified may pertain more to certain road types 

(high crash corridors) or jurisdiction types (e.g. cities/counties) and may be included within any

subsections, as appropriate.>

 

15 AASHTO (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials: 

Washington, DC. 
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

24

 Speed limit setting issues. Appropriately set speed limits represent a concerted effort to 

balance safety and travel efficiency for all modes of travel. 

<This section describes current policies, practices and other issues that may limit effectiveness of 

speed limits as a safety measure.>

<Summarize issues with setting speed limits or with the compatibility of speed limits and 

designs with each other, or with road purposes, operations and land uses, and that are 

detrimental to the safety and credibility of speed limits:

 Speed limit setting methods (statutory and zoning) or other policies. Do the various 

methods used, number, and type of agencies involved, or other factors affect the 

consistency of outcomes (for similar roads) and safety of limits established?

 Driver, community, law enforcement, and other stakeholder perceptions about 

credibility and safety of limits established. These issues can themselves lead to 

safety problems.

 Is a collaborative process used to gain commitment of all partners/road safety 

agencies (local governments, state agencies, law enforcement agencies)?

 Is informed public opinion regarding the trade-offs of safety risks and mobility 

included in the process? Consider how safety is incorporated into methods used 

(including statutory and speed zoning), and whether outcomes may send mixed 

messages to drivers about safe operating speeds >

 Planning, design and other engineering problems. 

<This section describes planning, design, and engineering practices that may undermine speed 

limits as a safety countermeasure or reduce effective targeting of appropriate countermeasures.

Problems that may result include low credibility of speed limits leading to low levels of driver 

compliance, low levels of enforcement or high enforcement tolerances because many drivers 

exceed limits, or speed limits that are higher than safe operating or design speed. Perceptual 

issues may also undermine speed limits as a safety measure in general. For example, statutory 

limits may be perceived by drivers as too low for the road design and create challenges to 

enforcement, but be perceived locally as correct for the land use, number of conflict points, and 

purposes of the road.>

<Describe issues or problems with the following (and others):

 Planning and designing new/improved roads for the target operating speed and speed 

limit.

 Are intended limits and targeted operating speed set for new roads, with appropriate 

input, before design begins? 

 Is there systematic identification and prioritization of existing roads for speed limit 

and safety review, followed by implementing appropriate limits and supporting 

engineering and enforcement countermeasures? Do spot safety assessments 

regularly incorporate consideration of speeding and related crash issues?

 Implementing speed transition areas and speed zones from rural to developed areas. 

Do agencies work together to design effective speed transition zones?>
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

25

 Enforcement issues. 

<This section describes issues with the availability and commitment of enforcement resources, 

targeting of resources, publicity issues, support for technologies to aid enforcement, and 

support of enforcement by the courts to uphold swift and certain penalties for violations.>

<Describe issues or problems with:

 Amount, type, and location of enforcement. How much of the problem is targeted? Do 

resources go to where safety issues are greatest?

 Public and political support for enforcement in either rural or urban areas. Is there 

agreement among the public, local leaders, and local law enforcement officials? Are 

they well informed of safety issues and goals for enforcement of speed limits?

 Lack of support for or laws or policies that may limit use of other enforcement tools

(e.g. automated methods such as speed cameras). 

 Law enforcement commitment and ability to enforce limits established. 

 Adjudication or penalties for speeding citations. Are penalties consistently applied and 

appropriate to the offense?> 

 Public information and education issues. 

<This section characterizes problems with public communications and education of varied 

stakeholders about the risks of speeding and the importance of managing speed (road safety 

agencies and policy-makers) or obeying limits (drivers).>

<Describe issues with public communications and educating varied stakeholders about the risks 

of speeding and the importance of managing speed or obeying limits, including 

 Conveying the importance of managing the risks of speeding to decision-makers, law 

enforcement, and the public in order to make informed decisions.

 Gaining public buy-in for crash-reducing engineering, enforcement, and educational 

countermeasures. Is communication two-way? That is, are efforts made to garner public 

input, but also to communicate about the risks and address concerns about speed 

management countermeasures?

 Publicizing enforcement. How are speed enforcement programs publicized to improve 

driver compliance with limits and speed-deterrent effects of enforcement programs?>

2.3 High Crash <Corridor/Route/Roadway Segment/Intersection> Problems

<Results of Screening or Other Problem Identification

The next sections describe road/area types and problems that will be the focus of Plan’s 

Systematic diagnosis and treatment approach. These results are from network or other type of 

problem screening. The road types used may be changed as needed or as screening results 

suggest.

The first box in each section below (through the “Other Route Types” subheading) describes the 

problem extent (number and severity of crashes).
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

26

The second box in each section provides more detail on the type and nature of the problems 

from crash analysis, roadway safety audits, speed studies or other means. A few typical issues 

that may be present on these road types are included as examples, but analysis of crash 

problems and field diagnosis of each corridor or area will be needed to identify specific 

problems, and in Chapter 3, appropriate, alternate countermeasures.>

2.3.1 <Urban, Undivided, Multi-lane Corridors>

<Describe the number of , for example, undivided, multi-lane urban corridors identified for 

speed and safety review and what proportion of the speeding-related and severe crash problem 

is accounted for by the corridors.

 Number of corridors identified for speed and safety review out of total number of similar 

corridors.

 Percentage of total speeding-related crashes accounted for by corridors identified for 

speed and safety review out of total speeding-related crashes for all similar corridors.

 Percentage of severe/fatal crashes accounted for by corridors identified for speed and 

safety review out of total speeding-related crashes for all similar corridors.

 Mileage of corridors identified for speed and safety review out of total mileage of similar 

corridors. 

The list of corridors identified for speed and safety review may be included in the text or in a 

separate appendix or spreadsheets.>

<Describe speeding-related issues or crash problems on, for example, urban, multi-lane streets.

Typical problems observed or described in other resources include the following: 

 Transition speed zones from rural, high speed, to lower limits may be inadequate in 

length, or inadequately signed; or lower speed zones may be too long. 

 The road design, signs and markings may not change much from the high speed zone to 

the lower speed zone or adequately convey to drivers the need to slow or in extreme 

situations, there may be excess capacity/ too many lanes/too much width, so that the 

road looks like a rural highway. Speed limit credibility may be affected.

 Inadequate separation by mode, weight, and speed of traffic may result in wide speed 

variation within a corridor (at the same time). There may be inadequate provision of 

turn lanes for slowing vehicles. There may also be few pedestrian or bicycle amenities 

including places to walk, cycle or safely cross multi-lane roads separated from higher 

speed traffic.>
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

27

2.3.2 <Urban, Two-lane Corridors>

<Describe the number of, for example, urban, two-lane corridors identified for speed and safety 

review and what proportion of the speeding-related and severe crash problem is accounted for 

by the group of corridors/areas planned for implementation (as for Urban, Undivided, 

Multilane). The actual list of corridors identified for speed and safety review may be included in 

the text or in a separate appendix or spreadsheets.>

<Describe the speeding-related issues or problem types on urban, two-lane streets. Typical 

problems observed or described in other resources include the following: 

 The street design and configuration may not change sufficiently from rural to more 

developed areas so that drivers perceive the appropriate driving speed. 

 Land use. Development and land use may change gradually or intermittently affecting 

the perception of appropriate speed.

 Transition speed zones. Rural high speed to urban low-speed transition speed zones 

may be too short/long or inadequately signed or change in land use may be gradual. 

 There may be a lack of separation or infrastructure for turning traffic, bicyclists, 

pedestrians (slower and unprotected), and transit users to travel along the street, and 

inadequate separation at crossing areas. Protected crossings and separate space to 

ride/walk become increasingly important as speeds climb above about 20 – 25 mph. 

 Local enforcement resources may be stretched and focused on higher-volume 

corridors.>

2.3.3 <Rural, Two-Lane Routes>

<Describe the number of two-lane, undivided rural corridors identified for speed and safety 

review and what proportion of the speeding-related and severe crash problem is accounted for 

by the corridors. The actual list of corridors identified for speed and safety review may be 

included in the text or in a separate appendix or spreadsheets.>
Chapter 2–Problem Description 

28

<Describe the speeding-related safety issues or problem types on rural, two-lane roads. A few of 

the typical problems include the following:

 Many rural two-lane routes are legacy roads were not designed to modern standards

and may include poor shoulders, trees, and other fixed objects near the roadway.

 Design exceptions. Travel speeds may exceed safe speed at curves, intersections with 

inadequate sight distance, etc.

 Crashes are widely dispersed: spot safety treatments may be needed at many locations 

or treatments may be inadequate to slow vehicles to a safe speed.

 There may be no space to separate bicyclists and pedestrians from higher speed traffic.

 Enforcement levels are likely low on lower-volume rural roads.>

2.3.4 <Other Route Types>

<Describe the number of any other route types to be included in the Plan (that were prioritized 

for speed and safety review) and what proportion of the speeding-related and severe crash 

problem is accounted for by the group of corridors planned for implementation. The actual list 

of corridors identified for speed and safety review may be included in the text or in a separate 

appendix or spreadsheets.>

<Describe speeding-related safety issues or problem types for other route types.>

2.4. <Other> Site-specific Crash Problems

<Describe other site-specific or area issues such as work zones, school zones, pedestrian safety 

zones or other area types with speeding-related and/or severe crash problems that may be a 

focus for further diagnosis and treatment. Are there problems that might be addressed through 

the action plan?>

Chapter 3 describes action items, strategies, and countermeasures for addressing the safety 

and speed management problems outlined in this chapter. 
29

Chapter 3. Action Items, Strategies and Countermeasures 

<Complete this chapter following chapter 2. 16 Identify alternate actions, strategies and 

countermeasures that might be used or needed to address identified problems. Developers of 

this chapter may reference the Speed Management Toolkit document for additional information 

on speed management strategies, and for crash modification factors (expected change in 

crashes) for specific countermeasures, as well as for more information about where and when to 

implement these countermeasures.>

This chapter describes alternate actions that may be used to address identified problems, select 

and implement strategies and countermeasures, and to systematically assess and treat the 

<routes/corridors/areas> identified through network screening or other means. This chapter 

also outlines alternate engineering and enforcement countermeasures that may be used to 

treat specific crash and safety problems. 

<3.1 Jurisdiction-wide> Speed Management Actions and Strategies

The main focus of <jurisdiction-wide> proactive plan actions will be to foster creation of 

appropriate and self-enforcing roadway designs over time by engaging to develop more 

collaborative and consistent policies, procedures and guidance in speed-limit setting and 

design. Speed limit setting should be undertaken early in the planning and design process in 

conjunction with other major decisions about the purpose and design of the road. Among 

considerations, careful attention should be given to the current and future land uses and safety 

and mobility needs of the users considering the road’s purpose in the network for each mode of 

travel. 

A key focus of <jurisdiction-wide> comprehensive strategies is to build support among the 

public and law enforcement community to enforce and support established limits and to

improve enforcement effectiveness in targeting and reducing serious crashes due to speeding. 

Enforcement and publicity are especially needed to supplement design and engineering when 

road designs or limits cannot be changed, or design and engineering measures are insufficient 

to achieve the safer operating speeds. It may also be desirable to engage with other 

stakeholders to seek changes in policies that may limit the use of effective tools or make other 

 

16

 - Non-highlighted (plain) text is “boilerplate” text that may be general enough for use as is, or modified as 

needed. 

- Text enclosed by <angle brackets>, and highlighted in yellow should be replaced with specific text for the 

jurisdiction Plan. Remove the highlights once jurisdiction information has replaced the generic content.

- Tables highlighted in light gray contain descriptions enclosed by angle brackets (< >) of specific types of Plan 

content with illustrative examples. These sections begin with action words (e.g. “Describe”, “Summarize”, 

“State,” etc.) for the Plan developers. These tables and text enclosed by angle brackets should also be adapted 

or removed from the Plan as the specific content for each section is developed. 

- <Bracketed, italicized notes, also highlighted in light green> provide additional instructions or information that 

may useful to the Plan developers, and should also be removed from the final Plan.
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

30 

policy changes (e.g., increase funding for enforcement, authorize use of certain technologies, or 

others).

Tables 4, 5, and 6 describe three Action Items and related strategies that the <State, Counties 

and other partners may use to address the jurisdiction-wide and other speed management 

issues identified in Chapter 2. Most of the strategies outlined in Tables 4 through 6 do not have 

proven crash reduction or safety effects, but flow from best speed management principles or 

provide the framework for a sustainable speed management program, particularly for a Toward 

Zero Death approach.>

<Examples are given in Tables 4, 5, and 6. The Action Items, Strategies, and Problems should be 

adapted or modified as appropriate.>
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

31

Table 4. Communications Action and Strategies to Address <Jurisdiction>-wide Safety and Speed 

Management Issues.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Potential Proactive and Comprehensive Action Items

Frame the Speeding and Safety Problem and develop a Public Information and Education Program to 

build support for effective policies and comprehensive strategies, to seek and leverage funding, and to 

improve effectiveness of enforcement and engineering countermeasures. (Comprehensive approach)

Strategies that may be Used Issues to be Addressed

 <Conduct surveys or other data collection to gather 

information about speeding behavior, or public attitudes 

and support for different types of strategies. See Speed 

Management: Road Safety Manual for Decision-makers 

and Practitioners.

17

 Improve communications about the safety reasons for 

speed management efforts to increase support for 

effective policies and strategies. See Adding Power to Our 

Voices: A Framing Guide for Communicating about Injury, 

by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

18

 Seek support for technologies to improve enforcement 

reach and effectiveness (example automated 

enforcement methods). See Automated Enforcement for 

Speeding and Red Light Running. NCHRP Report 729 for 

more information about best practices.

19

 Use publicity and education to enhance speed-deterrent 

effects of enforcement programs. (See Countermeasures 

That Work 20 and other resources for the types of 

programs that are likely to be effective, or seek technical 

assistance. Also see Keys to Communication Success tip 

sheets in the Speed Management Toolkit document.)>

 <Lack of support or difficulty in 

setting or garnering support for

appropriate speed limits, 

enforcement strategies, or 

engineering strategies (e.g. road 

diets, roundabouts).

 Widespread speeding above limits.

 Limited publicity of enforcement 

diminishes population-wide 

deterrent effects.

 Policies or funding priorities that 

limit speed enforcement.

 Challenges to enforcing in certain 

areas.

 Fines from enforcement efforts do 

not return to speed management 

or traffic safety programs.

 Political and administrative 

challenges to implement consistent 

adjudication of speeding violations.

 Legal or other barriers to 

implementing automated 

enforcement.

 Address specific prevalent types of 

speeding-related crashes including 

Too Fast for Conditions types 

(road/lane departures, wet 

weather, school zones, teen 

drivers, etc.).>

 

17Speed Management: Road Safety Manual for Decision-makers and Practitioners. (2008). Geneva: Global Road 

Safety Partnership. Available at: http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/speed_manual/en/ 

18 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Adding Power to Our Voices: A Framing Guide for 

Communicating about Injury. Atlanta, GA: US Department of health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention; 2008 (revised March 2010). http://www.cdc.gov/injury/framing
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

32

Table 5. Setting Speed Limits Action and Strategies to Address <Jurisdiction>-wide Safety and Speed 

Management Issues.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Potential Proactive and Comprehensive Actions

Develop a State and local task force to engage on speed limit setting and safety. Efforts may focus on 

obtaining public input, speed limit setting goals and outcomes, methods (statutory and engineering), 

collaboration, processes, protocols and guidance needed to improve safety, consistency, and 

credibility of outcomes. (Comprehensive and Proactive)

Strategies that may be Used Issues to be Addressed

 <Seek public input regarding speed 

limit priorities. 

 Provide outreach on impacts of speeds 

and speed limits on safety.

 Develop a collaborative speed limit 

setting process among State and local 

stakeholders.

 Develop guidance and procedures for 

setting more uniform speed limits for 

different land uses and road types. See 

Methods and Practices for Setting 

Speed Limits: An Informational 

Report.

21

 Conduct outreach/training to decisionmakers and/or practitioners.>



 <Speeds too high/low for local priorities and concerns.

 Mismatch of road designs, speed limits, and user 

needs.

 Varied methods, decision-processes, and outcomes in 

setting speed limits which may affect safety of limits 

implemented.

 Poor credibility of speed limits on some roads or 

locations (e.g. work zones with no workers present), 

which may lead to general lack of speed limit 

credibility.

 Difficulty in enforcing speed limits where inferred 

design speed or actual design speed is significantly 

higher than limit. 

 Lack of agreement among jurisdictions about 

appropriate speed limits on similar road types.>

 

19 Eccles, K.A., R. Fiedler, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, and G. Hansen (2012). Automated Enforcement for Speeding and Red 

Light Running. NCHRP Report 729, Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. 

http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/167757.aspx 

20 NHTSA (2011). Countermeasures that Work. Publication no. DOT HS 811 444, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/countermeasures.html 

21 Forbes, G.J., Gardner, T., McGee, H., and Srinivasan, R. (2012). Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: 

An Informational Report. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

33

Table 6. Plan/Design for Speed Management (Action and Strategies) to Address <Jurisdiction>-wide 

Safety and Speed Management Issues.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Potential Proactive and Comprehensive Action Items

Develop an inter-agency speed and safety assessment process to review plans, designs, and 

implementation to ensure that new projects meet sound speed management design and operations 

principles for the area land uses and intended purposes of the road. (Proactive)

Strategies that may be Used Issues to be Addressed

 <Coordinate with transportation and land use plans in setting 

limits and designing roads.

 Set or revise speed limits early in the new project process.

 Set performance measures for safety as well as mobility.

 Consider specific designs, signs, and markings to apply to 

similar road types throughout jurisdiction (self-explaining 

designs).

 Utilize tools such as the Interactive Highway Safety Design 

Model (IHSDM)22 to evaluate design consistency and estimate 

safety and operational performance of design alternatives. 

 Conduct speed and safety reviews (such as a road safety 

audit)23 of all new and pending plans/designs to ensure that: 

- Design is matched to elicit speeds close to the intended 

speed limit (self-enforcing). 

- Operations features are coordinated with target speeds.

- Design and operations separate different weight and speed 

of users on roads with moderate or high limits and target 

operating speeds. 

 Prioritize speed-managing designs (such as roundabouts, fewer 

lanes, narrower lanes, shifting alignments) that will have longlasting effects when designing non-freeway roads.

 Review policies, procedures and implementation for signing 

and managing and enforcing work zone speed zones. 

 Review policies, procedures and implementation for 

establishing, signing and enforcing school zones. 

 Consider variable speed limits for new / improved freeways.

 Consider lane/demand management options to manage 

freeway flows.>

 <Operating speeds that are 

incompatible with 

operational or geometric 

features.

 Designs and operating speeds 

that are incompatible with 

user needs and area land 

uses.

 Reactive approach to 

identifying problems and 

providing safety treatments 

not as effective as initial good 

design. 

 Lack of self-enforcing / selfexplaining roadway designs.

 Difficulty in enforcing speed 

limits where inferred design 

speed or actual design speed 

is significantly higher than 

speed limit.

 Inconsistent design or design 

exceptions that contribute to 

unsafe speeds and crashes at 

those locations. 

 Reactive approach to 

managing speed and 

providing safety treatments 

not as effective as initial good 

design.>

 

22 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). Available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/projects/safety/comprehensive/ihsdm/

23 See the Speed Management Toolkit for links and resources on Road Safety Audits (RSA) and speed managing 

designs. 
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

34

Specific opportunities to implement proactive actions and strategies include the following: 

<Enumerate particular types of projects, or specific projects, programs, or training 

 that may be used to develop and pilot a new process for speed limit setting and design 

of new roads.

 to use to disseminate methods or training on speed limit setting protocols.

 to implement other strategies as appropriate.>

3.2 Actions, Strategies, and Countermeasures to Address High Crash <Corridors / Zones 

or Sites>

As mentioned, the systematic approach is the process used to identify, prioritize, and treat 

existing safety and speed management problems by corridors or other areas in a cost-effective 

manner. <Tables 7, 8, and 9> describe three potential Action Items that may be used to 

implement a systematic approach to treating corridors or other areas of concern. The Action 

Items again provide an organizational framework for selecting and developing cost-effective 

treatment packages of countermeasures. The systematic approach to diagnose and treat 

speeding-related problems <can be applied to the corridors/segments/intersections, etc. 

identified through network screening, or through other screening processes (e.g., significant 

change in traffic volume, or land use change)> to target measures where they are most needed 

and will have the most cost-effective safety impacts. 
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

35

Table 7. Systematic Action and Strategies to Address Speeding and Severe Crashes in High Crash 

<Corridors / Zones.> 

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Systematic Actions

Develop team and schedule to develop and implement a systematic speed and safety 

treatment prioritization process. (Systematic approach)

Strategies that may be Used Issues to be Addressed

 <Conduct network screening to prioritize roads (corridors, 

roadway segments, intersections) with potential speeding-related 

safety issues; or develop regular schedule or other process.

 Conduct speed and engineering studies and additional diagnosis 

steps for prioritized list.

 Conduct road safety audits to aid in problem diagnosis. 

 Develop corridor treatment plan. As part of the diagnosis and 

treatment development process:

- Involve law enforcement and other local stakeholders.

 Prioritize an injury minimization approach to setting speed limits.

 If changing the limit is an option

- Determine the appropriate limit.

- Assess credibility of the speed limit to drivers and other 

stakeholders.

- Determine what changes can be made to the roadway to 

improve safety and credibility of the proposed limit.

- Determine what other safety improvements are needed – e.g., 

on higher speed roads, are safer pedestrian crossings needed?

- Determine whether enhanced enforcement is needed to 

improve compliance with limits (including any changed limits).

 Apply consistent/similar countermeasures to similar 

location/problem types. 

 Take advantage of maintenance and operations opportunities to 

make design or engineering improvements.>

<This systematic approach 

should be used for each of 

the prioritized problem 

corridors /areas identified 

through network screening –

e.g., undivided, multi-lane, 

urban streets; undivided, 

two-lane urban streets; and 

undivided, rural, two-lane 

routes and to prioritize 

appropriate treatments for 

the safety issues identified.>
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures

36

Table 8. Enforcement and Publicity Action and Strategies to Address Speeding and Severe Crashes in

High Crash <Corridors / Zones.>

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Systematic Actions

Develop and implement a sustainable, high visibility enforcement and adjudication program. Target 

more of the network where serious crashes occur. (Comprehensive treatment in conjunction with 

Systematic approach) 

Strategies that may be Used Issues to be Addressed

 <Develop a sustainable, but randomly allocated high 

visibility enforcement plan targeting corridors or areas 

with high frequencies of severe crashes and speeding. 

 Cover as much of the network where serious crashes 

occur as feasible to increase deterrence.

 Use visible enforcement and Publicize the enforcement.

 Create speed safety zones (e.g. schools, neighborhoods).

 Coordinate with law enforcement to focus on high crash 

roads where engineering changes cannot be 

implemented in the near term or are insufficient to 

address the problems. 

 Supplement highly visible enforcement with covert 

methods. Publicize these to increase perception that 

enforcement may be encountered anywhere, anytime.

 Tighten adjudication of citations for targeted corridors 

and publicize the effort. 

 Enhance deterrent effects of any type of speed 

enforcement program with publicity.

 Implement automated enforcement with civil penalties in 

areas where supplemental or continuous enforcement is 

needed.

 Publicize any type of enforcement strategy/program.>

 <Widespread speeding above 

limits.

 Difficulty maintaining special or 

enhanced enforcement programs 

due to resource limitations.

 Impact of short-term, highvisibility efforts lasts only while 

program in place.

 Insufficient enforcement 

resources.

 Challenges enforcing in certain 

areas or times.

 Widespread plea agreements and 

low conviction rate for many 

violators who contest charges in 

court. Driver records may 

therefore not reflect risk and 

drivers may escape more severe 

sanctions.

 Speeding in school zones, 

neighborhoods, or along routes 

used by children, elderly, 

pedestrians, or cyclists.>
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

37

Table 9. Systematic Speed and Safety Review within HSIP and other Safety Plans and Programs. 

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Systematic Actions

Implement speed and safety reviews within the HSIP program, and coordinate with other transportation 

safety plans. (Systematic)

Strategies that may be Used Issues to be Addressed

 <Incorporate routine review of speed limits and 

diagnosis of speeding issues into other safety 

programs and transportation plans including modal 

plans.

 Assess whether corridor-level speed management 

issues are contributing to spot safety problems.

 Implement corridor or area-wide speed reviews 

and speed management countermeasures if 

needed to supplement spot safety improvements.

 Coordinate with law enforcement to supplement or 

provide enhanced enforcement before engineering 

measures can be implemented.>

 <Speeding at intersections.

 Roadway/lane departure crashes (frequent 

speeding-related types).

 Pedestrian safety and mobility problems; 

inappropriate speeds in pedestrian areas. 

Few places to safely cross.24

 Bicycle safety and mobility problems; 

difficulty for bicyclists to share higher speed 

roads; difficult crossings, turns, etc.25

 Spot safety problems related to speeding.>

The next three sections describe effective countermeasures that may be selected and 

implemented through the Systematic Approach Action Items to address speeding-related and 

speed management problems on the <Plan focus road types. Recall that the corridor screening 

approach included / did not include intersection crashes within the corridor analyses, and 

treatment of intersections is considered within each corridor type.> 

Measures that reduce travel speeds may be expected to have effects on reducing the 

occurrence of more severe crashes of all types. Although individual diagnosis and treatment 

decisions should be performed for each corridor or area, application of more uniform designs, 

markings, and other proven treatments for similar area and road types may be helpful toward 

achieving more self-enforcing and self-explaining road designs. Such treatment could improve 

consistency of the message to drivers about safe speeds in similar land use and roadway 

contexts and help improve overall driver perception of safe and appropriate speeds. 

 

24 Consult with partner agencies and relevant safety plans. Also see Nabors et al., 2007. Pedestrian Road Safety 

Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists. Report no. FHWA-SA-07-007, Washington, D.C.: FHWA 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09027/190.htm 

25 Consult with partner agencies and relevant safety plans. Also see Nabors et al., 2012. Bicycle Road Safety Audit 

Guidelines and Prompt Lists. Report no. FHWA-SA-12-018, Washington, D.C.: FHWA 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/ 
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

38

<Use the below sections and/or the road or area types identified in Chapter 2 (problems). 

Consult the Speed Management Toolkit or approved State resources for more information on 

alternate countermeasures or solutions. The Countermeasures section of the Speed 

Management Toolkit contains CMF estimates for a number of countermeasures that have 

substantial, quality evidence that they can achieve reductions in crashes or travel speeds.>

3.2.1 Countermeasures for <Urban, Multi-Lane Corridors>

Although <urban multi-lane corridors (not access-controlled)> may account for lower overall 

proportions of more severe crashes and speeding-related crashes compared to total crashes

than some other road types, the crashes may also be condensed over a relatively smaller

number of miles of roadway, since urban corridors may carry higher volumes of traffic. Speed 

management measures applied to these roadways may be cost-effective per mile of roadway 

treated, even if speeding crash rates (per vehicle miles travelled) are lower than on other types 

of roads. The availability of speed-controlling and crash-reducing countermeasures for urban 

(even if it is a small town or urban area) situations also increases the feasibility of treating 

speeding-related crashes on such routes. Some of these streets also tend to serve a variety of 

important functions from carrying through traffic to providing local access to homes, schools 

and businesses.

<If the limit can be changed, road safety reviews will consider whether the speed limit or the 

extent of a speed zone should be changed. A multi-disciplinary team may be used to perform a 

road safety audit in conjunction with the speed engineering study. See the bibliography in the 

Speed Management Toolkit for more information. Also see the Speed Management Toolkit

document for more information on potential effectiveness of countermeasures.>

<In conjunction with any change in the limits (including possible changes in the length or extent 

of a special speed zone), determine and describe what changes to the roadway are needed to 

support the new limit. Countermeasures for urban, multi-lane, undivided corridors and their 

intersections include (but are not limited to): 

 Implement road diets (conversions of regular traffic lanes to other uses such as parking 

or bike lanes). 

 Implement gateway treatments and traffic calming treatments.

 Provide separated turning lanes, median separation/refuges, sidewalks and bikeways,

and controlled crossing opportunities on roads that carry higher volume and speed of 

traffic.

 Enforcement and related communications will supplement or complement design and 

engineering improvements.

26>

 

26 Expected safety effects of some enforcement measures are described in the Toolkit. More information is also 

available in the NCHRP Guide for Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes and Countermeasures That Work. See also 
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

39

3.2.2 Countermeasures for <Urban, Two-lane Corridors>

If the limit can be changed, road safety reviews will consider whether the speed limit or the 

extent of a speed zone should be changed. 

<A multi-disciplinary team may be used to perform a road safety audit in conjunction with the 

speed engineering study. See the bibliography in the companion Speed Management Toolkit for 

more information. Also see the Speed Management Toolkit for more information on potential 

countermeasures effectiveness.>

<Determine and describe alternate design, engineering and enforcement countermeasures for 

urban, two-lane streets. Countermeasures for urban, two-lane corridors and their intersections 

include (but are not limited to): 

 Use roundabout (or mini-roundabout) intersection designs to slow speeds at 

intersections. 

 Add gateway treatments at rural to urban transition areas. 

 Add traffic calming measures – creative design approaches may be needed. 

 Provide separated space for pedestrians and bicycle facilities (to walk or ride) and 

crossing treatments on busier—and especially higher-speed—corridors.> 

3.2.3 Countermeasures for <Rural, Two-Lane Routes>

Calming speeds on rural, two-lane roads and conveying safe speed for conditions is a significant 

challenge, given the many miles of roadway and the relatively widely dispersed nature of the 

problem. In addition, problems and design issues are frequent since most rural two-lane routes 

across the country were not designed to modern standards but to provide access to all rural 

locations and to nearby towns and cities. Since only routes with the most severe crash histories 

and higher traffic volumes are likely to receive significant upgrades and redesign, or even 

receive spot safety treatments in any given year, enforcement and publicity campaigns are 

important components of a comprehensive approach to reduce speeding-related crashes on 

rural roads. 

<If the limit can be changed, road safety reviews will consider whether the speed limit or the 

extent of a speed zone should be changed. A multi-disciplinary team may be used to perform a 

 

Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures, NCHRP Report 622 and other resources listed in the 

Countermeasures Toolkit references for more information on how to develop effective enforcement and publicity 

programs. 
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures 

40

road safety audit in conjunction with the speed engineering study. See the bibliography in Speed 

Management Toolkit for more information.>

3.2.4 Countermeasures for <Other Route Types>

<Determine and describe alternate design, engineering and enforcement countermeasures for 

other route types.>

3.2.5 Countermeasures for School Zone/Work Zone /Other Site-specific Crash Problems 

<Determine and describe alternate design, engineering and enforcement countermeasures for 

site-specific crash problems.>

3.2.6 Coordination with Spot Safety and Other Safety Plans and Programs 

A pragmatic approach to speed management will utilize all possible ways to systematically 

implement speed and safety review and speed managing improvements within other safety 

programs, including the HSIP and any other spot safety programs. In addition, it may be 

prudent to incorporate speed and safety, along with multi-modal user assessments, into 

planned maintenance and operations improvement programs. 

<If there is not already routine practice of conducting speed studies and speed limit review, and 

seeking input from law enforcement about the role speeding may play in spot safety issues, 

determine how such practices might be implemented.>

Other transportation plans and safety action plans, including modal plans, should be consulted 

to ensure that speed management measures and priorities are coordinated with overall safety 

and mobility goals for each jurisdiction/area. Countermeasures may serve multiple goals 

through good coordination. 

3.2.7 High Crash <Corridors or Zones> Crash Reduction Targets

This section describes initial crash reduction targets for developing and implementing 

<corridor> treatment plans for a prioritized list of high crash <corridors/areas/sites.> 
Chapter 3–Actions, Strategies, Countermeasures

41

<Once the focus (the types and number of corridors or other area types) and crashes targeted

and the extent of planned treatment implementation is determined, estimate a goal or target 

for crash reductions for each road/area type or treatment type, and the associated economic 

or comprehensive crash cost savings for the total package. Use State/ Local (if available) or 

national estimates of monetary or comprehensive crash costs.

 Target Crash Reductions for Urban, Undivided, Multi-lane Corridors.

 Target Crash Reductions for Urban, Two-lane Streets.

 Target Crash Reductions for Rural, Two-lane Routes.

 Target Crash Reductions for Other Route Types.

 Target Crash Reductions for OtherSite Specific Problems.

 Crash Reductions that may be achieved through Other Safety programs.>

The cost economic benefits of full implementation of this Plan are estimated to be:

<Insert a description of the expected economic benefits of implementing the Plan strategies and 

countermeasures for the extent of planned implementation.>

<The Highway Safety Manual and FHWA have information on methods to conduct an economic 

analysis. See one example, in Table 18, in Appendix B, of a cost-benefit assessment for one 

countermeasure that might be implemented on a number of corridors.>

Table 10. Economic Analysis for Speed Management Action Plan Countermeasures. 

<Plan developers add table content.>

Crash Types / 

Severity

Expected 

Crashes 

with No 

Treatment

% 

Expected 

Crash 

Reductions

Five-year 

Crash 

Savings27

Avg. Monetary 

costs (State / local 

cost estimates)

Five-year Crash-cost 

savings*

Total crashes 

Fatal, disabling, 

evident injuryseverity crashes

*It may be reasonable to include more years of savings if the countermeasures will have a longer useful 

life.

 

27 The number of years of crash savings would depend on the expected useful life of the project, and the Planning 

period used for long/short term goals.
42

Chapter 4. Multi-year Implementation Plan

<Complete this chapter following chapter 3.28 Plan developers may select or adapt the 

appropriate implementation actions and strategies listed under each Action Item included 

below. As a follow-up in the process, specific performance measures should be developed to 

evaluate the overall Plan, strategies and individual countermeasures.

Appendix B includes additional information that may aid in developing and organizing 

implementation.>

Speeding is a complex issue that interacts with varied human cultural, economic and political, 

environmental, and roadway issues. Because of the inherent relationship between speed and 

severe crashes and fatalities, speed management should be a central tenet of a road safety 

program that aims to reduce fatalities and injuries. This chapter describes a Plan of Action Items 

to enable State and local stakeholders to arrive at locally-acceptable solutions to better manage

speed appropriate to conditions and to reduce speeding-related crashes and serious injuries. 

Commitment to sustain a cooperative approach to speed management that balances safety and 

mobility goals, to Plan implementation, and to consider varied points of view by all partners is 

essential to success. Input from non-traditional partners such as injury prevention experts and 

two-way communications with the public stakeholders may also be essential to communicate 

the need for speed management, to build support, and to implement strategies that a majority 

of the public (all transportation stakeholders) deems appropriate. The sections following the 

Action Items outline more details for ranking and selecting specific countermeasures, and for 

implementing, evaluating and renewing the Plan. 

4.1 Detailed Proposed Implementation Actions 

This section outlines speed management actions <the Speed Management Task Force/ State 

DOT/County /City/Stakeholder Group> elected to use to reduce serious injury crashes. Each of 

the tables below provides strategies and implementation steps for the action items, as detailed 

in Chapter 3. This list was developed <with input from stakeholders and describes 

organizational roles, potential strategies, and countermeasures, and implementation steps for 

each Action Item>. 

 

28 Non-highlighted (plain) text is “boilerplate” text that may be general enough for use as is, or modified as needed.

- Text enclosed by <angle brackets>, and highlighted in yellow should be replaced with specific text for the 

jurisdiction Plan. Remove the highlights once jurisdiction information has replaced the generic content.

- Tables highlighted in light gray contain descriptions enclosed by angle brackets (< >) of specific types of Plan 

content with illustrative examples. These sections begin with action words (e.g. “Describe”, “Summarize”, 

“State,” etc.) for the Plan developers. These tables and text enclosed by angle brackets should also be adapted 

or removed from the Plan as the specific content for each section is developed.

- <Bracketed notes in italics emphasis, and also highlighted in light green> provide additional instructions or 

information that may useful to the Plan developers, and should also be removed from the final Plan.
Chapter 4–Action Plan

43

<Again, Plan developers should select and modify the following Action Items and strategies as 

needed to reflect problems and priorities determined through the Plan development and 

prioritization process. The Action Items listed address common speed management issues and 

should match those developed in Chapter 3. The adopted Action Items may be included in 

Chapter 1, the Plan summary table (currently Table 1).>

Table 11. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 1.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Action Item 1

Frame the Speeding and Safety Problem through a Public Information and 

Education Program to build support for effective policies and comprehensive 

strategies, to seek and leverage funding, and to improve effectiveness of 

enforcement and engineering countermeasures. (Comprehensive approach)

Lead <Injury prevention (e.g. State Public Health Dept., Injury Prevention office)>

Others needed <Others: DOT Communications and Safety Offices, Courts representatives DA’s 

office, Law Enforcement, Emergency responders and medical profession, 

Insurance industry, other business and private partners>

Timeline <5 – 8 years>

Strategies

(Comprehensive)

 <Ensure that speed limits, including statutory maximums, are wellcommunicated to drivers.

 Improve and increase communications about the safety reasons for 

effective policies and strategies to improve public and political support.

 Seek additional funding to increase enforcement in rural and urban areas. 

 Increase publicity and visibility/conspicuity of enforcement to enhance 

deterrent effects. 

 Work toward gaining State authority to utilize automated (photo) speed 

enforcement as an enforcement tool.

 Draw on local creativity and resources (schools, businesses, partners such 

as Community Transportation Partners) to support and develop locallytailored education, awareness, and enforcement strategies to enhance 

speed-deterrent effects of enforcement programs and potentially to target 

some of the top crash issues (rural, curves, nighttime).>

Implementation 

steps

A. <Recruit appropriate stakeholder partners for communications task force.

B. Schedule first meeting.

C. Set future meeting schedule and agenda.

D. Coordinate with Action Item Planning Group 1.

E. Set objectives and determine related performance measures.

F. Determine strategies and programs.

G. Implement strategies and programs.

H. Document outcomes.>
Chapter 4–Action Plan

44

Table 12. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 2.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Action Item 2

Develop a State task force to engage on speed limit setting and safety, 

improving consistency of outcomes, and restoring credibility of speed limits

(Proactive and Comprehensive approaches). Training and outreach, data 

collection and policies and guidelines may be addressed through this Action 

Item. (Proactive)

Leadership <State/local DOTs and Injury Prevention offices>

Others needed <law enforcement, judicial officials, public and private stakeholders, and 

elected officials, as appropriate>

Schedule <1 - 5 years>

Strategies 

(Comprehensive 

and Proactive) 

 <Set appropriate speed limits for the roadway design, context, and users to 

improve safety, enforceability and credibility of speed limits on new and 

existing roads. 

 Develop a collaborative speed limit setting process with local governments 

and law enforcement. 

 Take public concerns into consideration to balance safety and mobility.>

Implementation 

steps

A. <Recruit appropriate stakeholder representatives to task force.

1) Consider separate workgroups to focus on urban (city), rural (county), 

and freeway limits.

2) Consider work zone limits and implementation.

3) Review speed setting requirements/guidelines/strategies in use by 

other states, cities, counties, including any written procedures or 

manuals. 

4) Include adequate public and varied safety stakeholder input to increase 

support for the program.

B. Schedule first meeting.

C. Set future meeting schedule and agenda.

D. Coordinate with Action Item Planning Groups 1 and 3 (potentially others).

E. Determine strategies and processes.

F. Set objectives. Determine performance measures.

G. Implement strategies and processes.

H. Document outcomes.>
Chapter 4–Action Plan

45

Table 13. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 3.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Action Item 3

Develop an inter-agency speed and safety review process to assess land use 

and transportation plans, designs, and implemented projects to ensure that 

new and improved roads meet sound speed management design and safety 

principles for the area land uses and intended purposes of the street or 

highway. (Proactive approach)

Lead: <Centralized transportation planning office or planning organization>

Others needed <DOT: Transportation design, division or regional traffic engineering and 

planning offices, safety and mobility offices, bicycle and pedestrian 

planning/safety; city / county and local planning staffs; elected officials; law 

enforcement representatives, injury prevention experts >

Timeline <On-going>

Work underway <Incorporate into existing road planning or improvement projects processes.>

Strategies

(Proactive)

 <Coordinate with transportation and land use plans in setting limits and 

designing roads.

 Set or revise speed limits early in the new project planning process to 

provide adequate safety for the land use, road type, and users expected, 

and to determine appropriate design. 

 Conduct road safety audits of all new and pending projects, including 

maintenance and operations projects to ensure that: 

- Design is matched to elicit speeds close to the intended speed limit (selfenforcing).

- Operations features are coordinated with target speeds.

- Facilities are provided to separate different weight and speed of users 

on higher speed roads. 

 Prioritize designs in new projects that manage speeds such as narrower and 

fewer lanes, roundabout intersection designs, tight turn radii at 

intersections, and shifts in travel ways (context-dependent).>

Implementation 

steps

A. <Recruit appropriate stakeholder partners for communications task force.

B. Schedule first meeting.

C. Set future meeting schedule and agenda.

D. Coordinate with Action Item Planning Group 1.

E. Determine strategies and programs.

F. Set objectives. Determine performance measures.

G. Implement strategies and programs.

H. Document performance outcomes.>
Chapter 4–Action Plan

46

Table 14. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 4.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Action Item 4

Review existing speed limits, conduct additional diagnosis, and develop 

treatment plans for prioritized lists of problem corridors identified through 

network screening. (Systematic approach)

Lead <engineering safety and mobility; regional /divisional field units>

Others needed <DOT Division, municipal staffs and decision-makers, Regional Planning 

Organizations, Municipal Planning Organizations, , local law enforcement/law 

enforcement liaison, elected officials, courts officials>

Timeline <5 years>

Work Underway <Road Safety team visited a number of problem corridors and began diagnosis. 

RSA report summarizes findings and recommendations.>

Strategies

(Systematic)

 <Conduct speed and engineering studies and additional diagnosis steps as 

per all safety programs, but with some differences as described in text 

under Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures (next section).

 Consider an injury minimization approach to speed limit setting.

 Utilize the US Limits tool for expert guidance in speed limit setting for 

speed zones.

 Consider whether statutory maximum limits are appropriate for entire 

corridors or whether entire corridors or portions of corridors should be 

changed.

 Identify alternate, feasible countermeasures from the Speed Management

Toolkit and other resources. 

 Determine speed limit, design and engineering and enforcement plan for 

the corridor.>

Implementation 

steps

A. <Recruit appropriate stakeholder partners for task force.

B. Schedule first meeting.

C. Prioritize corridors for further diagnosis.

D. Establish diagnosis procedures – for example determine if independent RSA 

teams will be used to conduct audits.

E. Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures (see below).

F. Coordinate with planning group for Action Items 1, 3, 4, and 5, as 

appropriate.

G. Set objectives. Define performance measures.

H. Implement strategies and programs.

I. Document performance outcomes.>

Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures - Action Item 4.E. continued

Detailed steps for Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures for Action item 4, (systematic 

diagnosis and treatment of existing problems) include: 
Chapter 4–Action Plan

47

1) In coordination with other owners/stakeholders: Finalize priority list of routes or areas 

for speed and safety review. The lists for different corridor types and area type’s

roadway segments and intersections in the HSIP list, Road Departure Plan, and others 

could be coordinated with or even combined into one prioritization list if appropriate. In 

addition, more routes may be added if some on the lists have already been treated or 

upgrades are pending. 

2) Diagnose the problem for each corridor or focus area. See more on diagnosis in 

Diagnosis section.

 Along with speed and engineering studies, diagnosis may involve conducting 

Roadway Safety Audits in cooperation with local government and law 

enforcement. Consider hiring independent audit teams to conduct RSAs. 

 Determine the area (land use) and roadway context (purposes and users of the 

road, what types of conflicts and crashes may occur based on existing design).

 If changing the limit is an option, determine what speed limit should be set 

based on the roadway context, types of conflicts and crashes that may occur 

(injury/fatality risk).

 Assess credibility of the speed limit to drivers.

3) Again, in collaboration with other stakeholders, determine appropriate speed limit and 

whether changes in the limit for the corridor are warranted based on safety concerns, 

the road design, the environmental context, and considering enforcement and other 

concerns regarding speed limit credibility. Coordinate with local agency representatives. 

Assess rural to urban transition areas or other speed zone changes if relevant. 

4) Complete diagnosis and identify alternate countermeasures. If the recommendation is 

to change speed limits, consult and coordinate with local governments, stakeholders 

groups, law enforcement, judiciary and educators to implement. 

 Determine what design and engineering changes can be made to the roadway to 

improve credibility of the limit, and bring operating speeds more in line with 

desired limits (self-enforcing designs), reduce speed variance, or achieve other 

speed management objectives.

 Determine what other engineering safety improvements are needed.

 Determine whether enforcement enhancements are needed to increase 

compliance with limits (including any changed limits).

5) Conduct feasibility assessments (see below) on alternate measures.

6) Finalize the list of feasible countermeasures for the corridor or area. Combinations of 

multiple countermeasures may be needed. 

7) Identify funding sources and levels and perform economic assessments (see below) for 

alternate, feasible treatment options and priorities within each program/funding area.

8) Identify the most appropriate set of countermeasures for each corridor or location. 
Chapter 4–Action Plan

48

These steps are discussed in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Highway Safety Manual.

29

Feasibility Assessments. The intent of a feasibility assessment is to consider how likely the 

measure is to be implemented, and implemented well, taking financial and non-financial 

constraints and issues into consideration. This is also a time to consider opportunities exist to 

facilitate implementation. Some of the considerations may include:

 Barriers to implementation, local acceptability.

 Funding sources available.

 Current and future land uses along and near the corridor.

 Lifespan of the project.

 Applicability to multiple locations or need for consistent application of low-cost signs, 

markings, and design elements to improve driver comprehension and acceptance of 

limits.

 Potential for long-term improvement of compliance with speed limits (self-enforcing 

designs).

 Need for additional enforcement to supplement engineering measures.

Stakeholders may conduct feasibility assessment early in the Plan implementation process. For 

example, Plan implementers could select countermeasures and strategies that might be applied 

on a widespread basis to improve driver perceptions of appropriate speeds to drive on different 

types of roads. Such measures could then receive priority. 

Economic Assessments. The intent of the economic analysis is to compare the benefits and 

costs of alternative countermeasures using the most appropriate estimates of expected safety 

effects available, once the problems and feasible alternate solutions have been identified.

<Chapter 7 of the Highway Safety Manual30 has a detailed discussion on how economic 

assessments can be conducted. Table 18 in Appendix B provides one example for estimating the 

benefits of a road diet.>

Other economic considerations include overall funding allocation among different types and 

programs. In addition, consider the ability to implement speed management measures through 

planned maintenance or operations projects. Non-traditional funding sources may also be 

available to implement some types of improvements or programs. 

 

29 AASHTO, 2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. American Association of State Highway Traffic Safety Officials: 

Washington, DC.

30 AASHTO (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. 
Chapter 4–Action Plan

49

<The systematic approach may be strengthened by considering overall objectives of the 

program and whether systematic or system-wide application of similar measures to similar 

locations (if appropriate) may improve perception and speed selection by drivers. For example, 

greater consistency across a jurisdiction, or even across multiple jurisdictions, in application of 

speed limits, signs, markings, and designs may help to strengthen creation of self-enforcing, 

self-explaining roadways. Thus, measures for individual locations are perhaps best considered, 

not in isolation, but as part of an overall approach. Linkage of the systematic approach with 

proactive strategies and decisions about approaches may therefore also be important.>

Tables 15 and 16 also describe actions that will be part of a systematic approach to identifying, 

prioritizing, and determining appropriate treatments. These strategies include coordinating 

among analysts and diagnosticians, engineering, and enforcement to determine which roads 

would benefit most from supplemental/enhanced enforcement. Comprehensive enforcement 

and publicity strategies are also needed to increase system-wide deterrence of speeding. 

Finally, it is important that different agency types, organizational levels, and programs work 

together and communicate about other safety plans and goals that may benefit from a 

systematic approach to speed management. These actions are described in Table 16.
Chapter 4–Action Plan

50

Table 15. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 5.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Action Item 5

Implement a sustainable, high visibility enforcement and adjudication 

program. Target more of the network where serious crashes occur. 

(Comprehensive treatment in conjunction with Systematic approach) 

Lead <State or local department of public safety / highway patrol>

Others needed

<Others: DOT offices may assist with prioritization through systematic data 

analysis and review process; courts officials; injury prevention branch/agency, 

and communications experts>

Timeline <1 - 2 years to start-up; on-going implementation>

Strategies 

(Comprehensive)

 <Develop a sustainable, but randomly allocated high visibility enforcement 

to corridors with high frequencies of severe crashes and speeding. 

 Create safety zones with a package of treatments.

 Publicize the enforcement.

 Cover as much of the network where serious crashes occur as feasible.

 Coordinate with engineering and design to focus on roads where 

engineering changes cannot be implemented right away or are insufficient 

to address the problems. 

 Supplement highly visible enforcement with covert methods. Publicize 

these to increase perception that enforcement may be encountered 

anywhere, anytime.

 Target enforcement to hours and locations when severe crashes are 

concentrated.

 Tighten adjudication of citations for targeted corridors and publicize the 

effort. 

 Enhance deterrent effects of any type of speed enforcement program with 

publicity.

 Implement automated enforcement, along with civil penalties for 

speeding>. 

Implementation 

steps

A. <Recruit appropriate stakeholder partners for task force.

B. Schedule first meeting.

C. Set future meeting schedule and agenda.

D. Coordinate with Action Item Planning Groups 1, 4, and 5.

E. Determine strategies, policies, and procedures and implementation needs.

F. Set objectives. Define performance measures.

G. Implement strategies and programs.

H. Document outcomes.>
Chapter 4–Action Plan

51

Table 16. Strategies and Implementation Steps for Action Item 6.

<Plan developers adapt or modify table content.>

Action Item 6

Implement speed and safety reviews of roadway segments or intersections 

within the HSIP (spot safety) program, and coordinate with other 

transportation safety plans and programs. (Systematic approach). 

Lead <DOT safety & mobility offices/units or local agencies>

Others Involved <Others: traffic engineers, law enforcement agencies, bicycle and pedestrian 

transportation offices (esp. for urban areas), county/city transportation agency 

staff>

Schedule <3 – 5 years; longer term>

Work underway: 

Strategies

(Systematic)

 <Incorporate routine diagnosis of speeding issues into the HSIP program, 

Pedestrian and Bicycle safety programs, and the NC Roadway Departure 

Safety Plan implementation program.

 Assess whether corridor-level speed management issues are contributing to 

spot safety problems.>

Implementation 

Steps 

A. <Identify existing and needed opportunities for coordination.

B. Schedule meetings as needed or piggy-back on existing meetings

C. Identify needs including but not limited to:

1) Speed studies.

2) Data and project plan sharing.

3) Law enforcement assistance for particular corridors or areas.

4) Coordinating with the Systematic approach (Action Item 4).

5) Innovative strategies.

6) Research/evaluation needs.

D. Set objectives. Define performance measures.

E. Implement strategies and programs.

F. Document outcomes.>

Implementation Steps following Project Approval

Once treatment locations and countermeasures are approved, the following process steps 

should be performed:

 Design project(s) and allocate appropriate funding sources and/or pursue grants or 

private funding.

 Develop implementation schedule, assign tasks. 

 Finalize safety targets or other goals.

 Identify measures of effectiveness and develop evaluation plan. 

 Implement and complete evaluation.

 Communicate results to decision-makers and the public.
Chapter 4–Action Plan

52

More details of these and other implementation processes are described in the NCHRP Guide 

for Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes, Section VI.31

4.2 Evaluation Plan

The goals of this Plan are to reduce fatal and injury crashes and to improve speed compliance. 

The primary measures of program effectiveness are safety measures: 

- Changes in operating speed distributions (average speed, 85th percentile speed, 

percentage of speeders <_#_ > miles above limit).

- Changes in crash frequency and severity and changes in speeding-related crashes. 

The program will be evaluated with respect to changes in crashes, especially more severe 

crashes and speeding-related crashes compared with trends absent the program. Speed 

measurements provide earlier feedback than crash trends and are a good indicator of safety 

risk. 

The timing of crash-based evaluations will depend on when and how many measures are 

implemented, and the availability of sufficient years and number of crashes for evaluation. 

Additional technical assistance is available to help determine appropriate evaluation methods 

to control for other trends and safety programs. 

Plan evaluation. On-going tracking of actions and countermeasures implementation will also be 

used to help document program efforts and provide support for findings relating to the 

program. Near the end of the implementation period, perform an assessment of whether safety 

goals of the overall Plan were met. Communicate results to decision-makers and the public, and 

use results to help develop ambitious targets for an updated Plan. 

Countermeasures evaluation. It may be important to evaluate specific countermeasures to 

provide additional information about program effects as well as feedback about 

countermeasures effectiveness in the local context. 

<More information about Plan and countermeasures evaluation is included in Appendix B. Table 

19 provides an example Plan Evaluation Matrix that describes potential measures of 

effectiveness for different program elements. Table 20 describes countermeasures evaluation 

measures.

Consult with FHWA if additional technical assistance is needed.>

 

31 NCHRP. (2009). Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 23: A Guide 

for Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 

onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v23.pdf 
Chapter 4–Action Plan

53

4.3 Action Plan Update

The plan will be a working document, with additional implementation actions, schedules, and 

other updates incorporated as needed during the five-year plan period. 

<Near the end of five years, following the plan evaluation, update the Plan incorporating lessons 

learned from the evaluation and implementation experiences, as well as from an updated 

problem assessment.>
54

Appendix A. Supplemental Materials for Chapter 2

Network Screening for Speeding-related and/or Severe or Other Crash Types

<This Appendix is intended to be an aid and provides background on the identification of 

speeding-related safety problems for Chapter 2. Appendix A may be removed in its entirety from 

the Plan or replaced with more detail about analysis procedures actually used in Plan 

development and/or details of analysis results obtained.>

There are many ways to screen a network to identify corridors, intersections, or roadway 

segments that may need safety treatment. The more advanced methods make use of safety 

performance functions and the empirical Bayes (EB) method in order to identify segments. 

These advanced methods are intended to address potential bias due to regression to the mean 

(RTM). To use such methods, there is a need for traffic volume data for all segments in the 

network. For the purpose of screening for speeding-related crashes, it is suggested that crash 

severity, as well as available crash data definitions of speeding-related crashes be used, either 

together, or separately and combined during the ranking process. 

Network Screening using Crash and Other Data

This section provides an overview of a process that can be used for screening the network in 

evaluating the potential to reduce the number/severity of speed-related crashes. Based on the 

information provided in Chapter 4 of the recently published Highway Safety Manual, network 

screening involves five steps:

 Establish Focus.

 Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations.

 Select Performance Measures.

 Select Screening Method.

 Screen and Evaluate Results.

Establish Focus

This step identifies the intended outcome of the network screening. In our context, the intent is 

to identify locations with high number of speed related crashes that could benefit from 

different types of treatments. Speeding-related may include exceeding a safe speed for 

conditions and/or exceeding limits; severe crashes (may include fatal, disabling injury, and 

evident injury crash types or all injury types). Specific crash types or locations may also be used 

alone, or in combination with speeding-related and/or severe injury crash types.

Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations

This step refers to the types of sites and facilities that will be screened. The network/reference 

population may be decided based on which counties/facility types/conditions have a large 

number of speeding related crashes or rate of speeding related crashes (this will be evident 

from the tables that were produced earlier). 
Appendix A

55

Sites could be divided into:

 Roadway segments.

 Intersections.

 Interchanges.

 Corridors/facilities, etc. (In almost every State, there are corridors and routes that are 

not mileposted. Hence, it may not be possible to determine where exactly the crash 

occurred in these facilities without a detailed review of crash reports. However, it may 

still be possible to know that the crash occurred along that facility. So, for such facilities, 

the analysis could be done at the facility level.)

Depending on the performance measures that are selected (from the next step), there may be a 

need to group sites based on traffic control and number of legs, e.g., speeding related crashes 

at four-leg stop controlled intersections may be screened separately from three-leg signalized 

intersections.

Select Performance Measures

Chapter 4 of the Highway Safety Manual provides a discussion of 13 possible performance 

measures (they are presented in relative order of complexity, from least to most complex):

1. Average Crash Frequency.

2. Crash Rate.

3. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Average Crash Frequency.

4. Relative Severity Index.

5. Critical Rate.

6. Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Method of Moments.

7. Level of Service of Safety.

8. Excess Predicted Average Crash Frequency Using Safety Performance Functions (SPFs).

9. Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion.

10. Excess Proportion of Specific Crash Types. <such as speeding-related and/or severe>

11. Expected Average crash Frequency with EB Adjustment.

12. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Average Crash Frequency with EB Adjustment.

13. Excess Expected Average Crash Frequency with EB Adjustment.

The selection of an appropriate performance measure may depend on at least two factors: 

 Availability of data.

 Potential for Regression-to-the-Mean (RTM) bias.

Regarding availability of data, some of the measures require traffic volume data while others 

need calibrated safety performance functions (SPFs), which are mathematical equations that 

relate crash frequency with site characteristics including traffic volume. The other factor is the 

potential for bias due to regression toward the mean (RTM). RTM refers to the phenomenon 

when a period with a comparatively high crash frequency is observed, it is statistically probable 

that a lower crash frequency will be observed in the following period. The last three measures 

mentioned above make use of an approach called the empirical Bayes (EB) method in order to 
Appendix A 

56

account for the possible bias due to RTM. The use of the EB method requires the calibration of 

SPFs, which in turn require data on traffic volumes. Hence, for facilities without traffic volume 

data, the EB method cannot be applied. 

Table 17 (adapted from Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of the Highway Safety Manual) indicate the data 

needs for the different performance measures and whether a particular method accounts for 

the potential bias due to RTM. 

Table 17. Safety Performance Measures and Data Needs. 

Performance Measure

Needed Data Inputs

Accounts 

for bias 

due to 

RTM

Crash and 

Roadway 

Information 

for 

Categorization Traffic Volume

Safety 

Performance 

Function

1. Average Crash Frequency X No

2. Crash Rate X X No

3. Equivalent Property Damage 

Only (EPDO) Average Crash 

Frequency

X No

4. Relative Severity Index X No

5. Critical Rate X X No

6. Excess Predicted Average Crash 

Frequency Using Method of 

Moments

X X No

7. Level of Service of Safety X X X No

8. Excess Predicted Average Crash 

Frequency Using SPFs

X X X No

9. Probability of Specific Crash 

Types Exceeding Threshold 

Proportion

X N/A32

10. Excess Proportion of Specific 

Crash Types

X N/A

11. Expected Average Crash 

Frequency with EB Adjustment

X X X Yes

12. EPDO Average Crash Frequency 

with EB Adjustment 

X X X Yes

13. Excess Expected Average Crash 

Frequency with EB Adjustment

X X X Yes

 

32 N/A means not applicable. Unlike the other 11 measures, these two measures look at proportion of crashes and 

hence RTM is not an issue. 
Appendix A 

57

Select Screening Method 

The appropriate network screening method may depend on the type of facility being 

considered. For example, the screening method may be different for segments (roadway 

segment or ramp), nodes (intersection), and facilities/corridors (combination of segments and 

nodes). 

Screening methods for segments 

The simplest screening method for segments is to do a simple ranking where performance 

measures are calculated for all the segments under consideration and the results are ordered 

from high to low. 

Two other methods: sliding window and peak search methods are more sophisticated and can 

be used to identify locations within a segment that may benefit from a countermeasure. For the 

sliding window and peak search method to work, it is necessary to know where exactly a crash 

occurred (it is not sufficient to just know that a crash occurred in a particular segment). 

In the sliding window approach, a window of fixed length moves in defined increments and the 

calculations are performed at each window location. Each segment is characterized by the 

maximum value calculated at any window position within or overlapping the beginning or end 

of an adjacent segment. In so doing, there is an increased chance of detecting a high-risk site at 

the screening stage if the collision problem manifests itself in a window overlapping the 

adjacent site (Srinivasan et al., 2011). 

The second is the peak search approach. This approach makes use of incrementally growing 

window lengths that are selected so no windows span multiple roadway segments. The window 

starts at the left boundary of a road segment and increases in length incrementally until it 

reaches the end. At each increment, there is a specific window where an estimated collision 

count can be calculated. For example, a segment of 0.5 mile can produce windows with lengths 

of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 miles assuming an increment length of 0.1 mile. The window with 

the largest value of a particular measure is then tested for statistical significance. The test of 

significance is the coefficient of variation, CV, equal to the standard error of the estimate 

divided by the estimate. A limiting value of the CV is specified by the analyst, and values of CV 

below the limiting value pass the test. If the window passes the test then the entire road 

segment is ranked by the largest value of the estimate per mile. If the test is not passed then 

the window size is increased and the process starts again for the road segment. The advantage 

of this method is that localized safety problems are not overlooked by using too large a window 

yet the statistical test ensures that they are in fact reliable estimates and not due to some 

randomness in the data (Srinivasan et al., 2011). With SafetyAnalyst, the user can choose to 

apply the sliding window or the peak search method. 

Screening method for nodes or junctions 

For nodes, a simple ranking method could be applied where the performance measures are 

calculated for each site and the results are used to rank the sites. 
Appendix A

58

Screening method for facilities/corridors

Similar to nodes, a simple ranking method could be applied where the performance measures 

are calculated for each site and the results are used to rank the corridors. The Highway Safety 

Manual indicates that corridors are recommended to be approximately 5 to 10 miles long to 

provide more stable results. As mentioned earlier, this method may be the only option for 

roads that do not have mileposts and hence it is not possible to precisely locate a crash without 

reviewing individual crash reports.

Screen and Evaluate Results

The results of the screening process would be a list of sites/corridors ordered based on the 

selected performance measures. Those high on the list may need further review and diagnosis 

to determine if they will benefit from specific treatments. This will be discussed in the following 

sections.

Summary Comments Regarding Network Screening

The specific method that is used in network screening will depend not only on the data that are 

available in a particular state/jurisdiction, but the tools that are available as well. Some States 

have already implemented SafetyAnalyst and hence can make use of some of the more 

complex methods. Other States (e.g., North Carolina) use screening methods such as the sliding 

window, but they are used with only crash data unlike SafetyAnalyst that makes use of the 

sliding window method in conjunction with traffic volume and SPFs. So, there is probably a wide 

variation among the different States in how network screening is conducted. After the pilot 

States/jurisdictions are identified, the project team will work with them to use the appropriate 

network screening methods taking into account the availability of data elements and tools.

Diagnosis

The intent of diagnosis is the identification of the causes of the collisions and potential safety 

concerns or crashes that can be evaluated further.

Steps in Diagnosis (from the HSM):

This step includes descriptive statistics of crash conditions including counts by crash type, 

severity, and roadway/environmental conditions. It also includes the examination of collision 

patterns by location.

Step 2 – Assess supporting documentation

This goal of this step is to obtain and review documented information or input from local 

transportation professionals that provides additional perspective to the crash data review 

described in the previous step. The documentation reviewed may include traffic volumes for 

the study years, as-built plans, design criteria, maintenance logs, adverse weather conditions, 

and records of public comments and concerns. 
Appendix A

59

Step 3 – Assess field conditions

This step will involve a review of roadway as well as traffic and other roadway user conditions. 

A formal road safety audit (RSA) may be used as part of the diagnosis process. An RSA provides 

the ability to assess behaviors as well as other road conditions, and to identify safety issues 

from the perspective of different types of road users using diverse types of expertise. Thus a 

formal RSA enhances the ability to fully consider all types of potentially appropriate treatments. 

See the Speed Management Toolkit bibliography about RSAs for more information and links to 

additional resources. 

Most importantly, there will be need to collect data on traffic speeds and conduct an 

assessment of posted speed limits. Additional information and guidance on speed limits is also 

available in resources mentioned in the bibliography. These include USLIMITS2, an interactive 

expert decision-support tool, and others. USLIMITS2 provides a recommendation for speed 

limits for speed zones based on information about operating speed (85th and 50th percentile 

speed), site characteristics (the list of site characteristics depend on the type of facility; i.e., 

freeway, roads in undeveloped areas, and roads in developed areas). Crash information is also 

used when available. If for a particular roadway segment, the rate of crashes (both total and 

injury and fatal) are higher than the average for similar roadway segments, the system asks the 

user to conduct an investigation to determine whether the crash and injury rates could be 

reduced by engineering countermeasures. Depending on the user’s response, the system 

recommends a speed limit for the speed zone. USLIMTS can be accessed at the following 

website being maintained by the Federal Highway Administration: 

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

Information on other speed limit setting approaches is provided in Methods and Practices for 

Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report, sponsored by ITE and FHWA which is available at 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/.

Most States also establish some speed limits by default through statutory limits. These limits 

are typically established and changed by legislative action. Statutory speed limits on roadway

segments can typically be changed through speed limit and engineering studies and posting of 

zoned limits on sections of such roads. Ensure compliance with established laws and guidelines 

in performing these speed limit engineering reviews.

The information developed through the field assessment/RSA can be used to help determine 

the types of problem and the most appropriate countermeasures. These may include increasing 

or decreasing the posted speed limit, making design or other engineering improvements to the 

roadway, and enhancing enforcement and publicity of enforcement. In particular, supplemental 

enforcement may be needed if improvements cannot be made to the roadway right away, or 

roadway changes alone are insufficient to bring about compliance with desired speed limits.

Ideally, speed limits, design, and enforcement are considered as an entire package. 
60

Appendix B. Supplemental Materials for Chapter 4 

<This Appendix is intended to be an aid in developing and organizing implementation strategies for 

Chapter 4. This supplemental material is intended to be a resource for the Plan developers, including 

tables that could be modified for use in the Plan.

Table 18 gives an example of a cost-benefit analysis as part of the economic assessments associated 

with the selection and prioritization of countermeasures. The Highway Safety Manual33 provides more 

information on how to conduct an economic assessment using different assumptions. The Federal 

Highway Administration also provides information in project prioritization chapter of the HSIP 

Manual.34>

Table 18. Example Cost-benefit Analysis of Road Diet Implementations.

Crash 

Injury 

Severity

5 Yr Exp. 

Crashes

without 

Treatment

Exp. Crash 

Reduction

35

Exp. Five 

Yr Crash 

Savings

Average

Monetary 

Costs per 

Crash

Exp. 5-yr 

Crash Cost 

Savings 36

Countermeasure

Costs

Estimated 

Crash Costs 

Saved

<All 190 29%

(low est.)

55 $15,000 $825,000 Minimal – if 

through 

resurfacing*

$825,000 

low range 

KABseverity 

crashes

14 47%

(high est.)

0.9

0.9

5.1

$158,200

(avg.)

$2,214,800 Minimal – if 

through 

resurfacing

$2.2 million

(not including 

PDOs, possible 

injury)>

<*Other improvements such as medians or refuge islands could further reduce crashes, but add to costs>

<Countermeasures evaluation. In order to properly estimate the safety performance of a treatment, it 

is necessary to select the appropriate study design and statistical analysis technique. Selection of the 

appropriate study design and statistical analysis technique depends on many factors including the 

nature of the treatment, how it has been implemented, and data that are available for the evaluation. 

The following documents discuss the issues associated with different types of study designs:

 AASHTO, Safety Effectiveness Evaluation, Chapter 9 of the HSM;

 Gross, Persaud, and Lyon, A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors, Report 

FHWA-SA-10-032, December 2010

 Carter, Srinivasan, Gross, and Council, Recommended Protocol for Developing Crash 

Modification Factors, Final Report from NCHRP Project 20-07 (Task 314), February 2012

 

33 AASHTO (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. American Association of Highway Traffic Safety Officials: Washington, DC

34 FHWA’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) manual web pages includes the following section on project 

prioritization http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec4.cfm. The full HSIP manual is available here: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/fhwasa09029.pdf

35 CMF estimates from Crash Reduction Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements”, NCHRP Project 17-25 Final 

Report, Washington, D.C., National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, 

(2008)Delineation." Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-045, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., (2009)

36 Costs of future crashes saved are not discounted in this example. 
Appendix B

61

Observational before-after studies and cross-sectional comparisons may be used. It is important to 

recognize that crash analysis may not be feasible or sufficient under many situations. For example, if 

sufficient number of sites and years of crash data are not available to provide a statistically reliable 

estimate of the safety effectiveness of a treatment, then it will be prudent for the analyst to consider 

surrogate measures such as average speed to obtain further insight into the effectiveness of a 

treatment. 

Table 19 provides a program evaluation matrix that can be tailored to a jurisdiction’s Plan.

The purpose of this table is to aid in tracking actions and countermeasures, to identify appropriate 

performance measures before implementation, and to ensure proper documentation so that 

appropriate evaluation is possible. The included text provides examples.>

Table 19. Example Plan Evaluation Matrix

Plan Evaluation Matrix

Program elements

Intermediate Process 

Measures (Activities and 

Outputs)

Performance Measures 

(Outcomes)

Barriers to 

Implementation 

Issues and 

Resolution

<Proactive process: e.g. 

Coordinate among 

stakeholder agencies, 

including comprehensive 

land use and 

transportation planning 

stakeholders to set 

appropriate speed limits 

on urban roads that will 

be/are managed by the 

State. 

 Processes and policies 

put in place.

 Design 

practices/guidelines 

updated.

 Number of in-process 

and new plans for which 

speed limits are 

determined early in the 

planning process.

 Number of new projects 

with speed and safety 

reviews at key stages.

 Changes/potential crash 

savings made as a result 

of speed limit and safety 

review of new projects.

Shorter-Term 

 Driver speeding or 

speed compliance on 

roads implemented 

(compared with 

other similar roads 

that did not go 

through the process).

 Other road user 

measures of 

satisfaction (safety 

perception, level or 

quality of service, 

etc.).

Longer-Term

 Improvements in 

stakeholder 

perceptions of 

consistency between 

road designs and 

speed limits.

e.g. Change to 

existing 

practice or 

policy>
Appendix B

62

Plan Evaluation Matrix

Program elements

Intermediate Process 

Measures (Activities and 

Outputs)

Performance Measures 

(Outcomes)

Barriers to 

Implementation 

Issues and 

Resolution

<Systematic Process 

measures:

e.g. Review existing 

speed limits and conduct 

roadway safety 

assessments for 

prioritized lists of 

corridors.

 Organizational structure, 

screening or other 

procedures developed 

or enhanced.

 Integration with existing 

programs.

 Number of corridors 

with speed and safety 

assessments.

 Number and proportion 

of locations warranting 

changed limits that were 

changed.

 Number and proportion 

of locations identified 

for safety improvements 

that had treatments 

(engineering or 

enforcement) 

implemented. 

Shorter-Term

 Operating speed 

measures.

Longer-Term

 Crash effects.

 Potentially other 

measures, depending 

on objectives of 

project.

e.g. Time, 

staffing 

limitations

Comprehensive process:

Frame the injury 

prevention problem; 

improve public 

acceptance of speed 

management measures

 Public and policy-maker

attitudes to speeding 

and/or speeding 

countermeasures.

 New legislation or policy 

change.

 Additional partners and 

supporting efforts.

Longer-Term

 Crash effects.

e.g. State laws 

prohibiting use 

of effective 

technologies; 

Lack of public 

support

Specific 

Countermeasures: e.g. 

Increase randomly 

targeted enforcement 

to a larger number of 

high crash corridors 

 Document deployment 

strategy.

 Officer-hours deployed 

by location (coverage of 

crashes).

Shorter-Term

 Operating speed 

measures.

Longer-Term

 Crash effects.

e.g. Allocating 

existing 

resources or 

increasing 

enforcement 

resources

Specific 

Countermeasures: 

Implement three road 

diets

 Document number of 

treatments (e.g. road 

diets implemented).

Shorter Term

 Operating speed 

measures.

Longer Term

Crash effects.

e.g. Community 

resistance to 

change>
Appendix B 

63

<Table 20 describes potential evaluation measures of specific countermeasures. Evaluation of specific 

countermeasures will important to establish effectiveness and degree of effects of specific measures 

and will also contribute to estimates of overall program effects. While long-term speeding-related crash 

trends should also be monitored for program effects, evaluating countermeasures provides additional 

support for program effects as well as local estimates of countermeasure effectiveness. However, as 

mentioned earlier, sufficient years of crash data and perhaps multiple sites are required for robust 

evaluation. 

If average or other operating speed measures are used, it will also be easier to attribute crash 

outcomes to action plan effects.

Again, the purpose of this table is to aid in establishing appropriate performance measures for selected 

countermeasures, and to ensure proper documentation so that appropriate evaluation is possible. The 

included text provides examples.>

Table 20. Example Countermeasure Safety Evaluation Matrix. 

Countermeasure Short-term Measures Longer-term measures Crash Cost Outcome

<Speed and crashlowering engineering 

countermeasures (e.g.,

road diet)

 Before and after speed 

measurements at 

target and comparison 

sites (Identify similar 

untreated control/ 

reference locations). 

 Follow-up speed 

measurements over 

time. (Ensure 

implementation dates 

are tracked.)

 Crash-based evaluation 

(at least three years 

after crash data).

 Crash cost savings over 

useful life compared 

with countermeasure 

cost. 

Targeted enforcement  Percentage of drivers 

complying with limit at 

target and comparison 

sites.

 Percentage of drivers 

complying with limit

over different times 

before, during, after 

enforcement waves.

 Change in frequency or 

severity of crashes (if 

sufficient years, sites 

available).

 Crash cost savings.>
For More Information:

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

FHWA, Office of Safety

Guan Xu

gxu@dot.gov

FHWA-SA-15-017