Lor MASH Roundtables em ipsum dolor sit orem e: FHWA os sourc ver phot oC

INSERT PICTURE HERE INSERT PICTURE HERE

INSERT PICTURE HERE INSERT PICTURE HERE

Lorem ipsum dolor sit orem 

Summary of

Proceedings
MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

II. Resources and Trainings ..................................................................................................................................... 3

FHWA-Supported Trainings .......................................................................................................................... 3

Consultant-Led Training ................................................................................................................................. 4

Pooled Fund Studies ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Other Useful Resources................................................................................................................................... 6

III. Noteworthy Practices ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Standardizing Requirements, Processes, and Checklists.................................................................... 7

Modifications ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Qualified Products List ................................................................................................................................. 12

Internal Coordination with Other Departments ................................................................................. 12

External Coordination with Other Agencies......................................................................................... 13

Policies and Flexibility................................................................................................................................... 15

Inventories and Maintenance Activities................................................................................................. 16

IV. Challenges ............................................................................................................................................................. 18

Staffing ............................................................................................................................................................... 18

Implementing or Maintaining ISPE and Inventories ......................................................................... 19

Financial Constraints ..................................................................................................................................... 19

V. Ongoing and Future Needs ............................................................................................................................ 20

State Resources, Examples, and Databases.......................................................................................... 20

Requests for Technical Assistance or Guidance.................................................................................. 20

FHWA Responses to Questions ................................................................................................................ 21

VI. Appendix A – References ................................................................................................................................. 22

VII. Appendix B – Other Resources ...................................................................................................................... 23
1 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

I. Introduction

In response to a call for service request first initiated by the Colorado Division, the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) hosted a series of three roundtables regarding implementation 

of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO’s) Manual 

for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH).

1 The purpose of the roundtables was to provide venues 

for State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and Federal Land Management Agencies 

(FLMAs) to share information to improve their knowledge of crashworthy safety hardware and 

implementation of MASH as it relates to:

• Local agencies, maintenance of devices, and construction considerations.

• MASH compliance and evaluating crash test reports.

• Bridge rails, 3R (resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation) projects, and device 

modifications.

Tori Brinkly, FHWA, facilitated the three roundtables and was supported by representatives from

FHWA Division Offices, FHWA Office of Safety Technologies, FHWA Office of Safety Research & 

Development, and FHWA Resource Center Safety & Design Team who assisted with the 

discussion questions. Participants represented the following agencies: 

• Arizona DOT (ADOT).

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

• Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 

• California DOT (Caltrans).

• Colorado DOT (CDOT).

• Federal Lands Highway Division (FLH).

• FHWA Division Offices, Headquarters, 

and Resource Center.

• Georgia DOT (GDOT).

• Iowa DOT. 

• Indiana DOT (INDOT).

• Louisiana DOT and Development 

(LADOTD).

• Maricopa County DOT (MCDOT).

• Missouri DOT (MoDOT).

• National Park Service (NPS).

• Oregon DOT (ODOT).

• Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT).

• Tennessee DOT (TDOT).

• United States Forest Service (USFS).

• Vermont DOT (VTrans).

• Virginia DOT (VDOT).

• Washington State DOT (WSDOT).

Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the roundtable participating agencies and in 

which roundtable each agency participated. 
2 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Source: FHWA

Figure 1. Graphic. Roundtable Map. 

FHWA conducted the virtual roundtables in February and March of 

2021 and included brief presentations from invited speakers 

followed by open discussion among the participants, who were 

able to ask questions, share resources, and discuss their agency’s 

perspective. 

Representatives from FHWA’s Office of Safety Technologies

provided an overview of MASH at each virtual event. AASHTO’s 

MASH (Figure 2) presents uniform guidelines for crash testing 

permanent and temporary highway safety features. The manual 

also recommends evaluation criteria to assess test results. Through 

a joint implementation agreement, AASHTO and FHWA have 

recognized the importance of ensuring the installation of the most 

advanced roadside safety equipment that has been successfully 

tested in accordance with MASH. 

Together the two agencies formed a partnership focused on addressing questions and MASH 

interpretations from manufacturers and crash test labs. AASHTO is currently looking to the next 

© AASHTO

Figure 2. Graphic.

AASHTO MASH Cover.

2
3 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

iteration of MASH—exploring new topics, organization, vehicle specifications, and testing 

requirements. 

Local and State DOTs experience challenges to meet MASH compliance dates for different 

reasons. For example, a DOT’s ability to evaluate MASH compliance crashworthiness and 

understand the test reports are important components in the process to meet MASH 

compliance. Transportation agencies are also challenged with lack of hardware knowledge or 

lack of staff expertise to determine the crashworthiness of a device. 

Research agencies, manufacturers, and public agencies can submit crash test results from 

accredited crash testing laboratories to FHWA for review. If FHWA finds that all of the testing 

was conducted in accordance with MASH, an eligibility letter is issued. The findings in the letters 

are limited to the crashworthiness of a system, as determined by FHWA’s review of crash test 

results and certifications submitted by roadside hardware manufacturers. The letter does not 

offer a determination that a crash involving the device will result in a particular outcome or 

guarantee safety performance. Eligibility letters are issued as a service to State DOTs but are not 

required for roadside safety hardware to be eligible for Federal-aid reimbursement; however, 

many States/agencies have roadside safety hardware acceptance policies that require the FHWA 

letter as part of their acceptance process and FHWA will continue to carefully follow MASH and 

prepare letters for the foreseeable future. 

FHWA would like to improve transportation agencies’ knowledge of hardware and determining 

the crashworthiness of a device and is available to support State and local agencies throughout 

the process. FHWA developed the series of roundtables to educate the agencies while also 

helping FHWA understand agency needs. This document provides a summary of best practices 

and how agencies overcame challenges regarding MASH implementation, as discussed at the 

roundtables. Topics include notable resources and trainings, best practices as reported by the 

roundtable participants, challenges associated with the topics, and greatest needs identified by 

the participants. 

II. Resources and Trainings

States and local agencies often develop internal trainings for specific projects or topics. 

However, over the course of the roundtables, both FHWA and the participants noted the value 

of several widely available trainings and resources to assist with specific topics. The following 

section provides more detail on those resources, including FHWA-supported trainings, a 

consultant-led training, and two Pooled Fund Studies. 

FHWA-Supported Trainings

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act Guardrail Safety Training Program 

supports two training opportunities: State-specific training and more general training. The Statespecific training will provide a contractor who reviews the State’s design standards, conducts 

inspections in the field, and then designs a course consisting of both design and maintenance

topics. Manufacturers are invited to speak specifically about the devices the State installs. The 
4 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

training is intended as a snapshot in time and States are expected to update the training as 

needed and continue to deliver it to their staff. There is also mentoring training, which is 

designed to maintain momentum from the State-specific training. Representatives from Arizona, 

Indiana, and Louisiana all reported success with the FHWA FAST Act training. In a typical year, 

FHWA provides up to four State-specific trainings. More information on the FAST Act Guardrail 

Safety Training is available online.3 If a State is interested in the trainings, they can contact their 

FHWA Division Office.

Consultant-Led Training

When TDOT developed an evaluation process to determine crashworthiness of roadside 

hardware, they observed the manufacturer crash reports were often very detailed but also 

missed important information. Therefore, TDOT sought out training to educate the committee 

responsible for reviewing the evaluation packages they receive, which contain the crash test 

reports, material specifications, and other TDOT-required documentation. Tennessee DOT 

contracted with a retired roadside hardware expert to develop a comprehensive training on 

understanding MASH, new and proprietary products, modified products, and other topics that 

would arise related to the evaluation package. 

TDOT worked with their consultant to develop the list of topics to cover in the training. Each 

department was responsible for identifying representative staff to receive the training and 

participate in an oversight committee, who were also invited to submit topics they thought 

would be important. The training provided the participants an understanding of the test criteria 

(what is required and why) and the reports. The training occurred over the course of one day but 

NCHRP Report 656: Criteria for Restoration of 

Longitudinal Barriers (Figure 3) is the original source 

for many of the graphics in the FAST Act training 

materials and pocket guides.3 The report provides 

detailed pictures of hardware specifications and 

examples of damage and related maintenance needs 

and costs. 

Figure 3. Graphic. NCHRP report 

cover.

4

 

© TRB
5 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

was comprehensive and engaging through activities like crash test videos that provided baseline 

information for the participants to understand what to look for when reviewing the 

manufacturer reports: understanding critical impact point, component testing, computer 

simulations, evaluating justifications to omit a test, etc. Following the training, TDOT developed 

a Product Evaluation Submittal Form based on the training module.5

Pooled Fund Studies

There are two pooled fund study opportunities for States—the Roadside Safety Pooled Fund

(Texas A&M Transportation Institute [TTI]-supported) and the Midwest States Regional Pooled

Fund Program (University of Nebraska-Lincoln Midwest Roadside Safety Facility [MwRSF]-

supported).

6,7

States participating in the efforts pool money with others to determine what to

evaluate and determine future research questions that would be valuable for larger audiences. 

The value is in the shared resources, and there are several States involved in both pooled funds. 

The Roadside Safety Pooled Fund involves 26 States and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation

(Canada), with an annual budget of $1M. This group meets annually to determine priorities, with 

ongoing support from five working groups that provide networking and information-sharing

opportunities. Additionally, the website includes details on what has been tested to MASH, 

includes links to reports and videos, and identifies if there is, or is not, an FHWA eligibility letter

available.8

The Midwest States Regional Pooled Fund involves 21 States with an annual budget of $1.4M. 

This group meets annually in the spring to select and prioritize projects, and they also meet in 

the fall to discuss project status. The MwRSF site also includes a “Research Hub” link where you 

can search through reports going back to 1977 for projects sponsored by the pooled fund or 

other agencies.

7

There are also options to search by recently asked questions or by keyword.

9

Both Pooled Funds offer consulting services to some degree for the participating States and

others. The Roadside Safety Pooled Fund provides professional opinions through a task order 

where any of the participating States can submit requests. In a professional opinion, a research 

engineer investigates crash tests, reviews the system, consults with other researchers, and

provides an in-depth evaluation that references the crash tests and details the opinion. This 

results in a report that explains why tests were excluded and why specific configurations were 

tested. The documentation steps through the entire process, is diligent, and with a strong

engineering perspective. While not a replacement for a crash test, States recognized the value of

the opinions of national experts and use the reports as part of their documentation process. 

There is a similar function through the Midwest States Pooled Fund, where States can ask

questions about device design or installation, and MwRSF provides answers or interpretations; 

however, these may not be considered a professional opinion. Several States reported relying on 

MwRSF for identifying reasonable modifications to roadside safety hardware.
6 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Other Useful Resources 

FHWA made note of several ongoing and upcoming research studies that may be of interest to 

the roundtable participants. 

• The FHWA Office of Research and Development oversaw an In-Service Performance 

Evaluation (ISPE) of Guardrail End Treatments pilot project which included data from four 

States: California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. This project was final report 

will include methodology and protocols for designing and conducting an ISPE. 

• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 22-33, Multi-State InService Performance Evaluations of Roadside Safety Hardware, included eleven States 

and expanded the FHWA ISPE pilot project by attempting to create a database that can 

be shared among States to identify types of hardware that is working or is not 

performing well.10 This project is developing ISPE guidelines, training materials, and 

associated electronic tools (like a using a spreadsheet approach for managing an ISPE), 

which will be available after the study is complete.

• NCHRP Project 22-44, A Transportation Agency Data Collection Practice for Use with 

ISPEs, will complement and coordinate with the research under NCHRP Project 22-33. 

The data collection methodology will explore data integration from other sources, like 

first responders and maintenance personnel who respond to crash scenes, and the 

potential for collecting photographs, hardware damage, and other data. 

• NCHRP Project 15-53, Roadside Barrier Designs Near Bridge Ends with Restricted Rights 

of Way, will develop guidance for barrier installations near bridge ends. Testing is 

complete and the final design met MASH crash test criteria. The research team is in the 

process of preparing the write up. 

• FLH is conducting research on the issue of smaller bridges on very low-volume roads 

that often do not have enough width or roadway to allow for curbs (common occurrence 

for Bureau of Reclamation bridges) or Test Level 2 (TL-2) or TL-3 bridge rails. The goal of 

the research is to develop a guide on how to assess the bridge rails and develop 

recommendations for upgrades. The second outcome will be developing the type of 

rails, curbing, and transitions needed for these special cases. The research is underway 

and FLH anticipates that this will help several Federal agencies as well as other agencies 

with low-volume bridges in rural areas. One significant challenge is that taller MASH 

devices impact the viewshed or limit farming, military, or logging equipment movement.

Appendix A lists resources directly referenced by roundtable participants and Appendix B 

provides other useful resources, as noted by the roundtable participants. The list includes State 

resources, guides, and policies; Federal reference materials; and other research documents from 

industry agencies. 
7 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

III. Noteworthy Practices

At each of the three roundtables, FHWA invited two to three State and local representatives to 

briefly present on their agencies’ successful experiences and lessons learned regarding specific 

topics. The presentations were also intended to initiate broader discussions and information 

sharing between peers. Both the presentations and roundtable sharing resulted in noteworthy 

practices that may be useful resources for other agencies exploring similar issues. The following 

section highlights the presentations and then briefly notes other State or agency practices. 

Standardizing Requirements, Processes, and Checklists 

INDOT and GDOT’s presentations on their State practices created the opportunity for other 

participants to share their processes and identify opportunities within their agencies to create 

standardization. 

To kick off the Bridge Rails, 3R Projects, and Device Modifications discussion, INDOT presented 

on “INDOT Standard Bridge Railing 2019.” As the State was working through the process of 

determining the implementation of MASH in their State, they identified gaps in knowledge as 

staff who had previously worked toward implementing NCHRP Report 350 were no longer with 

the DOT to answer questions. In addition, FHWA no longer provides the guidance and 

interpretation as they did when NCHRP Report 350 was being implemented, so it is up to the 

States to determine what is important for implementing MASH. INDOT worked directly with 

their FHWA Division Office to identify what was MASH compliant, which meant spending time 

understanding the process and rules. 

While working through the process, the State identified two technical issues: determining MASH 

compliance of the rail itself and determining the appropriate test level for a project. INDOT had 

been using a flow chart adapted from AASHTO’s 1989 Guide Specifications for Bridge Railings

which resulted in TL-2, 4, and 5 railings. INDOT knew that some railing would only meet MASH 

TL-3, so they decided to either bolster the railings to arrive at TL-4 and retain the current 

process for selecting the appropriate test level or reevaluate INDOT’s process for the test level 

process. INDOT closely followed the guidance in the TTI Project 20-07, Task 395 Report for 

strength (impact forces based on test level), stability (of vehicle versus height, shape, and 

stiffness of barrier), and geometry (features that affect occupant risk).11 Their bridge rail 

evaluation criteria also included the following: 

• Question/Answer: INDOT engaged Maintenance and Construction to work through 

potential questions and issues. 

• Research Crash Tests: INDOT reviewed crash tests and the TTI report. 

• In-Service Performance and Frequency Use: INDOT examined their own records to 

determine how often rails were used and looked for gaps in the system. 

The policy of a minimum TL-3 on a State route aligned with the national highway system (NHS) 

requirements INDOT developed under discussions with their FHWA Division Office. However, 

INDOT recognized local routes frequently use the MASH TL-2 ‘Texas rail’ (the 411 rail from Texas 
8 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

DOT’s Bridge Railing Identification Guide).12 They also found that side-mounted rails were 

commonly used on local public agency (LPA) and lower-volume roads. While INDOT ended up 

reducing their standards from 10 to 5 standard bridge rails, they kept the local route rails in their

standards and decided to address those in the policy revision on how to select the appropriate 

test level. 

To develop their Test Level Selection, INDOT reviewed the Texas DOT Bridge Railing 

Identification Guide and switched to starting with speed rather than strictly annual average daily 

traffic.12 INDOT tried to provide objective considerations when designers should consider a 

higher test level for a particular application to assist designers with the transition from a clear 

flow chart to a process that allows for more flexibility. The selection process and evaluation 

criteria are covered in their Design Memorandum 19-08 (excerpt in Table 1):

Table 1. INDOT Bridge Railing Minimum Test Level 

If ... And...

The minimum 

(MASH) test 

level is

INDOT 

Bridge 

Standards

Notes

Bridge carries interstate 

mainline or system 

interchange ramp traffic

TL-5 Type FT

Type TF-2 Once the minimum test 

level is determined, use the 

evaluation criteria listed 

below to assess if a higher 

test level is appropriate. A 

higher test level railing may 

be used to satisfy lower test 

level requirements.

The design speed is ≥ 50 mph TL-3 

Type FC

Type PF-1 

Type PS-1 

The design speed is ≤ 45 mph The route is on 

the NHS TL-3 

Type FC

Type PF-1 

Type PS-1 

The design speed is ≤ 45 mph The route is not 

on the NHS TL-2 Type TX

(LPA only)

• Highway design speed. Use the greater of posted speed or the design speed to establish the minimum test 

level. A lower test level may be acceptable for low volume roadways.

• Average annual daily traffic and percent trucks. Higher traffic volumes have inherently higher likelihood of 

crashes. High truck volumes (truck DDHV is 250 vph) are a consideration for selecting a higher test level.

• Highway geometry (grades and horizontal curvature). Steep grades (sustained longitudinal grades greater than 

5%) and sharp curves (horizontal curve radius less than 1,500 ft) are considerations for using a higher test level.

• Type of land use below deck. Roadways under are higher risk than waterways under due to the risk of multiple 

injuries.

• In-service performance. Unsatisfactory in service performance is a consideration for selecting a higher test level.

In the MASH Compliance and Evaluating Crash Test Reports discussion, GDOT presented 

Georgia’s Process for Determining Crashworthiness. They started with an overview of GDOT’s 

previous process, which was primarily governed by standard specifications that referred to 

NCHRP Report 350 and FHWA Eligibility Letters, but also included a qualified products list (QPL) 

and construction standards for standard drawings and non-proprietary devices. In 2018, GDOT 

considered how the State would determine crashworthiness if FHWA no longer issued eligibility 

letters. From this, GDOT developed a three-phase, forward-looking process:
9 

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

• In Phase 1 – Evaluation, GDOT would evaluate manufacturer crash tests, analyze 

hardware aspects specific to Georgia, review other State DOT processes and hardware 

(which was more difficult prior to becoming a member of the Midwest Pooled Fund 

Study), and accept the products that would be added to the qualified product list. 

• Phase 2 would focus on Installation, which was identified as a critical area for roadside 

safety hardware generally and more specifically for w-beam terminals. This phase was 

developed to rectify those issues and focus on installer and contractor training and 

certification. GDOT would consider if the manufacturer had a training and certification 

program and if the installers were certified for installing roadside hardware. GDOT would 

also ask the installers to provide an ID tag on end treatments, which would help establish 

a tracking system for this information if issues arise with specific installers or hardware. 

• In Phase 3 – ISPE, GDOT staff—including Highway Emergency Response Operators 

(HEROs) and Coordinated Highway Assistance and Maintenance Program (CHAMP)—

would take photographs of damage when responding to calls. This phase would involve 

several agencies evaluating the results to identify common issues with installation and 

asset management. GDOT also explored developing ID-tags for asset management to 

track locations of updated hardware and create an automated process.

As of the roundtable, GDOT implemented Phase 1, where FHWA eligibility letters are still 

required per GDOT policy, the State reviews MASH device crash tests, and a multidisciplinary 

team was established to determine device acceptance. GDOT had not implemented Phase 2 for 

installer training, certification, or end treatment ID tags, and had partially implemented Phase 3, 

including the ISPE data collection and review, but they have not implemented the ID tags for 

asset management.

Other States shared the following examples of standardizing processes: 

• TDOT established a policy to fully replace terminals that experience even minimal 

damage and only installed MASH tangential terminals, all to reduce liability concerns. 

Additionally, TDOT developed a Product Evaluation Form that asks many questions 

regarding Product Submittal, Supporting Documentation, and Technical Review. A 

committee confirms and checks the responses in detail. 

• WSDOT established a Roadside Safety Issues Group that meets quarterly and maintains a 

tracking sheet of hardware evaluations. The tracking sheet easily and concisely displays 

the MASH compliance on the systems and is based on all policy information concerning 

the devices and configurations, standard plans, and proprietary device list. WSDOT sees 

the value of putting the information in writing and maintaining the spreadsheet in a 

timely fashion as things evolve quickly.

Modifications

At the Bridge Rails, 3R Projects, and Device Modifications discussion, CDOT provided a detailed 

synopsis of their State policy for modifying bridge rail with a presentation on “Doghouse Bridge 

Rail (CDOT Old Bridge Rail Type), Bridge Rail Type 10R MASH, and CO Bridge Rail TL-3 and 
10

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Lower Policy.” CDOT explained the State 3R project policy is to replace an existing bridge rail 

that does not meet the minimum MASH TL-4 rail height or strength requirements, or upgrade it 

to meet MASH criteria. CDOT’s challenge is making recommendations that do not result in 

further design changes due to lack of funding so any incremental change in safety is important. 

On a high level, CDOT provides guidance on upgrading existing guardrail to meet MASH criteria, 

considering key factors such as: 

• raising the height to 31 inches

• offset blocks changed to 12-inches

• guardrail splice locations moved to 

mid-span

• use of an asymmetric transition to 

the concrete barriers and bridge rail 

• traffic speed

• average daily traffic (ADT)

• existing rail capacity

• proximity to intersections

• roadway geometry

• crash history

If there is a design modification, the designer/engineer of record will seal and stamp the rail 

design and a subject matter expert within Structures reviews and provides opinions on the 

modifications. 

CDOT provided two examples of device modifications: doghouse bridge rail and bridge rail type 

10R MASH (still under development).

13 

• In the first case study, CDOT provided two options for upgrading the existing doghouse 

bridge rail: replace the bridge rail (default option) or bridge-rail rehabilitation (install a 

thrie-beam) (See Figure 4). Replacements are costly but meet the current MASH 

standards, while rehabilitation is more cost-effective and safer compared to no action. 

Regions will go through a Bridge Railing Exception exercise to weigh the benefits of the 

two options and make the appropriate selection. The doghouse bridge rail was not crash 

tested but was assessed on engineering judgement of strength evaluation and height. 

CDOT notes that the ADT and speed are very low where they have done this retrofit. The 

structure itself often needs to be replaced as well; however, even the rehabilitation 

option will improve safety. 

Figure 4. Graphic. CDOT Doghouse Bridge Rail Repair.

13

© CDOT
11

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

The second case study compared TL-4 bridge rail type 10R MASH to Type 10 MASH

(Figure 5). Both designs are the same on the top but differ in the anchorage system on 

the curb and with the curb heights. Both bridge rails are composed of a continuous 

horizontal steel tube attached to steel tube posts. The posts are mounted on an existing 

reinforced concrete curb anchored to the bridge deck. The 10R MASH rail is intended for 

retrofits or rehabilitation of substandard rail systems and is anchored to the curb and the 

deck with washers and bolts. The Type 10 MASH is bolted to the deck and is designed 

for new bridges, moment slabs, and retaining walls. 

• CDOT requires new MASH bridge-rail transition when a bridge rail and roadway 

guardrail is upgraded or replaced. Customized bridge-rail-to-guard-rail transitions may 

also be required to provide smooth transitions. The biggest issue is transitioning from 

new MGS guardrail to the existing bridge rail. CDOT staff from the Bridge Division are 

available to advise the Regions on the best options. There are times when CDOT’s 

standard transition is simple, but on other projects CDOT Regions need to work with the 

structures group to determine the appropriate design. 

In addition to CDOT’s experience, other States shared their processes and policies regarding 

modifications. 

• Caltrans headquarters office determines modifications due to the number of Districts 

and complexities with MASH compliance. Staff will consult with a Highway Safety 

Figure 5. Graphic. CDOT Type 10MASH.

13

© CDOT
12

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Features New Products Committee that includes multiple individuals with extensive 

experience with roadway safety devices, as needed.

• INDOT’s most common modifications are for historic bridges in several scenarios for

guardrails where standards will not fit, commonly intersecting roadways at the end of a

bridge. INDOT relies on the Midwest Pooled Fund for identifying reasonable

modifications.

• PennDOT procedures allow non-significant modifications to MASH compliant devices

provided they can obtain an engineering opinion from an ISO 17025 accredited crash

testing facility.

• WSDOT developed a process for modifications as part of their Roadside Safety Issues

Group activities.

Qualified Products List

Although there was no formal presentation on QPLs (also known as Approved Products Lists, 

APL), the topic was discussed across several of the roundtables. Noteworthy practices from the 

participating States include the following: 

• TDOT maintains an approved product list, categorized by allowable NCHRP 350 devices

and MASH-compliant devices. Communication and collaboration with the research and

construction divisions was key as they oversee the QPL and the associated item numbers,

descriptions, and quantities. Only devices on those lists are allowed to be installed.

• MCDOT maintains an Approved Material List (AML) but refers to the ADOT QPL in

situations where available products cannot be used for a particular condition. The new

product will continue to reference ADOT's QPL until it is added to County’s list.

• GDOT is moving toward a Professional Engineer stamped, standard drawing for a device

and exploring tying those into the QPL.

Internal Coordination with Other Departments 

The roundtable discussions highlighted the importance of coordination and communication 

within an agency. Many of the notable practices depended on buy-in from multiple 

departments, and the expertise of others is essential for MASH maintenance and 

implementation. 

During the Local Agency, Device Maintenance, and Construction Considerations discussion, 

LADOTD presented on “Why Use MASH?” LADOTD is in the process of updating guardrail,

roadside concrete barriers, and permanent crash cushions to meet MASH compliance and their

update process revealed several needs and unresolved questions. In response, LADOTD created 

a MASH Implementation Committee with representation from Road Design, Bridge Design, 

Safety, Maintenance, Traffic Engineering, Construction, and FHWA. The Committee was formed 

to engage all departments so there is shared understanding and a mechanism to vet and 

prepare for changes. Additionally, as the AASHTO MASH implementation deadlines were 

approaching, LADOTD realized not everything was MASH-compliant. LADOTD needed to make 
13

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

judgement calls on existing devices and their comfort with using devices already in place that 

lacked an eligibility letter. The Committee helped LADOTD come to a consensus on policies and 

standards rather than relying on one group to make decisions. 

The Committee meets on an as-needed basis to evaluate issues as they arise or consider 

different alternatives or changes. There is a policy that details the levels of implementation from 

an FHWA eligibility letter, crash testing, and professional opinion down to engineering analysis. 

To date, the Committee and process has been successful. The FHWA Division Office was 

supportive of the process and integrating crash data analysis.

Other examples of internal coordination efforts include the following: 

• Caltrans’ Highway Safety Safety Features New Products Committee includes nine 

representatives from different divisions and areas of expertise within the State. The

Committee is responsible for reviewing evaluation crash test reports, drawings, and 

videos for any devices on the State highway system. 

• INDOT invited maintenance and construction groups to participate in the Pooled Fund 

meetings in an effort to institutionalize knowledge with the MASH process. 

• TDOT developed a review process that included a committee of Design, Maintenance, 

Materials and Tests, Operations, and Construction Division representatives responsible 

for reviewing the evaluation package. The committee meets quarterly to review the 

evaluation packages from their different perspectives. One essential step was to train the 

committee on all the needed information—from basic crash testing and standards to 

FHWA eligibility letters. 

• WSDOT established a Roadside Safety Issues Group that meets quarterly and maintains a 

tracking sheet of hardware evaluations.

External Coordination with Other Agencies 

During the Local Agency, Device Maintenance, and Construction Considerations discussion, the 

MCDOT presented on “Process of the Implementation of FHWA/AASHTO MASH Requirements,” 

which highlighted their process as a local agency working towards implementing MASH, and 

what that means for standards, details, and equipment approvals. The County sought to 

establish a strategy and plan to begin phasing in 

MASH-compliant hardware and then inform 

staff and stakeholders involved in specifying, 

supplying, installing, and maintaining the 

affected roadside hardware. MCDOT used 

defined maintenance districts already in place as 

a way to break the County’s roadway system 

into manageable areas to assess roadside 

hardware and agency responsibility. 

Maricopa County is the fourth largest county in 

the United States with a population greater 

than 24 States. The County includes 24 cities 

and towns, five Indian Reservations, 2,600 lane 

miles of paved county roads, and 24 miles of 

existing guardrail installations.14
14

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Then MCDOT needed to update their standard specifications and details, as many of the details 

did not meet MASH standards. So, MCDOT updated their supplement to the Maricopa 

Association of Governments uniform standard specifications.. They also implemented new bid 

items and provided an approved material list even though MCDOT was challenged with finding

new MASH equipment and terminals to add to their list.

There are several large cities within the County with their own roadways and there was a 

question regarding limiting responsibility to the County along with how to engage those cities 

regarding MASH. MCDOT noted there are many agencies who share intersections and streets 

with other jurisdictions that wanted to implement their own process. Smaller agencies asked for 

help with funding and then did their own work, while other agencies wanted to develop their 

own implementation plan, like the City of Phoenix. The County used cost sharing methods to 

fund projects and acted as the lead designer, identifying specifications for implementation.

Regarding outreach with Native American Tribes and the USFS, MCDOT reported that it is glad 

to help when asked and provides design and installation assistance. MCDOT also has 

agreements in place for when a road passes through the Tribal regions or USFS lands. 

MCDOT applied MASH to all county roads as part of the system, with locations shared with 

other jurisdictions involving an agreement. There is a 5-year plan to apply MASH to all roads 

and it is the local agency’s responsibility to implement MASH. The plan helps determine the next 

step depending on the amount of damage to a system. If 50 percent or more of the system is 

damaged, MCDOT will initiate a job order contract to turn it into MASH compliant. For damage 

that is less than 50 percent of a system, MCDOT will convert the system to MASH through the 

overall implementation plan with the local agencies providing the funding. MCDOT also 

reported a strong collaboration with ADOT and FHWA on their MASH implementation plan. 

The following details examples of how States coordinate with external organizations and 

agencies. 

• MASH applies to all CDOT-owned roads across the State. CDOT will put out a local 

agency bulletin that explains criteria if new information effects Federal funding or local 

administration. Other instances require direct contact. CDOT will communicate with the 

engineering regions, who communicate with their local agencies. CDOT also has 

dedicated staff for updating standards and specifications and posting updates to the 

website. Communication with local agencies is a case-by-case basis. 

• GDOT’s focus on installation includes installer and contractor training and certification. 

• Iowa DOT worked with FHWA to develop an updated instructional memo, which 

referenced both MASH and NCHRP 350, explained test level for each, recommendations

for use, and requirements on certain projects.15 The State provided local agencies with 

the instructional memos, which provides the locals the ability to not install guardrail on 

certain roads if it meets specific requirements. The Design Bureau provides the 

information and experts are available to answer questions from the local agencies.
15

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Policies and Flexibility 

While many roundtable participants expressed interest in standardized processes, they also 

stated an overarching need for flexibility to address the various types of roadside hardware. 

Participants notably expressed concerns regarding work zone devices and the need for 

flexibility. 

As part of Bridge Rails, 3R projects and Device Modifications 

discussion, PennDOT presented on “When Should Roadside 

Safety Hardware be Updated/Replaced?” PennDOT’s Design 

Manual 2, Publication 13M, DM-2 (Figure 6), Section 12.3 details 

the State’s policy that upgrades are triggered by the type of

project (new and reconstruction, 3R, pavement preservation) and

depends on the roadway classification (Interstates, NHS, non-NHS 

roadways with ADT greater than 2,000, non-NHS roadways with

ADT less than 2,000).16 PennDOT would prefer to upgrade all 

bridge rails to MASH but funding constraints limit the process to

risk-based decisions. PennDOT’s Pub. 13M, DM-2, Section 12.3

does not tell the highway designers to use MASH, but rather 

directs them to use the standards, which the State is working to

update to MASH. 

PennDOT explored more stringent standards for non-NHS 

roadways with less than 2,000 ADT, but there is not enough 

funding to support the upgrades. Therefore, the policy states designers should consider 

upgrading to MASH on a project-by-project basis. A full reconstruction will trigger an upgrade, 

but this type of project rarely occurs on those roadways. Therefore, the State sets aside the 

equivalent of 0.8 percent of capital funding annually to support upgrades. District safety 

engineers are responsible for the evaluation and determination of the upgrades that get funded.

PennDOT’s policies also offer flexibility for concrete median barriers, high-tension cable barrier, 

and guiderail to bridge barrier transitions. These three categories vary in terms of condition, 

project type, height, and other considerations. Many of the evaluation criteria is risk based—as 

sweeping policies requiring upgrades to all hardware on all roads would deplete all available 

funding. Districts often ask for a good condition definition in regard to when upgrades are 

required, but PennDOT did not want to provide a stringent chart to allow for flexibility. There are 

many scenarios of what could go wrong with a guiderail, so it would be difficult to cover all the 

potentials. If PennDOT’s Pub. 13M, DM-2, Section 12.3 policy is followed, there is no formal 

approval for when to upgrade or not, and no documentation is required. However, for new 

guiderail installations that do not meet standards, there is more rigorous documentation 

required.

Other examples of how States develop policies that offer flexibility, including work zone devices, 

include the following:

Figure 6. Graphic. PennDOT 

publication 13M cover.

16

© PennDOT
16

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

• INDOT does not have a standard for portable barrier for permanent installations on a 

structure. INDOT uses temporary concrete barriers for work zone applications.

• Iowa DOT adopted a policy for updating to MASH terminals on 3R projects. The 

exception is if a project was completed immediately prior to when MASH went into 

effect and the hardware is only a few years old. 

• ODOT’s policy states that if NCHRP 350-compliant hardware is in place, the assumption 

is it is compliant. ODOT will review hardware installed pre-NCHRP 350 and determine if it 

needs to be brought up to current standards. 

• TDOT found that work zone devices were the most complicated topic since there are 

four different categories and include proprietary devices. TDOT treats the portable 

concrete barriers and terminals as permanent devices and installs higher-performing 

devices in temporary situations such as a permanent crash cushion in a temporary 

setting because they perform better. 

• VDOT is working on provisionally approved MASH products for work zones.

• WSDOT relies on service life issue for work-zone devices. They require MASH devices if 

manufactured after December 2019 but allowing service life for NCHRP 350 devices. 

WSDOT does not have a qualified product list for work zone devices and depends on the 

field engineers to determine if a device is either MASH, NCHRP 350, serviceable, and 

beyond. 

Inventories and Maintenance Activities

MCDOT’s presentation also covered hardware inventory as part of their larger process for 

implementing MASH. Being such a large county with many types of jurisdictions and roadways, 

the County sought to establish a strategy and plan to begin phasing in MASH-compliant 

hardware and then inform staff and stakeholders involved in specifying, suppling, installing, and 

maintaining the affected roadside hardware.

To accomplish this goal, the first step was to conduct a thorough inventory of locations, types, 

and amounts of hardware currently installed. MCDOT explained how they used previous 

inventory data collected through the Road Information System and Cartograph asset 

management tool.17 They supplemented the data with aerial mapping to identify and measure 

hardware by type and condition. MCDOT dispatched maintenance crews and technical support 

staff to conduct in-person checks, confirm missing data, and capture updated existing 

conditions. Determining maintenance needs often comes from the public who will contact 

MCDOT to notify of guardrail damage. Maintenance crews in the field will also call MCDOT 

Transportation Systems Management (TSM) safety branch to report a damaged guardrail, who 

will then review and make recommendations for repairs. 

Other examples of inventories and tracking maintenance needs include the following: 

• CDOT inventoried all terminals on the State highway system in response to a severe 

crash involving a terminal that did not have the appropriate components to perform 
17

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

correctly. Maintenance forces collected and inventoried the guardrails; however, CDOT 

shared their biggest challenge is maintaining the database. 

• GDOT’s Georgia Asset Management System (GAMS) is an Agile Assets software but it 

does not include a complete guardrail inventory. In 2014, GDOT conducted a manned 

survey on all major four-lane and above interstates and arterials. Georgia Tech is looking 

at using deep learning to identify guardrail locations through video. GDOT is asking 

Georgia Tech to look at one district to identify locations as a pilot project. 

• Iowa DOT referred to INDOT’s pink tag program that marries crash data and repair data 

to reveal in-service performance.18 As a result, the maintenance department is 

developing a database that will show the locations and the crash data associated with 

the locations. A maintenance document is being developed that states how much 

guardrail (as a percentage of an installation) needs to be damaged before the DOT will 

replace the system. The State generally replaces in-kind, but they will revisit the issue of 

replacing only one portion of a system with MASH if the rest of the system remains 

NCHRP 350 compliant.

• ODOT developed a full barrier inventory with support from college interns. 

• TDOT instituted a proactive approach with inventories that identified installation issues, 

which TDOT then removed the products with issues. 

• VDOT developed a geographic information system-based tracker of the guardrail 

inventory on interstates and secondary roads using a virtual video log collected as part 

of a pavement assessment. The statewide guardrail terminal inventory includes 

manufacturer and terminal type. The State reviewed the videos and developed the 

inventory within a few months and is using the information to identify and remove 

deficient terminal types.

• WSDOT’s State Maintenance Accountability Process and Maintenance Guidelines—Repairs 

and Replacement of Guardrail Terminals explains policies and address common questions 

related to repairs.19

Several States also reported on their policies related to service life, a topic that was often 

discussed in association with inventories and maintenance triggers. 

• CDOT’s first effort is to update precast barrier based on condition rather than service life. 

• GDOT’s official plan for sunset dates is to use the device end of service life. 

• MoDOT’s initial plan is for sunset dates in place and is considering grouping items with 

similar service lives. 

• VDOT requires all devices to be converted to MASH-compliant no later than January 1, 

2030.
18

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

IV. Challenges

Participants discussed several issues or challenges that inhibit their agency from advancing the 

practice or areas where they need assistance. This section provides a brief overview of the noted 

challenges with examples of how other States have addressed the concerns. 

Staffing

Roundtable participants most commonly stated staffing expertise, knowledge, and retention or 

turnover as one of the primary issues faced within their agency. Turnover often goes unnoticed 

or unmentioned, which results in lack of institutional knowledge for identifying issues and 

solutions. And general lack of understanding of the evaluation process and reports is a 

significant need for several States. 

To address this challenge, several States reported conducting internal training for staff and 

external training for consultants and other personnel. LADOTD provides Local Public Agency 

training and includes MASH in the work-zone modules to enhance local understanding of the 

State on- and off-system bridge standards. MCDOT is educating engineers and contractors and 

including language in contracts that require training for in-the-field staff. GDOT is trying to 

implement a process that would determine if manufacturers have a training and certification 

program and if installers were certified for installing roadside hardware but have not yet 

implemented this plan.

In addition to the previously noted internal training course, TDOT worked with FHWA’s FAST Act 

mentorship training program in 2015 and established a mentor within each office. The identified 

staff is responsible for sharing information with regional teams. As staff approach retirement, 

TDOT is identifying emerging personnel to engage in discussions to begin to learn the 

processes and policies. 

VTrans was unique in that they have a limited number of products approved for the system to 

ensure they are easy to maintain and easy to install. They worked with FHWA to create the list 

and create strong relationships with construction and maintenance staff. By limiting the 

products, VTrans also addressed the issue of limited staffing capabilities and ensured an easy 

process. 
19

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Implementing or Maintaining ISPE and Inventories

Despite the interest in developing and maintaining ISPEs or inventories, few existing practices 

emerged from the roundtable discussions. As previously detailed, the third phase in GDOT’s 

process included developing an ISPE and collecting photographs of damage that could be used 

for evaluating device performance in the future. For those agencies that had inventories, 

maintaining their database, and keeping information current was a bigger challenge than 

starting an inventory.

With few States reporting successes with 

implementing an ISPE, FHWA noted several 

opportunities for consideration. As mentioned 

previously, the FHWA Office of Research and 

Design oversaw an ISPE and will publish the final 

report soon which will include methodology and 

protocols for designing and conducting an ISPE. 

Arizona DOT is also soliciting States for a new 

pooled fund study, ISPE of Roadway Safety 

Features, which will evaluate the performance of 

roadside safety hardware in the field. This pooled 

fund effort will build upon work done by the 

NCHRP 22-33 Project, Multi-State In-Service Performance Evaluations of Roadside Safety 

Hardware. 

Financial Constraints

Roundtable participants that conducted inventories reported calculating the costs for upgrading

all roadside devices and determined the costs were not feasible within the currently available

funding. Other States expressed interest in how participants used different funding streams, 

both State and Federal.

While INDOT cannot use Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds for guardrail

projects, the State’s capital program absorbs the cost of guardrail within the project. Starting in 

2018, Caltrans established set asides for guardrail upgrades (up to $1M per agency) to upgrade 

existing guardrails and end treatments (bridge rails are not eligible). In Arizona, MCDOT uses the

Transportation Improvement Program to fund individual upgrade projects. MCDOT is also

exploring bundling several guardrail installation projects together in a MASH Implementation 

Study.

ODOT dedicates money each year for roadside upgrades, along with a set-aside program for 

upgrading guardrail, but requires creating a project to spend the money. ODOT will also add 

funds to 1R projects (similar to pavement preservation projects) to upgrade barriers. At this 

time, it is easier for ODOT to select a specific corridor rather than make systemic improvements. 

A new pooled fund effort on In-Service Product 

Evaluation (ISPE) of Roadway Safety Features 

has recently been funded.

20 The primary 

objective of this pooled fund study is to evaluate 

the performance of roadside safety hardware in 

the field through inter-state collaboration by 

using standardized data collection and data 

analysis with a uniform interpretation of results. 

The second objective is to provide a forum for 

states to share ISPE data, experiences, practices, 

information, and resources.
20

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

PennDOT does not use HSIP funding for roadside hardware upgrades unless it is part of a safety 

project, but they use State roadway funding for guiderail along a roadway, including funding for 

local road projects on low-volume roads. Bridge funding is used for guiderail along a bridge, but 

bridge rail upgrades can be very expensive and may require an entirely new deck replacement. 

The funding is prioritized at the District level and it is up to the Districts to prioritize their 

guiderail locations based on risk—the most dangerous with blunt ends, damaged guiderail, and 

so on.

V. Ongoing and Future Needs

Participating agencies identified several needs over the course of the discussion. Some needs 

were requests from FHWA like standardizing evaluation across States or providing more training 

opportunities, while others were guidance from other peer States on determining sunset dates. 

The following section summarizes the specific requests. 

State Resources, Examples, and Databases

Roundtable participants noted the following information would be helpful resources: 

• Example processes for determining modifications and conducting evaluations for 

addressing non-MASH devices. 

• A database of the approved bridge rails by State. 

• Guidance for local agencies to adjust the rail for pedestrians and maintain the crash 

worthiness.

• During the ATSSA annual meeting, several States met to discuss a draft standard 

roadside device evaluation form that is under development. However, they observed that 

States ask more questions than what is on the form. 

• Examples of how other States address innovation, specifically items that would not be 

tested and would carry some level of risk. 

Requests for Technical Assistance or Guidance

Time was reserved at the conclusion of the virtual roundtables for general requests and 

comments. Participants used this time to report specific needs regarding technical assistance or 

additional guidance from FHWA. 

• Caltrans is looking for FHWA help regarding pre-fabricated bridges for emergency uses, 

like after a bridge has washed out. FHWA Office of Safety suggested reaching out to the 

FHWA Office of Bridges and Structures for advice. 

• FHWA does not have the authority to force manufacturers to crash test and clarified that 

proprietary devices need to demonstrate crash worthiness through crash testing. 

PennDOT noted that it is difficult for DOTs to make decisions on proprietary devices and 

the FHWA eligibility letters help with proprietary products and provides a level of 

comfort. The FHWA letters also provide manufacturers with a central clearinghouse for 

all 50 States.
21

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

• MoDOT suggested that for the next update to MASH, AASHTO could consider every

State’s processes and look at foundational aspects beyond crash testing videos and 

reports. There are distinct differences between States, so a more standardized outline for 

DOTs, manufacturers, and testers would help with continuity as there are products 

acceptable in one State but not another. FHWA noted that AASHTO’s Task Force 13 has 

started working on a standardization of items and format for crash test reports.

• VTrans would be interested in a crash test report training, similar to what TDOT received. 

FHWA Responses to Questions

Several States asked specific questions of FHWA regarding existing processes. The following 

summarizes the requests and responses: 

• CDOT asked FHWA if there will be a standardized minimum test level for the Interstate 

system. FHWA explained there is not requirement for a specific test level on the NHS. 

There was a memo several years back that appeared to require TL-3 as the minimum on 

NHS; however, that document does not relay a FHWA policy or state a regulatory 

requirement. The LRFD establishes the test levels for bridge rails, which is an adoptive 

standard by FHWA for the NHS. The document says States are responsible for 

determining the test level they will use on their systems, including the NHS. 

• INDOT was interested if there is reconsideration for revisiting the 2015 change in 

eligibility letters process to relax the requirement for all MASH tests to be run in order to 

receive an eligibility letter. FHWA does not anticipate revisiting the eligibility letter 

processes again since the letters are not required. If manufacturers want to receive 

letters, they need to submit the request to FHWA. Some States are submitting eligibility 

requests and they will still be required to conduct all the tests. 

At the conclusion of the roundtables, FHWA reiterated that their role is to provide States 

information to make the best decisions and they invited participants to share resources with one 

another. Appendix A provides links those resources shared over the course of the roundtables. 

FHWA will continue to work with AASHTO in their efforts to update MASH criteria and 

potentially change it into more of a technical specification. Participating agencies were 

encouraged to continue to use FHWA and other Federal resources in their MASH 

implementation efforts and contact FHWA directly with questions or training and research ideas.

FHWA thanked the participating agencies and noted that they will use the results of the 

roundtable to look for more opportunities to MASH trainings and general information on MASH 

implementation.
22

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

VI. Appendix A – References 

1. AASHTO MASH Implementation Information https://design.transportation.org/mashimplementation/

2. AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, Second Edition 

https://store.transportation.org/item/collectiondetail/211 

3. FHWA FAST ACT – Guardrail Safety Training https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/

countermeasures/reduce_crash_severity/docs/fast_act-guardrail_safety_training.pdf 

4. NCHRP Report 656: Criteria for Restoration of Longitudinal Barriers 

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163512.aspx 

5. Tennessee Department of Transportation Product Evaluation Submittal Form 

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/materials-and-tests/research---product-evaluation-and-qualifiedproducts-list.html 

6. Roadside Safety Pooled Fund https://www.roadsidepooledfund.org/about/ 

7. Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Q&A https://mwrsf.unl.edu/q&a/index.php

8. Roadside Safety Pooled Fund MASH https://www.roadsidepooledfund.org/mashimplementation/

9. Midwest Roadside Safety Facility https://mwrsf.unl.edu/pooledfundq&ahome.php 

10. NCHRP 22-33: Multi-State In-Service Performance Evaluations of Roadside Safety Hardware 

https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4213

11. TTI Project 20-07, Task 395, MASH Equivalency of NCHRP Report 350-Approved Bridge

Railings http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(395)_FR.pdf 

12. Texas Department of Transportation Bridge Railing Identification Guide 

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/library/pubs/bus/bridge/railing.pdf

13. Colorado Department of Transportation Staff Bridge, Bridge Detail Manual 

https://www.codot.gov/library/bridge/bridgemanuals/bridge_detail_manual/bdetm_16_repair_details_2010_12.pdf

14. Maricopa County Department of Transportation, 2018 Annual Report 

https://mcdot.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44001/MCDOT-2018-Annual-Report

15. Iowa DOT Instructional Memorandums to Local Public Agencies: Traffic Barriers (Guardrail 

and Bridge Barrier Rail) https://www.iowadot.gov/local_systems/publications/im/3230.pdf 

16. PennDOT Publication 13M Design Manual Part 2 Highway Design 

https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%2013M/Pub%2013M%20Ti

tle%20Page.pdf 

17. Maricopa County, GIS Mapping Applications https://www.maricopa.gov/3942/GIS-MappingApplications 

18. Iowa DOT Pink Crash Tag Project https://iowadot.gov/crashtag/Home

19. Washington State DOT Maintenance Accountability Program 

https://wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance/accountability-process 

20. In-Service Performance Evaluation (ISPE) of Roadway Safety Features 

https://www.pooledfund.org/Details/Solicitation/1551 
23

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

VII. Appendix B – Other Resources 

ATSSA Guidance Documents https://www.atssa.com/Training/Work-Zone-SafetyGrant/Guidance-Documents

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Standard Specifications for Highway 

Construction – 2020 Edition 

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/dcsspecs/assets/pdf/hwyspecs/sshc2020.pdf

Colorado Department of Transportation Guardrail Systems Field Guide For Construction 

Engineers and Inspectors https://codot.gov/programs/tetp/assets/2018-2019/guardrail-fieldguide.pdf 

Colorado Department of Transportation Staff Bridge, Bridge Detail Manual 

https://www.codot.gov/library/bridge/bridgemanuals/bridge_detail_manual/bdetm_16_repair_details_2010_12.pdf. 

FHWA Roadside Hardware Policy Memoranda and Guidance, Crash Testing of Bridge Railings 

(May 30, 1997) 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/countermeasures/reduce_crash_severity/barriers/brid

gerailings/docs/bridge.pdf 

Florida Department of Transportation Approach Terminal Identification Guide 

https://www.fdot.gov/docs/default-source/maintenance/emaint/docs/ApproachTerminalIdentificationGuide.pdf

Illinois Center for Transportation, Improving the Safety of Moving Lane Closures – Phase II 

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.390.9229&rep=rep1&type=pdf

INDOT 2013 Design Manual – Chapter 404, Bridge Deck 

https://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/design/Part%204/Chapter%20404%20-

%20Bridge%20Deck.pdf 

Iowa DOT Instructional Memorandums to Local Public Agencies 

https://iowadot.gov/local_systems/publications/im/imtoc.pdf 

Iowa DOT Instructional Memorandums to Local Public Agencies: Traffic Barriers (Guardrail and 

Bridge Barrier Rail) https://www.iowadot.gov/local_systems/publications/im/3230.pdf 

MaineDOT’s Guardrail Inspection Training 

FLEAT from Road Systems, Inc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVO-UGbxCqI 

MSKT from Road Systems, Inc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W9KvWHA6Gc 

SRT-350 from Trinity Highway Products https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpZgxfjNIEU 

X-Lite from Lindsay Corporation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t588OuMec00 
24

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

SoftStop from Trinity Highway Products 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OISlz5UY05A 

Maricopa County Department of Transportation, 2018 Annual Report 

https://mcdot.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44001/MCDOT-2018-Annual-Report. 

Maricopa County, GIS Mapping Applications https://www.maricopa.gov/3942/GIS-MappingApplications 

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility https://mwrsf.unl.edu/pooledfundq&ahome.php 

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Development of a Standardized Buttress for Approach 

Guardrail Transitions https://mwrsf.unl.edu/researchhub/files/Report415/TRP-03-369-20.pdf 

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Q&A https://mwrsf.unl.edu/q&a/index.php. 

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility, Research Hub https://mwrsf.unl.edu/researchhub.php. 

Minnesota Department of Transportation Roadside Hardware Identification & Inspection 

Handbook 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/design/roadsidesafety/documents/pdf/roadside_hardware_handboo

k.pdf

NCHRP 15-79: Development of Guidance for Non-Standard Roadside Hardware 

https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4970

NCHRP 22-12(03) Recommended Guidelines for the Selection of Test Levels 2 through 5 Bridge 

Railings http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP22-12(03)_FR.pdf 

NCHRP 22-33: Multi-State In-Service Performance Evaluations of Roadside Safety Hardware 

https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4213

NCHRP Report 656: Criteria for Restoration of Longitudinal Barriers 

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163512.aspx 

Ohio Department of Transportation Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices and 

Acceptable Delineation Methods for Vehicles 

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Roadway/DesignStandards/traffic/qualityguid

elines/Documents/Quality%20Standards%20January%202020.pdf

PennDOT Bureau of Maintenance and Operations, Maintenance Manual 

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%2023/PUB%2023.pdf 

Roadside Safety Pooled Fund https://www.roadsidepooledfund.org/about/ 

Roadside Safety Pooled Fund, TL-2 Short Radius Guardrail Treatment 

https://www.roadsidepooledfund.org/terminal/tl-2-short-radius-guardrail-treatment/ 

Roadside Safety Pooled Fund, TL-3 Short-Radius Guardrail 

https://www.roadsidepooledfund.org/longitudinal-barrier/short-radius-guardrail/ 
25

MASH Roundtables: Summary of Proceedings

Task Force 13 https://www.tf13.org/ 

Tennessee Department of Transportation Product Evaluation Submittal Form 

https://www.tn.gov/tdot/materials-and-tests/research---product-evaluation-and-qualifiedproducts-list.html 

Texas Department of Transportation Bridge Railing Identification Guide 

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/library/pubs/bus/bridge/railing.pdf

Texas Department of Transportation Roadside Safety Field Guide 2014 

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/des/guides/roadside-safety.pdf 

The Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Superstructures 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/pubs/nhi15047.pdf 

TTI Project 20-07, Task 395, MASH Equivalency of NCHRP Report 350-Approved Bridge Railings

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(395)_FR.pdf 

Washington State DOT Design – Plan Sheet Library 

https://wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Standards/PlanSheet/default.htm#TB 

Washington State DOT Design Manual, Ch. 730.04(7b) 

https://wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm 

Washington State DOT General Special Provisions, Division 8 Miscellaneous Construction 

https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/projectdev/gspspdf/egsp8.pdf 

Washington State DOT Standard Specifications 

https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M41-10/Division1.pdf 
FHWA-SA-22-023