FHWA-SA-22-047

Safety and NEPA: 

Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

ii

FHWA-SA-22-047 

Notice 

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

interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information 

contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names 

appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Non-Binding Contents Disclaimer

Except for the statutes and regulations cited within, the contents of this document do not have the force and 

effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide 

clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to 

ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

iii

FHWA-SA-22-047 

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-22-047 

2. Government Accession 

No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

 

4. Title and Subtitle

Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices: Introductory 

Document

5. Report Date

February 2023

6. Performing Organization Code

7.Author(s) 

Candice Andre, Ian Hamilton, Scott Duncanson, Lauren Triebert, Michael Dunn, 

and Claire Woleslagle 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc (VHB)

940 Main Campus Drive, Ste 500

Raleigh, NC 27606

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

693JJ320D000024 (VHB)

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

May 2021 – June 2023 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

The contract manager for this report was Phillip Bobitz (Office of Safety). An FHWA Technical Oversight Working 

Group included: David Cohen, Mark Doctor, Paul LaFleur, George Merritt, Chimai Ngo, Stephanie Perez-Arrieta, Jerry 

Roche, Jim Thorne, Neel Vanikar, and Aaron Williams.

16. Abstract

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess the 

environmental effects of their proposed actions on the human environment prior to making decisions. These case studies 

present examples from around the United States of how safety can be incorporated in NEPA. This case study document 

begins with a discussion of the Roadway Safety Management Process and its applicability to the broader project 

development process. The introduction and case studies then narrow the focus of safety analysis for the purpose of 

incorporating safety elements specifically within the context project purpose and need and the NEPA process. The 

document concludes with an Appendix of specific codes and federal regulations that help justify safety as a relevant part 

of the NEPA legal framework.

17. Key Words: 

NEPA, safety, environmental assessments, 

environmental impact statements, purpose and 

need statements, alternatives analysis, case study

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 16

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized 
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

iv

FHWA-SA-22-047

Table of Contents

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

The Roadway Safety Management Process and Planning ................................................................................................... 2

Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Reviews......................................................................................................................... 3

Case Studies................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

References.................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Appendix A: Statutory and Regulatory Support for Safety in the NEPA Process........................................................ 9

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Graphic. Roadway safety management process. ................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Graphic. The project development process and opportunities to implement the HSM. .......................... 3

Figure 3. Graphic. Integrating safety into NEPA analysis.................................................................................................... 4
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

v 

FHWA-SA-22-047

Acknowledgement

Development of this report required input from transportation agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels. 

The Federal Highway Administration and the authors greatly appreciate the cooperation of the staff from the 

City of Frankfort, Kentucky and the Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania 

Departments of Transportation.
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

1 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

Introduction 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a procedural statute that requires Federal agencies to assess 

the environmental effects of their proposed actions on the human environment prior to making decisions. The 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is responsible for implementing NEPA regulations and has issued 

numerous documents to guide agencies through NEPA compliance and regulation implementation. These 

regulations (40 CFR §1500-1508) guide NEPA compliance by detailing agency authority, NEPA classes of 

action, types of environmental review documentation, scoping, and time limits. In addition, the U.S. modal 

administrations, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), have joint NEPA implementing regulations related to NEPA 

compliance that must be followed (23 CFR §771). Due to the procedural nature of NEPA, an understanding of 

the implementing regulations and legal precedent is important to follow a defensible transportation decisionmaking process and develop associated documentation. 

Safety is just one potential impact on the human environment along with several other planning considerations 

through the NEPA process (e.g., air quality, hazardous waste disposal, noise, and water conservation). Traffic 

crashes help quantify this impact, with an estimated 42,915 fatalities occurring in the United States in 2021 

alone. Federal policy has stressed safety as a goal and fundamental consideration in the transportation planning 

and project development process. 

There has been, and continues to be, a significant effort to advance safety research, practice, and policy as they 

relate to transportation design. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) National Roadway 

Safety Strategy (NRSS) touches on many of these points, particularly (USDOT, 2022): 

» Emphasis on the Safe System Approach to accommodate all users.

» Improvement in data collection and management to support data-driven safety analysis (DDSA). 

These advancements, combined with State guidance on the roadway safety practice, lend themselves to 

integration with the NEPA process. As stated in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Integrating 

Road Safety into NEPA Analysis: A Primer for Safety and Environmental Professionals (2011b), the NEPA process is 

“an effective tool for maximizing safety benefits of transportation projects” and “provides a unique 

opportunity to apply the latest research and analytical techniques for project-level safety analysis” (p. 1). For 

instance, the human and natural environment are key considerations in the NEPA process, and the NRSS 

explicitly links safety with similar national priority areas, equity and climate. Fatal and serious injury crashes 

disproportionately occur in communities that have been historically underserved or affected by persistent 

income inequality (USDOT, 2022; p. 7). Likewise, providing safer transportation options for nonmotorized 

users is essential to promoting biking, walking, and transit and reducing emissions associated with motor 

vehicle traffic and congestion. These connections between safety and the human environment underscore the 

importance of appropriately using data analysis, observational studies, and stakeholder input to incorporate 

safety into the NEPA process and documentation. Every transportation project presents an opportunity to 

consider and implement appropriate safety improvements that support achievement of our national safety 

goals.

These case studies present examples from around the United States of how safety can be incorporated in 

NEPA. There are two primary audiences for these case studies: 

1. NEPA specialists interested in learning how to effectively incorporate safety analysis into NEPA 

documentation and decision-making.
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

2 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

2. Safety specialists (i.e., planners and engineers) interested in understanding the NEPA process and 

where safety consideration can be incorporated.

This case study document begins with a discussion of the Roadway Safety Management Process and its 

applicability to the broader project development process. The introduction and case studies then narrow the 

focus of safety analysis for the purpose of incorporating safety considerations specifically within the context 

project purpose and need and the NEPA process. The document concludes with an Appendix of specific 

federal statutes and regulations that help justify safety as a critical part of the NEPA legal framework.

The Roadway Safety Management Process and Planning

The Roadway Safety Management Process extends to all 

aspects of safety-related project planning, development, and 

evaluation. Chapters in Part B of the American Association 

of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) First Edition cover the sixstep approach to conducting a data-driven and safety 

performance analysis-based program (figure 1). Network 

Screening (Chapter 4) is the most applicable to the preNEPA stage of project development. Network screening is:

“...a process for reviewing a transportation network to 

identify and rank sites from most likely to least likely to 

realize a reduction in crash frequency with 

implementation of a countermeasure” (AASHTO, 

2010, p. 4-1).

In other words, segments or intersections highlighted 

through network screening have a documented safety need based on past performance (or predicted 

safety performance using HSM Part C methods). Subsequent chapters of the HSM are also relevant to 

the NEPA process, although potentially less relevant to the pre-NEPA phase. Chapters 5 (Diagnosis), 6 

(Select Countermeasures), and 7 (Economic Appraisal) can be applied in the project scoping, purpose and 

need, and alternatives analysis phases of the NEPA process (figure 2). 

The HSM methods help practitioners assess the 

safety impacts of proposed project and design 

decisions. This is especially important when 

evaluating differences between nominal and 

substantive safety (i.e., safety performance 

analysis). Prior to the HSM, the default safety 

assumption focused on achieving prescribed 

design practices and standards. This stands in 

contrast with safety performance analysis, which 

defines safety in terms of actual performance as 

it relates to the frequency and severity of 

crashes. Safety performance analysis can be 

integrated into the NEPA process by presenting 

and defining safety performance (e.g., HSM 

analysis results) in terms that are meaningful to 

“The National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) 480, A Guide to Best Practices for 

Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions, explains that 

nominal safety refers to a design or alternative’s 

adherence to design criteria and/or standards. 

Substantive safety refers to the actual performance 

of a highway or facility as measured by its crash 

experience.”

Source: FHWA, 2011 (p. 22)

Figure 1. Graphic. Roadway safety management process. 

Source: AASHTO, 2010.
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

3 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

technical and nontechnical stakeholders. Furthermore, quantitative safety metrics should be identified 

early in the project development process (i.e., scoping and prior to purpose and need) so they can be 

applied appropriately to design decisions. Once in purpose and need, these metrics can be used as an 

evaluation parameter following project implementation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2015).

Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Reviews 

Although safety performance analysis applies broadly during the planning and project development process, 

the HSM and pre-NEPA planning are essential for incorporating safety into NEPA reviews. FHWA’s Integrating 

Road Safety into NEPA Analysis: A Primer for Safety and Environmental Professionals (2011b) supports the use of 

quantitative and qualitative methods in NEPA reviews. The guide provides a general framework, 

Figure 2. Graphic. The project development process and opportunities to implement the HSM. 

Source: FHWA, 2011.
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

4 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

recommendations, and noteworthy examples for incorporating safety in NEPA reviews. The organization of 

the guide follows the principal steps of NEPA review (figure 3):

A project’s purpose and need statement is the core component of a NEPA document. Safety should be 

adequately supported in order to be considered as part of a project’s purpose and need statement. The 2011 

guide notes four key components of incorporating safety in project purpose and need:

1. Analysis results that define the existing problem.

2. Reference applicable safety plans (e.g., Strategic 

Highway Safety Plans or other State, metropolitan, 

and local road safety plans).

3. The results of public outreach.

4. Considerations for all road users, including those 

likely to be more vulnerable in crashes such as 

pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair and other 

mobility device users, and transit users.

Project scoping can address these components and support safety as a project need. The 2011 guidance notes 

several methods for justifying safety as a project need:

» Results of prior planning products1 (23 U.S.C. §168).

» Public and stakeholder outreach to document observational data from safety professionals or persons 

affected by safety issues.

» Road safety audits (RSAs) or other formal site reviews conducted by a multidisciplinary team.

» Safety data review of observed crashes or other objective safety data to diagnose crash patterns, 

contributing factors, or other persistent issues.

» Safety analysis to identify the extent and nature of a safety problem. Predictive, HSM-based, methods can 

be used to support the following applications:

o Network Screening can help normalize relative safety outcomes by road type. For instance, the 

Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) method can identify locations that experience a higher number of 

crashes than would be predicted for a similar road facility with similar annual average daily traffic 

1 “The term ‘planning product’ means a decision, analysis, study, or other documented information that is the result of an evaluation 

or decision-making process carried out by a metropolitan planning organization or a State, as appropriate, during metropolitan or 

statewide transportation planning under section 134 or 135, respectively.” (Source: 23 U.S. Code §168(a)(3)). 

Figure 3. Graphic. Integrating safety into NEPA analysis. 

Source: FHWA.

“The statement of the project purpose and 

need is the core component of the NEPA 

document. It describes the impetus for the 

project and serves as the benchmark against 

which project alternatives are evaluated.” 

Source: FHWA, 2011 (p. 21) 
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

5 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

(AADT) as opposed to using a statewide average. This would indicate a substantive safety issue with 

that location.

o Alternatives Analysis can reinforce a proposed project’s effectiveness at addressing a safety need 

prior to NEPA. For instance, feasibility studies can compare a proposed alternative to a potential “nobuild” future scenario based on predicted crashes. Proposed alternatives that show a reduction in 

crashes over the study period can help support safety as a project purpose during NEPA initiation, 

particularly in combination with a documented safety issue (e.g., stakeholder input, observational 

study, crash pattern diagnosis, or network screening results).

Establishing safety in project purpose and need through adequate supporting evidence is essential for 

influencing safety in later NEPA stages. Examples related to figure 3 could include: 

» An Alternatives Analysis could incorporate analytical results from the Interactive Highway Safety 

Design Model (IHSDM), Enhanced Interchange Safety Analysis Tool (ISATe), or another HSM-based tool 

that compares safety performance analysis results of each alternative.

2

» Practitioners can define the Affected Environment according to specific road users or potential 

impact areas. This might include pedestrians and cyclists, certain age groups, or other underserved and 

disadvantaged groups that might be disproportionately affected by adverse safety conditions.

» Environmental Consequences (beneficial or adverse impacts) can be linked to wildlife habitats and 

collisions with motor vehicles or reduced emissions resulting from a road diet or other complete streets 

applications.

» Safety-related Mitigation considerations can apply to construction-related (e.g., work zone) or postconstruction-related (e.g., wildlife collision mitigation) activities and measures intended to reduce 

collisions on the roadway.

Case Studies

There are practical and statutory connections between the NEPA and the roadway safety management 

process. However, these connections are not always implemented at an institutional level. Furthermore, the 

state-of-practice for both safety and project development have evolved since 2011. For instance, the HSM, 

systemic approach to safety, and the Safe System approach (FHWA, 2022a) have gained widespread 

acceptance since the Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Analysis guide’s publication. The six Safe System approach

principles in particular strengthen the connection between traffic safety and the human environment:

1. Deaths and serious injuries are unacceptable. 

2. Humans make mistakes. 

3. Humans are vulnerable. 

4. Responsibility is shared. 

5. Safety is proactive. 

6. Redundancy is crucial. 

2 The Preface of the HSM (Considerations and Cautions When Using the HSM) notes that “The information in the HSM is provided to 

assist agencies in their effort to integrate safety into their decision-making process. The HSM is not intended to be a substitute for 

the exercise of sound engineering judgment.” (AASHTO, 2010).
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

6 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

The following case studies provide noteworthy examples across the United States that have successfully 

incorporated safety as a key component of the NEPA process: 

» Incorporating Safety into Project Purpose and Need – Agency Guidance Review. 

» North Dakota’s US 85 Expansion: I-94 Interchange to Watford City Bypass. 

» Colorado’s I-25 South Gap Environmental Assessment.

» Kentucky’s Second Street Corridor (US 60): Complete Street and Road Diet Project. 

Several key themes and lessons learned presented in these case studies include:

» Safety and environmental considerations should not be considered “either/or” in project 

development. The incorporation of safety improvements in a project does not always require 

expanding the footprint or potentially impacting more environmental resources. There is room for 

flexible and context-sensitive, performance-based practical design when creating innovative solutions to 

address safety. 

» Clear, well-developed guidance can benefit the incorporation of safety in NEPA. This is particularly 

true for institutional guidance that helps State and local agencies craft defensible purpose and need 

statements. 

» Meaningful public involvement and engagement are critical in understanding specific safety 

concerns within a project footprint. Feedback from routine travelers of a corridor provides insight on 

current conditions that may not be evident from historic data alone. For example, public engagement 

can help underscore traffic stress on vulnerable road users or highlight a lack of accommodations. The 

project team must fully understand these safety concerns to capture and evaluate them in the 

environmental review process. For instance, RSAs during NEPA reviews can be designed and leveraged 

as an effective safety planning and public involvement tool. 

» Documenting safety concerns and quantitative analysis from pre-NEPA processes, 

particularly through a Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) or feasibility study, provides a 

foundation for prioritizing safety throughout the project development process. This is particularly true 

when crash history alone is not the only potential justification for incorporating safety into NEPA.

» The HSM and supporting tools can be used in alternatives analysis to incorporate safety 

performance analysis (i.e., substantive safety), rather than design standards alone (i.e., nominal safety), 

in alternative evaluations.

» Safety can be incorporated in all stages of NEPA reviews, for all NEPA classes of action 

(i.e., Documented Categorical Exclusions3

, Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements), and beyond. Using FHWA’s proven safety 

countermeasures (FHWA, 2022b) in design alternatives, defining the affected human environment that 

3 Pursuant to 23 CFR §771.117(d), these actions would require documentation that demonstrates that the specific conditions or 

criteria for these CEs are satisfied, and that significant environmental effects will not result. However, 23 CFR §771.117(c)(27) 

includes, “highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects, including the installation of ramp metering control devices and 

lighting,” if the project meets certain constraints, which meets the criteria for CEs in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR §1508.4) and 

paragraph (a) of this section and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by the FHWA.
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

7 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

could be improved through safe transportation, and considering safety in mitigation strategies are 

opportunities to incorporate safety in the NEPA process. 
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

8 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

References

» American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2010). Highway Safety Manual: 1st 

Edition, Washington, D.C. Resources available online: 

http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx. 

» Federal Highway Administration. (2011a). HSM Implementation Guide for Managers, Report No. FHWASA-11-48, Washington D.C. Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/23481. 

» Federal Highway Administration. (2011b). Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Analysis: A Primer for Safety 

and Environmental Professionals, Report No. FHWA-SA-11-36, Washington D.C. Available online: 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42549. 

» Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Integrating the HSM into the Highway Project Development 

Process, Report No. FHWA-SA-11-50, Washington D.C. Available online: 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/41343. 

» Federal Highway Administration. (2022a). Zero Deaths – Saving Lives through a Safety Culture and a Safe 

System. Available online: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/zero_deaths_vision.cfm. 

» Federal Highway Administration. (2022b). Proven Safety Countermeasures. Available online: 

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures. 

» Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2015). Integration of Safety in the Project Development Process and 

Beyond: A Context Sensitive Approach, Publication No. IR-140, Washington, D.C. Available online: 

https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=e4edb88b%2Dbafd%2Db6c9%2D6a19%2D22e98fedc8a9. 

» United States DOT. (2022, January). National Roadway Safety Strategy. Available online: 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-SafetyStrategy.pdf. 
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

9 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

Appendix A: Statutory and Regulatory Support for Safety in the 

NEPA Process

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is responsible for implementing NEPA through Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (initially promulgated as guidelines in 1971 and then issued as regulations in 

1978). Specifically, 40 CFR §1500-1508 guide NEPA compliance by detailing agency authority, NEPA 

thresholds, types of environmental review documentation, scoping, and time limits. Due to the procedural 

nature of NEPA, an understanding of legal precedent is important to follow a defensible process and develop 

associated documentation. The United States Code (USC) is a consolidation and codification by subject matter 

of general and permanent laws of the United States. Within Title 23, the portion of the USC governing 

highways, there are multiple instances identifying the relevance and importance of including safety within the 

transportation planning and NEPA process. 

» 23 U.S.C. §109: This section identifies standards for plans and specifications for each proposed 

highway project covered by the chapter. Throughout the section, there are mentions of safety 

concepts and measures to be included in design standards and implementation efforts. Specifically, 

subsection (a)(1) states that a facility will “adequately serve the existing and planned future traffic of 

the highway in a manner that is conducive to safety, durability, and economy of maintenance;” 

subsection (c)(2)(D) dictates the use of the HSM when developing design criteria. 

» 23 U.S.C. §134 and §135: These sections include policy for metropolitan (section 134), as well as 

statewide and nonmetropolitan (section 135) transportation planning efforts.

o Per subsections 134(h)(1)(B) and 135(d)(1)(B), the planning process shall “increase the safety of 

the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users.”

o Per subsections 134(h)(2)(A) and 135(d)(2)(A), the planning process shall “provide for the 

establishment and use of a performance-based approach to transportation decision-making to 

support the national goals described in section 150(b) of this title and the general purposes 

described in section 5301 of title 49.” Safety is referenced as a national goal in 23 USC 

§150(b)(1), and 49 USC §5301(b)(2) references the development and delivery of capital 

projects. 

o Per subsection 134(i)(2)(F), operational and management strategies shall “improve the 

performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize 

the safety and mobility of people and goods.”

» 23 U.S.C. §168: This section integrates planning and environmental review. It permits lead or 

cooperating agencies to adopt or incorporate a planning product in the environmental review process. 

This planning product can reference safety-related considerations into the NEPA process through

several mechanisms:

o Per subsection 168(c)(1)(C), the purpose and the need for the proposed action.

o Per subsection 168(c)(1)(D), preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of 

unreasonable alternatives.

o Per subsection 168(c)(2), planning analyses that include travel demands, regional development, 

and built environment conditions.
Safety and NEPA: Case Studies and Noteworthy Practices

 

10

FHWA-SA-22-047 

o Per subsection 168(d)(3), the planning process that included broad multidisciplinary 

consideration of systems-level or corridor-wide transportation needs and potential effects, 

including effects on the human and natural environment.

o Per subsection 168(d)(7), the planning product has a rational basis and is based on reliable and 

reasonably current data and reasonable and scientifically acceptable methodologies.

Additional CFR parts that support the use of safety performance analysis in NEPA include:

» 23 CFR §771: This section outlines how Federal agencies, including the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 

and USDOT, must adhere to 23 CFR §771 for processing highway, public transportation, and railroad 

actions in compliance with NEPA. Pursuant to 23 CFR §771.105, it is FHWA’s policy that: 

“Alternative courses of action be evaluated, and decisions be made in the best 

overall public interest based upon a balanced consideration of the need for safe

and efficient transportation; of the social, economic, and environmental impacts 

of the proposed transportation improvement; and of national, State, and local 

environmental protection goals.”

» 23 CFR §625: This section establishes design standards for highways, specifically reflecting 23 USC 

§109 statute. Section 625.2 states the transportation projects will, “adequately serve the existing and 

planned future traffic of the highway in a manner that is conducive to safety, durability, and economy of 

maintenance.” The subsection reiterates the importance of safety, stating “an important goal of the 

FHWA is to provide the highest practical and feasible level of safety for people and property . . . and to 

reduce highway hazards and the resulting number and severity of accidents on all the Nation’s 

highways.” 

» 23 CFR §450.318: This section discusses how the results of a “multimodal, systems-level corridor or 

subarea planning study” can “be used as part of the project development process consistent with 

NEPA and implementing regulations.” The results may help support:

o Purpose and need or goals and objective statement(s). 

o General travel corridor and/or general mode(s) definition (e.g., highway, transit, or a 

highway/transit combination). 

o Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of unreasonable alternatives. 

o Basic description of the environmental setting. 

o Preliminary identification of environmental impacts and environmental mitigation.

Furthermore, applicable public documents or other source material produced or in support of the 

transportation planning process may be directly incorporated or referenced in subsequent documents.
 

FHWA-SA-22-047 

FHWA, Office of Safety

Phillip Bobitz, P.E.

Phillip.Bobitz@dot.gov

717-221-4574