U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Contract Number: DTFH61-11-Q-00101

Publication Number: FHWA-SA-13-033

Tools and Practices for System Wide 

Safety Improvement

Gap Analysis Report

July 2013

Submitted to:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Mail Stop: Room E86-301 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Prepared by

This report is confidential and intended solely for the use and information of 

the company to whom it is addressed.
Table of Contents

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

Report Objective .....................................................................................................................1

Methodology...........................................................................................................................2

Report Structure......................................................................................................................2

2. Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment ................................................. 3

Available Tools and Processes ...............................................................................................3

Challenges With Available Tools and Processes....................................................................5

Funding ...................................................................................................................................8

Key Takeaways.......................................................................................................................9

3. Safety Focused Decision Making Framework........................................................ 10

Identify Potential Projects and Programs..............................................................................11

Narrow & Select a Mix of Projects and Programs................................................................13

Predict Safety Outcomes of Projects and Programs .............................................................15

Implement Projects and Programs........................................................................................16

Achieve State and Local Safety Targets...............................................................................17

Continuous Program Improvement Cycle ............................................................................18

Using Communication and Collaboration to Foster a Safety Culture ..................................20

Key Takeaways.....................................................................................................................20

4. Identification of Gaps............................................................................................... 21

Current Gaps.........................................................................................................................21

Anticipated Gaps...................................................................................................................25

Key Takeaways.....................................................................................................................27

5. Suggested Bridging Options..................................................................................... 28

Conduct a Capability Maturity Analysis to Determine Organizational Gaps ......................28

Institute Multi-Disciplinary Safety Planning Courses..........................................................29

Develop and Distribute Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT) Toolkits ..................30

Expansion Beyond Traditional Funding Sources .................................................................30

Additional Research..............................................................................................................31

6. Summary and Next Steps......................................................................................... 32

Appendix A: List of Acronyms....................................................................................... 33

Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction........................................... 34

Appendix C: Safety Planning Peer Exchange............................................................... 40
1. Introduction

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is 

dedicated to promoting a performance-based management 

approach for the highway safety community. Once 

established, this approach will support FHWA’s Safety 

Focused Decision Making Framework (herein also referred 

to as the Framework) by translating measureable goals and 

objectives into highway safety investment strategies, 

priorities, and actions at the programmatic level. To ensure 

maximum effectiveness, this Framework relies on 

consistent monitoring, reporting, evaluation, and

improvement of performance goals to promote 

achievement of the desired safety performance across the 

entire roadway system – resulting in improved roadway 

safety nationwide. 

There are a great variety of products and projects that have 

been developed or are being developed to assist state 

Department of Transportations (states) and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) in predicting the safety 

impacts of various inventories of safety projects, tools, 

activities, and strategies. While there are differing levels of 

maturity along the safety planning and prediction 

implementation curve, most states and MPOs are not 

consistently predicting the safety outcomes of a suite of 

projects, tools, activities, and strategies at the 

programmatic level. 

Although the programmatic approach to safety planning 

has yet to be broadly adopted, many states are setting 

performance targets to reduce fatalities and serious injuries 

(among other performance measures) as part of their 

overall roadway safety planning efforts. This study is part 

of a larger FHWA effort to examine the transportation 

safety planning environment and establish a model for 

program-level safety planning. The larger effort focused on 

first synthesizing current methods to incorporate performance management techniques in 

transportation planning efforts, and describing nationally available data analysis tools that 

support state and local efforts to plan, monitor, and report safety outcomes. The second major 

element of the effort included a series of in-depth case studies focused on identifying notable 

practices and tools used to assist states and MPOs in planning safety projects and measuring 

performance against established performance goals and targets.

Report Objective

This report identifies the gaps between the current safety planning environment as it relates to 

projects, current tools and activities, and the desired future state as defined by FHWA’s Safety 

A Focus on PerformanceBased Management

The last two decades have brought 

about many changes in government 

policies and practices that serve to 

encourage accountability and 

transparency in the management of 

taxpayer resources and improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of 

government programs. The 

Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA) of 1993, followed by the 

Performance Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART) requirements, and the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2011, have 

pushed federal agencies to collect 

comprehensive data on their program 

activities and report progress more 

frequently. Over the same time 

period, many state and local agencies 

also expanded requirements for 

measuring and reporting progress.

These requirements have prompted 

government organizations at all levels 

to expand their use of data analytics.

While government agencies have 

improved their data collection and 

analysis activities, many still struggle 

to link data collection to strategic 

decision making. New legislation, 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century (MAP-21), was signed 

into law in July 2012. MAP-21 

emphasizes the use of performancebased management for federal 

funding of transportation projects. 

This legislation contains provisions 

that will shape the performance-based 

management framework within the 

Department of Transportation, and 

broadly supports the Department’s 

safety agenda. 
Focused Decision Making Framework. It builds on prior work, tying together sub-elements (i.e., 

synthesis report and case studies) of the larger FHWA effort, and injects new ideas yielded from 

a Safety Planning Peer Exchange event attended by 13 subject matter experts representing a 

variety of perspectives and backgrounds. Finally, this report aims to assist federal, state, and 

MPO transportation planners achieve their established safety performance goals by 

recommending activities that could be used to expand knowledge of this topic and 

implementation of best practices across stakeholder groups. 

Methodology

This report is part of a larger step-wise gap analysis that builds off sequential efforts and 

associated findings. First, the project team identified available performance management tools 

for roadway safety and described how states and MPOs were using them. Then, the team 

identified existing processes used to conduct performance management analysis and safety 

impact projection. Next, case studies on the application of available roadway safety predictive 

tools and processes were crafted, focusing on applicability in supporting a system-wide 

prediction of effects of safety investments on the accomplishment of performance measures. The 

findings were then shared as part of a Safety Planning Peer Exchange, which, through facilitated 

discussions, helped FHWA refine the Framework for the improved future state. 

As described earlier, this report defines the gaps between the current state and the desired future 

state, and introduces various bridging options that may help overcome current obstacles. The 

project team will then develop a short guidance document and training program to educate 

FHWA Division Office safety planners, engineers, and other staff on the opportunities and 

proposed methods to improve safety planning and performance management practices. The 

intent of the training is to provide FHWA Division Office staff with information and tools to 

assist their states and MPOs in evaluating their safety performance management framework and 

begin forecasting the outcomes of their combined safety investments at a programmatic level.

Report Structure

This report is organized into six sections, including the 
Section 1: Introduction

40

Introduction. Section 2, 
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

40

Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment, reviews the current tools and processes 

available for safety planning, and describes some of the challenges associated with their 

implementation. This section also includes a description of current funding sources and 

opportunities. Section 3, Safety Focused Decision Making Framework explains the desired safety 

performance environment as outlined by experts at the Safety Planning Peer Exchange. It also 

includes a discussion on fostering a safety culture through the use of change management best 

practices to encourage the adoption of the Safety Focused Decision Making Framework, Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) requirements, and various other enhancements 

to the environment. Section 4, 
Section 4: Identification of Gaps

40

Identification of Gaps, covers both current and anticipated gaps between current and future states 

of transportation safety planning. Section 5, 
Section 5: Suggested Bridging Options

40

Suggested Bridging Options, describes various bridging options to help overcome existing gaps. 

Finally, the report ends with Section 6, As discussed earlier, as federal and state funding is often 

uncertain, funding innovations and alternate sources of funding may help state and local 

transportation organizations maximize safety gains. States and local transportation agencies 

should also identify opportunities to include safety improvement elements into other 

transportation projects at the early stages (e.g., roadway design and construction). Exploring 

alternate funding sources and alternatives to incorporate safety in infrastructure projects is 

especially important when transportation appropriations slow or decrease.

To develop a KTT toolkit, safety planners would first identify target stakeholders. From there, a 

mix of KTT products, tools, and tactics to deliver key messages and inform/engage stakeholders 

would be developed. Finally, they would foster the adoption of safety planning concepts and 

practices through the deployment of the products, tools, tactics and activities outlined in a formal 

KTT plan. An effective safety planning KTT toolkit would include the following items to help 

familiarize stakeholders with the safety planner’s paradigm and concerns:

 Detailed stakeholder analysis to determine information requirements, communication 

preferences (e.g., location, frequency, technological availability), values/needs/concerns, 

preferred means of communication, and allies/resistors

 Workshops, webinars, brown bags, and focus groups

 Outreach material including newsletters, fact sheets, presentations, reports, etc.

 Formal promotional briefings

 Interactive, public-facing website 

If deployed nationally, the impact that KTT toolkits would have on the safety planning 

environment would be substantial. The KTT toolkits would encourage the sharing of best 

practices, expand the availability of robust data sets, and foster innovative solutions to systemic 

challenges.

Expansion Beyond Traditional Funding Sources

As discussed earlier, given that federal and state funding may be limited and not all 

transportation project funding includes a safety component, funding innovations and alternate 

sources of funding may help state and local transportation organizations maximize safety gains. 

Exploring alternate funding sources and alternatives to incorporate safety in infrastructure 

projects is especially important when transportation appropriations slow or decrease. An example 

of a strategy to expand funding is for safety planners to collaborate with engineers during the 

roadway design phase to include safety elements as part of the roadway design. 
Section 5: Suggested Bridging Options

40

Additional Research

More research is needed to define a broadly accepted method for calculating the expected safety 

outcomes across multiple projects within a program portfolio. Safety planners have become very 

adept at using available tools to help predict safety outcomes for specific projects, but have not 

yet effectively broadened their predictive capabilities to evaluate a larger program portfolio, as 

illustrated in Figure 14. 

Whatever methodology is ultimately developed to meet this need, the analysis will need to take 

into account the additional benefits, unexpected challenges, and unintended consequences 

(positive and negative) of different project groupings. This will be a key element in the maturing 

of safety planning data collection and analysis capabilities as more accurate predictions of 

program level safety outcomes will help achieve FHWA’s Safety Focused Decision Making 

Framework.
Section 1: Introduction

1

Steps. 
Section 2: Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment 

2

2. Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment

Measuring the impact of specific roadway safety countermeasures has historically been a 

challenge. This challenge is exponentially increased when attempting to measure the impact of a 

suite of countermeasures in a region or corridor. Expansion of predictive modeling and analysis 

actively support the evaluation and updating of Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) that 

establish statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas and integrates the four Es –

engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services. This section focuses on 

those tools and processes commonly used by states and MPOs to improve safety outcomes. 

Available Tools and Processes

A number of nationally available safety analysis tools were identified that can be utilized to 

support roadway safety performance planning. A full listing of tools reviewed is presented in 

Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction and described in more detail in the Final 

Synthesis of Available Predictive Tools and Processes, prepared as an earlier deliverable for this 

project. In the context of this report, tools include technical assistance materials on websites, 

computer-based spreadsheets and models, or geo-locating systems. The majority of these tools 

have been directly supported by FHWA, whether through research, funding, development, 

training, dissemination, or promotion. Although these tools serve different purposes, each 

provides transportation planners and engineers with data and information that can be used to 

enhance safety considerations during the transportation planning process. Table 1 presents a 

listing of the tools used most frequently by states and MPOs. The table provides a synopsis of 

each tool’s primary purpose and a brief overview of where/how these tools are being applied. 

Although these are the most popular tools, they still have challenges associated with them and 

those challenges may also indicate why other tools are not as commonly used. 

Table 1: Summary of Commonly Used Tools

Tool Primary Purpose Application Overview

Crash Modification 

Factors (CMF) 

Clearinghouse 

This web-based repository provides 

information on all documented CMFs 

and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) 

in a central location to help 

transportation professionals properly 

estimate the crash reduction of 

selected countermeasures when 

applied to projects.

The CMF Clearinghouse is easy to 

use and provides guidance as to 

what CMFs have been successful in 

other places. Additionally, it 

highlights those factors that have 

considerable supporting research 

regarding their successful 

implementation.

FHWA Geographic 

Information System 

(GIS) Tools

This GIS software links safety event 

data such as crashes and geographic 

data such as roads and roadway 

features to allow for advanced spatial 

analysis and mapping.

The FHWA GIS Safety Analysis 

Tools are a suite of tools developed 

on the ESRI ArcGIS platform to 

allow for advanced safety analyses 

along specific roadways or road 

networks. This is done by linking 

various data elements that may 

impact safety performance through 

a common geographic reference 

system. 
Section 2: Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment 

3

Tool Primary Purpose Application Overview

Highway Safety 

Manual (HSM)

The HSM provides a framework for 

safety that aids practitioners in 

performing data analysis, selecting 

countermeasures, prioritizing 

projects, comparing alternatives, and 

quantifying and predicting the safety 

performance of roadway elements 

during the planning, design, 

construction, and operation phases of 

project development.

The HSM provides a method to 

integrate quantitative estimates of 

crash frequency and severity into 

planning, project alternatives 

analysis, and program development 

and evaluation. This ability to 

connect quantifiable data with 

safety outcomes allows safety to 

become a meaningful project 

performance measure. The HSM 

assists states and MPOs in creating 

and achieving goals, objectives, 

measures, and activities, as well as 

determining the proper tools for 

data collection and analysis. It 

allows for full adoption or adoption 

of one or more parts based on the 

capabilities and needs of state or 

MPO.

SafetyAnalyst SafetyAnalyst is a set of 

computerized analytical tools to 

identify safety improvement needs 

and supports use of cost-effectiveness 

analysis to develop a system-wide 

program of site-specific improvement 

projects.

SafetyAnalyst offers among the 

most advanced analysis capabilities 

and can be used to improve 

programming of site-specific 

roadway safety improvements. The 

tools integrate with the HSM and 

other performance analysis 

processes. It follows the full cycle 

of the roadway safety management 

process, starting at the ground level 

and moving all the way through to 

evaluation.

Beyond the tools described in Table 1, more states are moving toward using a systemic approach 

to roadway safety. This approach involves implementing low-cost, proven improvements based 

on high-risk roadway features correlated with specific severe crash types (e.g., installing 

shoulder rumble strips to keep vehicles from encroaching on the roadside or designing safer 

slopes and ditches to prevent rollovers if a vehicle travels off the shoulder). The systemic 

approach is particularly valuable on local or rural roadways where the traditional site analysis 

approach is difficult due to limited crash data or dispersed crash locations. This approach looks 

at crash history on an aggregate basis to identify high-risk roadway characteristics, which can 

then be used to determine different strategies that might be implemented in a widespread manner 

to reduce the potential for severe crashes over large sections of roadways.
Section 2: Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment 

4

FHWA is preparing to release guidance in August 2013 on using the new Systemic Safety 

Project Selection Tool1. Guidance will include a step-by-step process for conducting systemic 

safety analysis, analytical techniques for determining a reasonable balance between the 

implementation of spot safety improvements and systemic safety improvements, and a 

mechanism for quantifying the benefits of safety improvements implemented through a systemic 

approach.

Challenges With Available Tools and Processes

While each tool is useful in its own right, not all of the tools can be used by all states or localities 

due to innumerable differences between the states and localities. Differences impacting use of 

the tools can be categorized as either organizational or geographical in nature. Organizational 

differences are largely affected by an organization’s maturity in collecting/managing data and 

cultural acceptance of working within a performance management framework when making 

transportation planning decisions. The geographical differences are primarily impacted by 

population density, traffic volume, and road type. Again, it is important to note that across these 

two categories, even those tools that are used most commonly have a diverse set of challenges 

associated with implementing them, often unique to a particular state or MPO.

Organizational Challenges

An organization’s capacity to adopt safety analysis tools and/or performance measures and 

performance management techniques should be assessed to identify potential issues. 

Implementation of tools and processes can be inhibited if an organization cannot support the 

development of metrics, secure stakeholder and staff support, or facilitate analysis and reporting. 

Some of the organizational capacities required for successful integration of safety analysis tools 

and performance management practices are described below:

Data Management

Organizations must first collect good data before they can fully utilize safety analysis tools or 

performance measures. When using safety analysis tools, it can be a challenge to obtain 

genuinely useful data. A transportation department cannot realize a tool’s full worth without first 

confirming that all necessary data to use as inputs to the tool are available in the required format.

In support of safety planning, states have been collecting and analyzing crash data for years. 

However, some states are less advanced when it comes to the collection and analysis of roadway 

and traffic data to support safety planning. Several resources that can be used to assist states with 

expanding their data collection processes are discussed in FHWA’s Background Report: 

Guidance for Roadway Safety Data to Support the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Data availability and collection protocols should be regularly assessed during the early stages of 

collection. Ongoing assessments help to ensure that all required data is obtainable and accurate. 

This “data baseline” can fuel an analysis of any data gaps and helps mitigate decision making 

reliant on poor, misleading, or non-existent data. 

Reporting Structure

The reporting process should clarify the frequency of reporting, roles and responsibilities for 

report generation, and the intended audience. This ensures that safety, roadway, and traffic data 

 

1 Information at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/index.htm
Section 2: Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment 

5

are reported in a manner that supports use of safety analysis tools and processes. The appropriate 

reporting structure for performance measures should be documented as the performance 

measures are being developed or revised by safety planning experts. Using process maps, 

schedules, or drafting a reporting plan prior to implementation clarifies how the performance 

measures will be used and enhances reporting processes. Furthermore, efficiencies can be gained 

by leveraging existing reporting requirements as a platform to share findings and progress. For 

example, states are already required to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) with annual reports for 11 core outcome and behavior measures. 

Reports on goals and progress are included in state Highway Safety Plans and Annual Reports. 

Some states, such as Washington and Connecticut, provide online quarterly performance reports 

through their state Department of Transportation (DOT) websites. Other states may choose to 

provide internal performance reports to transportation executives or lawmakers. However, given 

the emphasis on increasing transparency in government, states should consider proactively 

making at least annual performance reports available to the public like NHTSA does with the 

Highway Safety Plan reports.2

Human Capital

Assessing the characteristics of an organization with regard to its skill level and experience in 

data collection and analysis is essential to the successful application of most of the tools. It was 

reported that representatives from states and MPOs feel that staff are not being appropriately 

trained to use new tools upon their release. In cases where staff and key stakeholders do not have 

adequate knowledge or experience analyzing or reporting performance data, extensive training 

should be conducted prior to implementation of any safety planning tool. Furthermore, without 

proper training, it is difficult to differentiate between what is potentially the most useful tool, or 

set of tools, and what may otherwise be less effective. This leads to stagnation and prevents 

innovative processes and practices from taking hold as some states and MPOs feel as if they are 

being over inundated. Constraints on staff’s time are often so burdensome due to various daily 

demands of the job that unless immediate potential benefits from investing time/resources in 

researching and learning a new tool are readily available, that tool is often overlooked as an asset 

to the safety planning process. That is, generally, safety planners are so busy that they do not 

have the time to take on a new tool and are not properly incentivized to do so. 

Organizational Willingness

Organizational willingness is a key variable in planning processes. Counteracting low 

organizational willingness requires strong leadership; clear mission, vision, and goals; and a 

well-defined organizational structure. In the absence of these attributes, the adoption of these 

tools may not be readily accepted by an organization. Impediments to an organization’s 

willingness to embrace new tools include:

 Cultural Resistance – Organizations that do not encourage an open or progressive culture, 

often find that staff are resistant to adopting new tools, technology, and work practices. To 

counteract any resistance, participant feedback should be solicited from across the 

organization to ensure that staff are able to air their concerns and feel a sense of ownership 

regarding any changes to management or planning processes. 

 Stakeholder Resistance – Stakeholders may resist the use of some tools as they are 

uncomfortable with the increased transparency or administrative burden that the application 

 

2 NHTSA posts State Highway Safety Plans, State Annual Reports, and Management Reviews/Special Management 

Information at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/SAFETEAweb/index.htm
Section 2: Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment 

6

of data-driven performance management creates. To counteract this resistance it is important 

to enlist the input of stakeholders to gain their support while selecting tools. Stakeholders 

should be heavily involved in testing and target setting as a way to familiarize them with the 

tools and to give them a feeling of ownership. Resistance is also combated by educating the 

stakeholders on the particular benefits of using the tool(s), as well as the potential project 

tradeoffs required to bring a larger overall safety benefit. 

 Administration Priorities – A change in an organization’s broader priorities or focus can 

diminish the intended effectiveness or implementation of a tool. A well-developed roadway 

safety performance management process allows the organization to understand how to get the 

best value out of each countermeasure and the safety outcomes they can expect from those 

countermeasures. Some states and MPOs experience political pressures for selecting a 

particular project or program over another that may contradict the logical value proposition. 

This represents a challenge in the strategic or planning prioritization process of the 

organization, but does not reflect the effectiveness of the predictive tool itself.

Leadership support and ongoing communication activities are critical to overcoming the 

potential pitfalls outlined above. An organization’s senior leadership should approve the final set 

of tools and communicate to staff their importance. Engagement at all levels of an organization 

improves the likelihood of adoption and use of the most effective tools in future planning and 

decision making.

Geographical Challenges

Population density, be it urban versus rural areas, different concentrations of pedestrian/bicycle 

traffic, or different road types all impact the applicability of each tool. Large urban areas with 

higher concentrations of bicycles and pedestrians may face a greater number of fatalities within 

these roadway user groups. These areas are more likely to use the pedestrians and bicycle safety 

tools than a rural area. 

Traffic volume also impacts tool utilization. For example, the Interactive Highway Safety Design 

Model (IHSDM) was initially designed for rural roads and has only recently expanded to include 

multilane roadways and suburban/urban arterials. IHSDM’s initial focus on rural roads inhibited 

its early adoption by states that place a greater emphasis on urban roadway data collection and 

analysis. Similar to the initial release of IHSDM, the U.S. Road Assessment Program (usRAP) 

may work better for certain types of roads than others. The usRAP Road Protection Score (RPS) 

protocol that generates risk ratings based on roadway design features is typically documented 

with video logs. This time intensive method of collecting one-time data is most applicable to 

county and local road authorities that often do not have sufficient crash data to perform risk 

analyses. 

Although high level performance measures (e.g., fatality rate) are not likely to vary by 

geographic difference, differences arise when states use varying definitions for crashes involving 

serious injuries or use unique methods to normalize data (rates per vehicle miles traveled [VMT], 

per population, per registered driver; proportions of crashes, injuries, or fatalities with some 

characteristic, such as the proportion of fatalities that are pedestrians). The number of 
Section 2: Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment 

7

performance measures used also varies widely from state 

to state. Some states report on as few as 14 measures 

while other states may report on over 100 measures.3

Variation in the numbers of and types of performance 

measures are due to any number of considerations. States 

are better positioned to track and report a mix of 

performance measures if they have a longer history of 

collecting safety data and have developed a strong 

organizational culture. Other states may be in the early 

stages of refining data collection methodologies or 

expanding performance measures. Despite different 

starting points, all states benefit from learning more about 

available safety analysis tools that can be used in 

conjunction with a performance management framework 

to improve safety outcomes. A move toward 

standardization, either by adoption of similar tools or 

performance measure best practices, may improve the 

culture of performance management among state and 

local government regardless of demographic differences.

Funding 

Transportation safety funding comes in two forms: funds 

specifically designated for safety improvement projects 

and money designated for other purposes that has a 

related safety impact. These different funding channels 

have disparate impacts on how funds are used. Direct 

safety funding, like Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) funds, usually has specific requirements 

recipients must fulfill in order to be granted funds. Money 

not designated explicitly for safety usually does not carry 

such specific safety requirements. 

State DOTs are the recipients of federal safety funds and, 

for the most part, by means of their own choosing, distribute money to local groups. When 

funding is not specifically designated for safety, transportation groups may seek alternate 

methods to maximize safety gains. Although not a tool per se, alternate methods of funding 

safety projects offer opportunities to advance safety outcomes outside traditional funding 

channels. This section offers examples of strategies that transportation organizations have taken 

to fill funding gaps and insert safety considerations into broader transportation projects that are 

not typically considered safety projects.

Safety Funding Innovation

 

3 NHTSA requires states to set goals and report progress annually on 10 core outcome measures, one core behavior 

measure, and three activity measures.

The Funding Paradigm: A 

Focus on Source Expansion 

Funding opportunities may exist 

outside of the traditional 

appropriations or funds distribution 

process. The Orange County 

Transportation Authority (OCTA) 

successfully used the political process 

to fund transportation projects 

through a dedicated sales tax

approved by the voters of Orange 

County. Involving transportation 

users (citizens) in the decisionmaking process may improve 

acceptance of new projects paid for 

through dedicated tax dollars.

Michigan’s Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) set-aside 

funds have been valuable for the 

implementation of projects outside of 

the ascribed equity-based structure. 

Set-aside funding provides for greater 

flexibility in implementing projects 

that correct known problems. When 

using set-aside funding, organizations 

must clearly define the project 

selection criteria. Once defined, this 

process may work well for funding 

multiple low-cost, high-priority 

projects or a few high-cost projects 

with a higher expected safety impact.

Colorado’s Department of 

Transportation (CDOT) has shown 

that safety can be implemented in 

non-safety projects. During the 

project design phase, CDOT 

identifies ways to maximize safety on 

projects not traditionally considered 

standalone safety projects.
Section 2: Baseline of Current Safety Planning Environment 

8

Developing and maintaining databases to house safety, roadway, and traffic data takes time and 

money. Given that federal and state funding may be limited by economy, and not all 

transportation project funding includes a safety component, funding innovations and alternate 

sources of funding may help state and local transportation organizations maximize safety gains. 

Exploring alternate funding sources and alternatives to incorporate safety in infrastructure 

projects is especially important when transportation appropriations slow or decrease. 

As state DOTs and MPOs enhance their performance management processes, they are better 

positioned to demonstrate the success of their projects using available analysis tools to link data 

and results. By showing a clear link between robust data, predictive tools, project selection, and 

safety outcomes, these transportation organizations may be better positioned to compete for 

limited funds.

Maximizing Safety without Specifically Targeting Safety

Outside of specific roadway safety projects funded through HSIP, states and MPOs often report 

difficulties directly addressing roadway safety. A state or MPO may not directly target safety 

when faced with other pressing priorities, such as roads and bridges in disrepair. In these 

instances, states and MPOs may be able to integrate safety in construction and maintenance 

projects not typically considered safety projects. As states seek to achieve their safety goals, 

safety improvements should be considered as a core element in roadway project planning.

Key Takeaways

 While there are a variety of helpful roadway safety planning tools available to safety 

planners, some are used more commonly across the states and MPOs

 Common challenges limiting use of safety planning tools can be grouped into two 

categories, organizational and geographic, both with common contributing factors 

 Even those tools that are used most commonly have a diverse set of challenges associated 

with implementing them, often unique to a particular state or MPO

 As funding for safety programs becomes more challenging to secure, safety planners must 

expand beyond the traditional sources upon which states and MPOs currently rely and reach 

to include new, innovative revenue streams
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

9

3. Safety Focused Decision Making Framework 

In the future, FHWA envisions a safety planning process where transportation organizations are 

able to optimize the selection of roadway safety infrastructure improvements across a roadway 

system and use performance management practices to track progress and achieve safety 

performance targets. This report seeks to promote FHWA’s Safety Focused Decision Making 

Framework as it takes a more holistic programmatic approach to traditional safety planning. 

The Framework, depicted in Error! Reference source not found., is defined by five high-level 

activities with continuous feedback loops for data collection and analysis and project 

modifications to enhance safety impacts. The steps below would follow the broader planning 

process and assume that States and MPOs have already defined their Vision and Mission. The 

project identification described below would support development of and attainment of goals. 

Figure 1: FHWA's Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

For the Safety Focused Decision Making Framework, States and MPOs will begin by identifying 

a list of potential projects, programs or strategies that will serve as the foundation of the larger 

safety program. Then, they will work to refine that list through a prioritization exercise designed 

to select the activities best suited to affect the greatest safety impact for the available funds 

within the given transportation environment. Following prioritization, the prediction of the safety 

outcomes will help provide the necessary justification for funding and implementation of the 

selected mix of projects, programs and behavioral strategies. Once approved and funded, states 

and MPOs will then work to implement the selected activities. As states and MPOs mature this 

process, their data collection and analysis and evaluation of program effectiveness will improve. 

Use of robust data sets combined with use of safety planning tools, processes and best practices 

allows transportation organizations to increase the accuracy with which they predict the impact 

of certain activities; identify the most effective approaches and will support their program 
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

10

Identify

Potential Projects 

and Programs

1

evaluation frameworks, weeding out the least impactful projects and more effectively driving 

decision making. 

Leveraging the new Safety Focused Decision Making Framework is essential to closing the 

current gaps as well as to achieve an improved safety planning environment. By improving the 

way states and MPOs conduct safety planning activities at a programmatic level, FHWA will be 

able to better promote the most effective new tools and practices to its various stakeholders and 

partners. Additionally, it will yield more robust data sets that enhance the predictive capabilities 

of safety analysis tools, given different parameters. 

Identify Potential Projects and Programs

Selecting the right projects and programs to undertake at the appropriate times 

is a necessary component to improving transportation safety. Safety project 

selection methods vary depending on the organization, but commonly used 

practices include hot spot or spot analysis, road safety audits, systemic approach, 

and benefit/cost analysis. Adoption of specific practices generally depends on the organizational 

capabilities and available resources, including staff with analytical skill sets and access to the 

necessary sources of data. The challenge is leveraging the available data to formulate a mix of 

projects that lead to an effective safety program. 

One notable practice is mandating performance measurement as a requirement for all program 

activities. Data-driven decision making and continuous review of performance is deeply 

ingrained in Washington State’s Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Their project 

selection process stems in large part from state policies and governance structure, and supports 

the organization’s emphasis on using data to drive safety program decisions. All program and 

project selections must be aligned to the Governor’s SHSP goal of zero fatalities and serious 

injury collisions by 2030. This goal is also referred to as Washington’s Target Zero Program. 

One difference between Washington State and many other state DOTs is that the Washington 

State Legislature specifically directs WSDOT to develop methodologies for selecting state 

roadway investment projects to address deficiencies on the state roadway system through 

Chapter 47.05 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The code requires that the project 

selection methodologies be based on factual need and an evaluation of life cycle costs and 

benefits. 

Based on this directive, WSDOT evaluates the full life cycle costs and benefits of all proposed 

projects in order to select projects that offer the greatest performance per dollar spent. Projects 

are evaluated within categories of funding so that potential safety projects are evaluated against 

other safety projects and capital improvement projects are evaluated against other capital 

improvement projects. WSDOT is currently designing and testing a Collision Assessment Tool 

(CAT) that automates much of the life cycle cost-benefit calculations for safety projects. When 

fully implemented, CAT will help WSDOT safety engineers and transportation planners more 

easily (1) calculate the expected crash frequency on outlined segments of roadway and 

intersections and (2) evaluate the economic effectiveness in cost/benefit ratio format of 

countermeasures. 

Although WSDOT uses tools and calculations to support decision making, no decisions are made 

based on tools alone. Expert judgment is still an important component of the transportation 

planning and project selection process. WSDOT involves senior leaders and executives to help 
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

11

guide project selection and review performance of the state’s transportation system. WSDOT’s 

Highway Safety Executive Committee (HSEC) and its Highway Safety Issue Group (HSIG) are 

heavily involved in the strategic level project selection process. HSEC is a six-member executive 

policy team representing the major WSDOT Divisions and offices. HSEC is responsible for 

identifying roadway safety risks; program policy and procedures; project ranking and 

prioritization methods; risk and crash reduction countermeasure policies; budget targets, 

operations and design considerations; research and data priorities; and safety program and 

performance assessments.4 HSEC approves and implements all departmental policies and 

procedures for planning, program development, project development, and operations of the 

WSDOT highway safety program in support of the governor’s transportation safety policy and in 

accordance with the WSDOT strategic plan. 

HSEC relies on WSDOT’s Highway Safety Issue Group (HSIG) to provide technical expertise 

and recommendations on the development of policy, plans, and programs for roadway safety. 

HSIG members include safety experts and advocates that represent headquarters offices, the 

regions, and FHWA.5 Specifically, HSEC has directed the WSDOT’s Capital Program 

Management Office to complete an analysis of network safety performance every two years as 

the initial step in building the next biennium’s capital budget. New locations that emerge from 

this analysis are sent to region offices for in-depth analysis to determine if there is a costeffective set of solutions that can be proposed for programming. 

The relationship between the two safety groups and the overall project selection and review 

process is captured in Figure 2.

6

Figure 2: WSDOT Highway Safety Decision Making Process

 

4 WSDOT, Highway Safety Executive Committee (HSEC) Charter (Washington, January 2012). 

5 WSDOT, Highway Safety Issues Group (HSIG) Charter (Washington, September 2010). 

6 WSDOT, State Highway Decision Making Process (Washington, September 2009). 
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

12

Narrow & Select 

Mix of Projects and 

Programs

2

As illustrated in the figure, Washington State executives and engineers work together to provide 

guidance to regional offices in support of safety project selection. WSDOT’s safety experts and 

engineers play an important role in identifying the locations and corridors on state roadways with 

the highest history of collisions and the greatest potential for improvement. Results of data 

analysis are incorporated in a strategic set of cost effective recommendations presented to HSEC. 

Recommendations are intended to address the engineering as well as enforcement and 

educational factors to reduce or prevent fatal and serious injury collisions. HSEC in turn uses 

these recommendations to develop policy direction and communicates guidance to regions. 

While not captured on the diagram shown in Figure 2, WSDOT discusses findings and 

recommendations with the public and solicits their feedback and support as part of the project 

selection process.

Although HSEC retains the ability to recommend un-programmed projects that were not 

included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the group rarely exercises 

this option in practice. In lieu of an un-programmed project approach, WSDOT has instituted the 

creation of a minor capital safety category within the Traffic Operations budget to handle 

emerging safety situations with low cost interim solutions. If a larger scope of work is needed, 

WSDOT will consider it as part of developing the program for the next biennium. HSEC has also 

directed WSDOT’s Capital Program Development and Management Office to recommend extra 

preliminary engineering efforts. This enables the department to more quickly identify new safety 

projects for implementation in the event that cost savings from other projects or additional 

funding comes available to fund those additional projects.

Narrow & Select a Mix of Projects and Programs

States and MPOs will almost always have a longer list of desired projects and 

strategies than money available to complete each of them. This necessitates a 

method of prioritizing activities to select those most important to complete in the 

short and longer term. The results of this prioritization are contained within the

fiscally constrained STIP or TIP. 

The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)7 has developed an approach to evaluating potential 

projects and placing projects into one of four tiers to allow for easy comparison. This is a notable 

practice that could be adopted by others. ARC follows a two-stage process for identifying 

projects for inclusion in its RTP, contained within its long-range plan named PLAN 2040. 

Funding allocations are made for each of the program areas. ARC’s project evaluation and 

prioritization process is then used to determine the priority of projects in line with available 

funding. During the first stage of the prioritization process, all potential projects are screened for 

alignment to the regional goals and visions. Projects might be discarded for reasons including not 

being on a regionally significant corridor; not addressing an immediate safety need; project type 

is not considered a priority under Georgia’s Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan; project is 

already part of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and significant engineering, 

environmental documentation, or acquisition is already underway. 

 

7 ARC is the regional planning and intergovernmental coordination agency for 10-counties (Cherokee, Clayton, 

Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, and Rockdale) and the City of Atlanta.
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

13

Projects that pass the first stage of evaluation are then evaluated and scored based on 

performance measures and expected benefit-cost analysis. Performance measures are calculated 

to determine each project’s impact in each one of five categories including: 

 Mobility – Project’s impact on congestion 

 Connections – Project’s impact on movement to regional centers 

 Safety – Location’s safety record based on a comparison of the location’s crash rate to 

the crash rate of a similar roadway segment elsewhere in the region

 Economic growth – Project’s impact on economic development and freight movement 

 Environment/Community Impact – Location’s proximity to environmentally or culturally 

sensitive land uses 

Each project receives a score for each of the five categories. The maximum score that a project 

could receive in any category is 100, and scores for other projects are scaled between 0 and 90. 

Higher numbered scores are given to those projects expected to provide the greatest impact on 

congestion, safety, economic growth, or least impact on sensitive land use areas. 

After assessing each project’s projected performance, ARC monetizes impacts and externalities 

for each project and conducts benefit-cost calculations. Inputs to ARC’s benefit-cost equation 

consist of the following: 

 Project 

Construction

 Project 

Maintenance & 

Operations

 Fuel Cost

 Delay Cost

 Criteria Pollutants

 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions

Benefit calculations are 

weighted toward 

congestion and travel 

time improvements and 

do not include a safety 

component. ARC tracks 

trends in crashes and 

fatalities but does not set 

specific performance 

targets for safety metrics. ARC instead considers safety as a component of project selection in 

the broad sense and the majority of programs funded by ARC include safety elements.

The second phase of ARC’s project prioritization process involves placing projects into one of 

four tiers based on a combination of each project’s performance measure score and the benefitcost score. The four tiers are diagramed in Figure 3.

8 Projects in Tier 1 scored above the median 

 

8 ARC Regional Commission Plan 2040, Regional Transportation Plan, Appendix C-1 Project Evaluation 

Procedures

Figure 3: ARC’s Plan 2040 Project Evaluation Tiers

Weighted Performance Measure Score Benefit-Cost Score

median benefit-cost score

median performance measure score

High benefit-cost score

High performance score

High benefit-cost score

Low performance score

Tier 2 Tier 1

Low benefit-cost score

High performance score

Low benefit-cost score

Low performance score

Tier 4 Tier 3

Source: ARC Regional Commission Plan 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, 

Appendix C - 1: Project Evaluation Procedures 
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

14

Predict Safety 

Outcomes of Projects 

and Programs

3

in both benefit-cost and performance evaluation while projects in Tier 4 scored below the median 

in both fields and are considered the least qualified projects. Projects in Tiers 2 and 3 scored 

mixed results – scoring above the median in one field and below in the other. In 2011, ARC 

funded all projects in Tier 1 and Tier 2. Remaining money was used to fund a few projects in 

Tier 3. 

ARC is now conducting a data analysis effort that will culminate in customized profiles for 

member cities and counties. Each profile will provide information about crash rates by transit 

technologies as well as data findings and information related to the Georgia Department of 

Transportation emphasis areas. ARC intends to use these profiles to expand conversations with 

its local partners about ways to improve the evaluation and 

selection of safety projects. Over time, ARC envisions 

integrating CMFs and elements of the HSM into planning 

discussions with local members. 

Predict Safety Outcomes of Projects and 

Programs

Safety planners have traditionally relied on 

a tool, or set of tools, supported by crash data 

to help them predict the impact of a particular safety 

improvement project or strategy. These tools were discussed 

at length in Section 1 of this report. The challenge for states 

and MPOs moving forward will be leveraging existing tools, 

given limited data sets, to begin predicting safety impacts 

across a suite of projects. That is, FHWA is encouraging 

organizations to take a more holistic approach to their 

planning processes and begin predicting outcomes at the 

programmatic level.

To effectively predict outcomes at the programmatic level, 

the outcomes for each individual project within the program 

must first be defined. One emerging method to accomplish 

this is conducting a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis for 

each potential project and then comparing the results to 

identify those with the largest pay-off in terms of lives saved 

and prevention of serious injuries. Elements of the analysis 

should include a score to quantify severity of each problem 

that a project would be designed to address, a score to 

quantify the effectiveness of an individual countermeasure 

given the parameters of the problem, and a cost score. 

Projects can then be grouped by these data points according to project type (the 4 Es). From 

there, they can be aggregated to form a broader understanding of how different combinations of 

projects may overlap or achieve additional improvements. It is important to note that simply 

adding up potential savings will not provide an accurate picture of the actual impact of a group 

of projects at the program level due to unintentional/unforeseen outcomes and overlaps. More 

research is needed to define a broadly accepted method for calculating the expected safety 

outcomes across multiple projects within a program portfolio. 

Missouri’s Systematic 

Approach to Safety

As FHWA encourages states and 

MPOs to take a more holistic 

approach to safety planning and to 

begin predicting outcomes at the 

programmatic level, Missouri is a 

prime example of one state that has 

been successful in identifying and 

implementing system-wide 

improvements. Their Blueprint to 

Arrive Alive, which is the state’s 

SHSP, identifies their “Targeted 10” 

strategies in education, enforcement, 

engineering, and public policy areas. 

These strategies were selected based 

on documented evidence supporting 

their lifesaving and injury reduction 

potential. Out of these 10 strategies, 

five are engineering countermeasures 

that are being implemented on a 

system-wide basis.

Missouri is improving safety by 

implementing proven 

countermeasures for roadways with 

particular characteristics to reduce the 

risk of future crashes. Rather than 

selecting a project for one location, 

they are selecting a countermeasure 

to apply at a more programmatic level 

across larger sections of roadway.
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

15

Implement 

Projects and 

Programs

4

While additional research into this area is pursued, states and MPOs will have to be innovative 

with regards to their current processes for predicting programmatic safety outcomes. This may 

mean employing new tools, leveraging a combination of different tools, or sharing best practices 

through peer exchanges in addition to conducting advanced cost-effectiveness analyses. One 

example of progressive thinking is outlined in the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program’s NCHRP 17-46 report. This “Comprehensive Framework for Safety Investment 

Decisions” was designed to develop an analysis framework for all 4 E safety investment 

decisions transferable across federal, state, and local governments. This framework relies on 

multivariable cost-effectiveness analysis, considering both engineering and behavioral projects 

along a set of prioritization tiers. 

Implement Projects and Programs

Implementation is a set of actions that accomplish goals and/or objectives. 

While implementing the projects that have been selected as part of the safety 

improvement program may seem straightforward, it is important to remember 

that there are several steps that need to be completed during this stage of the 

process. Upon project approval, it is necessary to develop a detailed implementation plan that 

explicitly defines timelines, budget, and roles and responsibilities for accomplishing the stated 

outcomes. The implementation plan organizes, integrates, and documents the necessary activities 

that will be carried out to support completion of a project and/or program. 

The implementation plan is the blueprint for communicating the activities that are required to 

affect the desired change. A common reference is essential for a group of individuals to work 

together toward a common result. Successful completion of activities requires communication 

about the what, when, where, and how. An organized approach requires formulation of a step-bystep process for delivering the desired outcome for a set amount of resources, plus contingencies. 

Figure 4 depicts an illustrative methodology to develop an implementation plan.

Figure 4: Methodology to Develop an Implementation Plan

Inputs:

Infrastructure

Tools

Business

Processes

Generate list of projects

Prioritize each project by 

category

Project

cost / risk / schedule

Identify dependencies

Sequence project 

implementation activities

Master

Schedule

Technical 

enhancement 

projects

Process 

refinement 

projects

Strategy

 Build-out of target 

environment

 Development of critical 

planning capabilities by 

modifying existing processes 

and the development of new 

processes

 Project summaries

 Cost estimates

 Activity descriptions

 Resource allocation

 Gantt charts
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

16

Achieve State & 

Local Safety Targets

5

The organization should track the goals, objectives, and performance measures developed in the 

pre-implementation planning process. These become the guidelines for organizing and managing 

the project. This is where collecting robust data pays off. The use of strong data helps improve 

the predicative capabilities of the tools, leading to the realization of more accurate safety 

outcome estimates. Each of the key planning decisions and performance measures should be 

linked to one or more activities and tracked until the project is complete. This serves as the 

means by which outcomes can be evaluated throughout the project/program lifecycle. During 

implementation, it is important to conduct performance data and evaluate your projects and 

program on an ongoing basis. This helps mitigate risks and improves efficacy of particular 

projects that are repeated across similar environments. 

Achieve State and Local Safety Targets

Ideally, each program and its supporting activities, has a set of performance 

targets and desired outcomes established as part of the earlier planning process. 

Once programs are underway, states and MPOs with strong performance 

management frameworks track progress toward achieving their goals and intended

safety outcomes through the use of reporting tools such as performance dashboards. 

Dashboarding is a common method used to inform internal or external stakeholders about 

progress to date and supports accountability. At a minimum, a dashboard should show

performance targets and the current level of performance against that target. There are a variety 

of ways to display dashboard information, including charts and tables, up and down arrows, and 

red/green/yellow indicators of progress. Figure 5 provides an example of the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Executive Dashboard used to track progress against 

strategic goals. Each goal may be supported by one or more performance measures. 

Figure 5: NCDOT Executive Dashboard

Reporting on key metrics aligned to goals enables organizational and program leaders to see 

trends over time, make decisions based on performance, and evaluate the impact of various 

performance drivers, and enables more control of the success of their actions. Simple, easy-toaccess dashboards are helpful in creating openness between an organization and its constituents. 

Building acceptance of data driven decisions and linking performance to results is often easier to 

accept when an organization publicizes early success in achieving goals. 
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

17

Performance Management and Continuous Improvement Cycle 

States and MPOs face increasing pressure to demonstrate that the outcomes of 

their roadway improvement programs meet or exceed citizen and legislative 

expectations. As a result, many states have instituted, or are in the process of 

implementing, new project planning and safety prediction tools and practices that enhance 

traditional data collection, analysis, and reporting capabilities. These tools and practices support 

data-driven decision making within a performance management framework, something that is 

becoming increasingly important in today’s transportation environment.

The two keys to achieving the desired future state of transportation safety planning lay within the 

establishment and acceptance of performance management frameworks across state DOTs and 

MPOs, and the identification and collection of robust data sets that are used as inputs to the 

various safety planning tools. Combined, these two elements will enhance the predictive 

capability of countermeasures, improving countermeasure selection and decision making 

throughout the planning process, which will ultimately reduce the number of serious injuries and 

fatalities on our nation’s roadways.

Performance Management

An enhanced performance management framework is the cornerstone of the desired future safety 

planning environment. Performance management focuses an organization on achieving results 

critical to its mission, vision, and goals. By emphasizing the performance management 

framework as a method to guide decision making, state DOTs and MPOs can measure and refine 

their actions en route to accomplishing its strategic planning goals. 

Within the roadway safety industry, performance management can be defined as the practice of 

translating specific goals and objectives into roadway safety investment programs and projects 

that result in fewer deaths and injuries on the nation’s roadways. Working within a performance 

management framework helps ensure that funds are allocated to the most effective projects that 

support the organization’s mission and yield desired benefits to the surrounding community. In 

the context of transportation planning, government organizations strive to balance benefits and

costs across diverse strategic priorities such as environmental protection, economic development, 

and increased public safety and mobility.

Performance management also supports improved accountability. Use of performance measures 

provides managers with a tool to hold employees, project teams, or departments accountable for 

completing tasks on time, within budget, and meeting all expectations of quality. A regular 

review of performance also helps organizations proactively identify potential problems, which

provides time to address problems before excessive amounts of time or money are dedicated to 

an unsuccessful venture. The establishment of effective performance management frameworks is 

in line with the MAP-21 requirements, ensuring resources are being allocated to the most 

effective safety related tools, processes, and practices.

By virtue of their role as public institutions, state DOTs and MPOs have an obligation to citizens 

and taxpayers to demonstrate good stewardship of resources and attempt to maximize the value 

of outputs. Use of performance-based planning and reporting performance on a regular basis 

enables state DOTs and MPOs to demonstrate performance to their stakeholders. 
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

18

Collecting the Right Data to Support Continuous 

Improvement

Normalizing data across states and MPOs is a major 

challenge facing transportation safety planners. Vehicle 

crash numbers and roadway fatality rates are commonly 

used measures of roadway safety. Using the fatality rate 

as a performance measure instead of a count of fatalities 

improves the ability to make comparisons across locations 

with differing travel patterns and driver populations. 

However, performance measures such as fatalities, 

injuries, and property damage are almost impossible to 

correlate to specific actions taken or projects 

implemented. Roadway fatalities, injuries, and property 

damage are impacted by a large number of factors 

including, but not limited to, roadway conditions, 

environmental or weather conditions, local law 

enforcement programs, and driver behavior. 

In order to most effectively prioritize projects and 

programs while facing increased budgetary scrutiny, 

robust data sets must be made available to help inform 

decision making. Collecting metrics that do not strongly 

align to an organization’s ability to exert direct control 

can reduce the efficacy of the metric to helping track 

performance. Some states have begun exploring options 

to implement additional performance measures that relate 

to roadway safety but may be more directly attributable to 

organizational capabilities. Others are considering adding new data fields to the crash reports 

completed at the scene to learn more about other contributing factors.

Organizations use data analysis during the planning phase to evaluate the need for projects and 

programs and during the performance management phase to evaluate the success of implemented 

projects and programs. It is important to note that data needs should be considered on an ongoing 

basis to ensure the organization is collecting and maintaining the right types of information. 

Information sharing contributes to the spread of practical tools and practices, enhances the 

usefulness of available data (e.g., a state sharing crash data with a locality), and offers 

opportunities to provide constructive critiques regarding practices in place. 

Ultimately, performance metrics are often interrelated. Performance results in one target area 

may result in residual gains in other areas (e.g., reduced congestion’s impact on improved safety 

outcomes). Proving causal links between specific projects and results is challenging in the 

transportation environment. It is difficult to find instances where transportation organizations 

have been able to specifically link individual projects to results as results may be impacted by 

many factors outside an organizations span of control. For example, changes in roadway fatality 

rates may be impacted by factors including engineering countermeasures, drivers’ behavior, 

and/or economic conditions and demographic changes, among others. Although additional 

research on these relationships may be needed, states and MPOs can help advance performanceIdentifying Similarities to 

Maximize Safety Gains

Crash modification factors (CMF) 

and safety performance functions 

(SPF) are used to estimate safety 

gains based on crash type, crash 

severity, and roadway type. CMFs are 

multiplicative factors that can be 

applied to crash data to predict the 

expected number of crashes after 

implementing a specific 

countermeasure at a specific site. 

SPFs are equations that relate site 

characteristics of a road segment or 

intersection (e.g., traffic volume, lane 

width, shoulder width) to the number 

of predicted crashes at that site. The 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 

provides a framework on ways that 

state DOTs and MPOs might use 

SPFs and CMFs to enhance safety as 

part of the transportation planning 

process. As state DOTs and MPOs 

incorporate the HSM in their project 

selection process, many are beginning 

to calculate state specific SPFs. 

Sharing effective CMFs based on 

similar SPFs between and across 

states and MPOs will continue to help 

foster an improved safety culture.
Section 3: Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

19

based planning more broadly by sharing new or revised performance measures, data collection 

techniques, and performance results.

Using Communication and Collaboration to Foster a Safety Culture

Communication and collaboration are critical to developing and maintaining a safety culture in 

transportation organizations. Without communication and collaboration, dissemination of best 

practices is limited. Creating partnerships enhances acceptance, improves performance and 

diminishes the learning curve. Without partnerships, each individual organization must instead 

rely on internal innovation and investments to advance progress. Communication may exist in 

many forms including face-to-face interactions, peer exchanges, virtual meetings or 

teleconferences, or written forms. Commonly used methods of communication and collaboration 

to enhance organizational processes include cross-disciplinary or inter-organizational committee 

and board meetings, technical assistance documents or newsletters, and instructor-led or online 

training.

Key Takeaways

 FHWA envisions a safety planning process where transportation organizations are able to 

optimize the selection of safety infrastructure improvements and use performance 

management practices to track progress and promote achievement of safety performance 

targets

 The Safety Focused Decision Making Framework takes a programmatic approach to safety 

planning, and is composed of five high-level steps with an emphasis on continuous data 

collection and project improvement

 Acceptance of this new safety culture is reliant on the clear communication and 

collaboration between and among safety planning stakeholders at all levels
Section 4: Identification of Gaps

20

4. Identification of Gaps

The gaps identified in this section highlight specific areas of improvement that must be 

addressed to move beyond the current state and toward achievement of the Safety Focused 

Decision Making Framework. Gaps have been categorized into two groups, current and 

anticipated gaps, which denote short- and long-term considerations. These areas of improvement 

have touch-points along each of the five steps that make up the Safety Focused Decision Making 

Framework, and are all interrelated. That is, it would be ineffective to focus on one category 

without also considering the others. 

Current Gaps

The individual gaps that were 

identified throughout the course of 

this effort were grouped by theme. 

These themes, depicted in relative 

maturity ranking in Figure 6, include 

Performance Management of Safety 

Programs, Data, Communication and 

Knowledge Transfer, and Safety 

Planning. As each theme includes a 

litany of unique concerns, the Safety 

Focused Decision Making 

Framework is inextricably woven 

throughout. The following sub-sections describe the major themes and their associated maturity 

assignment as determined by examination of the supporting component elements. The maturity 

assignment range from least mature to most mature is shown in Figure 7:

Initial

organization does not 

possess a stable 

implementation 

environment; processes 

are ad hoc; no plan for 

interoperability or 

expandability

Repeatable

results of previous 

projects and the 

demands of the current 

project(s)/program 

may drive activities 

and actions; decisions 

are made on a case-bycase basis

Defined

organization uses 

standardized process; 

organization's 

standards tie to an 

adopted strategy; 

guidance and planning 

determine project 

outcomes

Managed

formal program 

management governs 

projects; processes are 

predictable and 

business rules are 

established; 

performance 

management exists

Optimized

organization focuses 

on the continuous 

improvement; 

organization possesses 

the means to detect 

weaknesses and to 

proactively strengthen 

areas of concern 

It is important to note that this project was not designed to complete a full organizational 

assessment where each organization was scored using a standard tool/rubric; instead, general 

maturity ratings were derived from stakeholder feedback sessions and assessments of current 

practices.

Performance Management 

of Safety Programs

Data

Communication and 

Knowledge Transfer

Safety Planning

Figure 6: Relative Maturity 

Ranking of High-Level Themes

Figure 7: Maturity Spectrum
Section 4: Identification of Gaps

21

Performance Management of Safety Programs

Formalized performance management itself is institutionalized at varying levels of maturity 

among many states and MPOs with regard to their decision-making processes. Safety is often 

addressed in stand-alone projects, but setting performance targets and then measuring impacts

across multiple projects/programs is not a common practice. Furthermore, safety is not addressed 

in an integrated fashion throughout planning, engineering, and operations and maintenance. The 

increased focus on performance based programs in MAP-21 may benefit safety programs 

because states and MPOs will be required to set targets and consider the impacts of their 

investment and strategy decisions toward achieving those targets. Figure 8 depicts a 

representative sample of the component elements of this capability that were examined to 

ultimately determine a “Managed” maturity assignment for Performance Management across the 

environment.

Figure 8: Performance Management Maturity Assignment

Data

Collecting data to enhance the predictive abilities of safety planning tools has historically been a 

challenge. Robust data sets are not always readily available for many states and MPOs, and there 

is often a considerable time lag in the data that is available. Therefore, safety planners are often 

forced to use surrogate data or make critical decision with incomplete information. 

The ability to use timely and robust data enhances organizational capabilities to prioritize 

projects and justify decisions throughout the safety planning lifecycle. Because crash data is 

often used to identify countermeasures for individual high crash locations, accurate geo-location 

data on all crash location and roadway features is needed. The added information on roadway 

features will help move toward system-wide safety planning rather than just focusing on crash 

“hot spots.” Future data sets need to be expanded and linked to other non-traditional types of 

roadway and crash data (e.g., university research, hospital reports, National Studies Center) to 

provide a more holistic view of and approach to safety. Figure 9 depicts a representative sample 

Maturity Level:

Managed

While performance targets 

are typically established for 

individual projects, they are 

not yet regularly established 

for programs

Performance data needs are 

defined, but robust 

performance data is not 

captured uniformly across 

state agencies and MPOs

Performance data is reported 

on a regular basis (e.g., 

monthly, quarterly, annually), 

but is not always used to 

inform strategic decision 

making and project/program 

implementation

Performance targets are set 

or updated using a standard 

process
Section 4: Identification of Gaps

22

of the component elements of this capability that were examined to ultimately determine a 

maturity assignment for the Data theme across the environment.

Figure 9: Data Maturity Assignment

Communication and Knowledge Transfer

States and MPOs currently rely on both formal and informal communication channels for 

information, guidance, and best practices when it comes to the use of predictive tools over the 

course of safety planning activities. During the Safety Planning Peer Exchange, it was reported 

by several state and MPO safety planners that sheer volume of information/guidance available to 

them makes it difficult to down-select and prioritize projects. Additionally, many tools (e.g., 

SafetyAnalyst) and guidance documents (e.g., HSM) require additional training and/or data 

formatting before use. 

Opportunities exist to improve the sharing of best practices among FHWA headquarters, states, 

and MPOs. The 9 Proven Countermeasures Memo is an example of effective knowledge transfer 

– simple and direct. Between states and MPOs, reporting requirements are often not formalized 

or leveraged to share successes, expand professional networks, and encourage knowledge 

transfer. That means that there are cases where the status quo continues to be accepted simply 

because no new perspectives have been introduced. This leads to stagnation and stifles 

innovative thinking. Increased collaboration is a cornerstone of FHWA’s new Safety Focused 

Decision Making Framework, and MAP-21 will require increased coordination among all levels 

involved in safety planning (e.g., U.S. DOT headquarters, FHWA Division Offices, state DOTs, 

and MPOs). Figure 10 depicts a representative sample of the component elements of this 

capability that were examined to ultimately determine a maturity assignment for Communication 

and Knowledge Transfer across the environment.

Maturity Level:

Defined

Data needs are defined at the 

outset of safety planning 

activities, but the data that is 

collected may be incomplete

While data is typically 

collected in a timely manner, 

there are recurring issues 

with accuracy of specific 

elements and uniformity

across the environment

Data informs decision making, 

but the level of rigor that goes 

into the analysis of raw data 

prior to decision making could 

be increased

Data is managed using formal 

processes, and linked/shared

on an ad hoc basis
Section 4: Identification of Gaps

23

Figure 10: Communication and Knowledge Transfer Maturity Assignment

Program Approach to Safety Planning

FHWA’s Safety Focused Decision Making Framework was developed to directly address this 

gap. Currently, safety elements are not included as a required part of all roadway planning 

exercises. In order to reduce serious injuries and fatalities on our nation’s roads, it makes sense 

to integrate safety planning as a consideration for every roadway project supporting every 

program. Additionally, there is an opportunity to enhance collaboration between safety planners 

and engineers, and coordination among all 4 Es. Furthermore, safety planners have noted that 

there is an opportunity to refine benefit/cost analysis methodologies. This is essential to their job 

as planners. They cite the limited ability to accurately predict effectiveness using currently 

available tools and processes. This means that not only do states and MPOs have to re-examine 

how they leverage safety planners within the scheme of their planning processes, but they also 

have to consider ways to innovate so that these planners have better tools at their disposal. 

Looking forward, MAP-21 requires additional coordination between two key planning exercises 

– the SHSP and the Highway Safety Plan required by NHTSA – and the integration of this

information into the statewide and metropolitan long-range transportation planning process. 

Figure 11 depicts a representative sample of the component elements of this capability that were 

examined to ultimately determine a maturity assignment for the Program Approach to Safety 

Planning across the environment. 

Maturity Level:

Repeatable

Safety planners leverage 

tools and guidance 

provided by FHWA and 

other partners, but the 

associated guidance for 

implementation is often not 

specific enough for the 

varying criteria of each 

organization 

Safety planners/engineers 

do not have access to a 

common set of training 

classes or guidance 

materials and existing 

resources are not broadly 

shared and adopted 

throughout the community

States and MPOs greatly 

benefit from the sharing of 

best practices across the 

environment, but 

networking 

opportunities/channels 

currently exist irregularly 

and often rely on existing 

personal connections
Section 4: Identification of Gaps

24

Figure 11: Program Approach to Safety Planning Maturity Assignment

Anticipated Gaps

As the future of transportation safety planning is examined, and steps toward achieving the 

Safety Focused Decision Making Framework are taken, there will be new challenges that present 

themselves. In attempting to predict where some of these challenges might arise, there are 

several items to consider that will have bearing on the industry and its stakeholders.

Performance-Based Management of Safety Programs and MAP-21

As discussed throughout this report, establishing a performance-based management framework 

for safety programs is essential to achieving FHWA’s Safety Focused Decision Making 

Framework. This emphasis is reinforced by the new MAP-21 legislation that was signed into law 

by President Obama on July 6, 2012. Funding surface transportation programs at over $105 

billion for fiscal years 2013 and 2014, MAP-21 is the first long-term highway authorization 

enacted since 2005.

MAP-21 is a milestone for the U.S. economy and the nation’s surface transportation program. By 

transforming the policy and programmatic framework for investments to guide the system’s 

growth and development, MAP-21 creates a streamlined and performance-based surface 

transportation program and builds on many of the roadway, transit, bike, and pedestrian 

programs and policies. It also focuses on strengthening America’s roadway and public 

transportation systems by creating jobs, supporting economic growth and the Department’s 

safety agenda, simplifying and focusing the federal program, accelerating project delivery, and 

promoting innovation. 

The cornerstone of MAP-21’s roadway program transformation is the transition to a performance 

and outcome-based program. Under MAP-21, performance management will transform federal 

Maturity Level:

Initial

Processes currently exist to 

predict project level

outcomes, but processes to 

predict program-level 

outcomes are not in use

Although the need for 

collaboration and 

coordination is recognized, 

safety planners infrequently 

engage all 4 Es in a proactive

manner 

Prioritizing projects across 

programs and assessing 

potential impacts system 

wide are essential elements, 

but safety planners recognize 

an opportunity to refine 

current benefit/cost analysis 

methodologies

While there is a plethora of 

tools and guidance currently 

available, it is rare that safety 

planners leverage these 

resources to their full 

potential
Section 4: Identification of Gaps

25

roadway programs and provide a means to more efficient investment of federal transportation 

funds by focusing on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability and 

transparency of the federal roadway programs, and improving transportation investment decision 

making through performance-based planning and programming. 

Safety planners at the state and local levels will be held accountable to the new standards set 

forth by this legislation. As stakeholders, states and MPOs will be consulted during the 

establishment of performance measures for pavement conditions and performance for the 

Interstate and national highway system (NHS), bridge conditions, serious injuries and fatalities, 

traffic congestion, on-road mobile source emissions, and freight movement on the Interstate 

System. States (and MPOs, where applicable) will be required to set performance targets in 

support of those measures, and state and metropolitan plans will describe how program and 

project selection will help achieve the targets. They will report to FHWA progress in achieving 

targets. If a state’s report shows inadequate progress in some areas – the condition of the NHS or 

the safety measures – the state will be required to undertake corrective actions. In addition, states 

and MPOs will also be impacted by MAP-21’s restructuring of core roadway formula programs 

(funding opportunities).

Funding and Resources 

In a time of increasing budget constraints and scrutiny on spending, securing funding and 

resources for safety planning will become more difficult. Given that federal and state funding 

may be limited by economy, and not all transportation project funding includes a safety 

component, funding innovations and alternate sources of funding may help state and local 

transportation organizations maximize safety gains. As stated earlier, exploring new funding 

sources and alternatives to incorporate safety in infrastructure projects is especially important 

when transportation appropriations slow or decrease. As states and MPOs enhance their 

performance management processes, they are better positioned to demonstrate the success of 

their projects. By showing a clear link between projects and results, these transportation 

organizations may be better positioned to compete for limited funds.

Training and Continuous Learning Opportunities

State and MPO safety planners are not currently leveraging all available training resources at 

optimal rates. Due the broad spectrum of highly technical tools and guidance currently at their 

disposal, in conjunction with competing requests for time and attention, safety planners often 

feel over inundated and under prepared to identify those tools that will be most useful and 

employ them as a regimented part of their planning processes. With limited continuous learning 

opportunities that reflect the highly dynamic transportation environment, leveraging new tools 

and processes can be daunting. 

As new predictive tools are developed, it logically follows that safety planners will need to be 

trained on how to use them. Addressing the skill gaps will be essential to the deployment and use 

of all new tools. In developing training, challenges must be addressed with regards to identifying 

necessary training for individual staff and/or applying “canned” guidance across the environment 

as a whole. 
Section 4: Identification of Gaps

26

Key Takeaways

 When analyzing the current gaps, four themes became apparent – Performance 

Management, Data, Communication and Knowledge Transfer, and Program Approach to

Safety Planning

 Each theme has several key capabilities the must be matured to achieve the Safety Focused 

Decision Making Framework

 As the transportation environment continues to change and safety planners progress down 

the path toward realizing FHWA’s Safety Focused Decision Making Framework, , there will 

continue to be new challenges that arise in the areas of performance management, funding, 

and training
Section 5: Suggested Bridging Options

27

5. Suggested Bridging Options

Given organizational differences, it is unlikely that there is a single solution that will adequately 

satisfy the needs of all states and MPOs. Consequently, entities should have the ability to choose 

the best course of action that satisfies their specific needs, and which can be implemented and 

sustained within current and anticipated resource constraints. The following is a list of items 

states and MPOs may be able to use to help them effectively deploy the Safety Focused Decision 

Making Framework. 

Conduct a Capability Maturity Analysis to Determine Organizational Gaps

Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) incorporates proven approaches for process 

improvement and organizational change management to help an organization improve the 

processes it uses to conduct its core business functions. To facilitate process improvement, 

CMMI helps an organization examine its current processes; establish priorities for improvement 

of those processes; and implement these improvements across the organization. CMMI is not 

intended to be prescriptive or to define how to achieve an optimized safety planning 

environment. Rather, CMMI provides the essential elements of effective processes to be used by 

organizations when improving their own safety planning processes. Each organization must use 

professional judgment to interpret the CMMI practices. Although process areas depict behavior 

that any organization should exhibit, practices must be interpreted using an in-depth knowledge 

of the CMMI model, the organization, the business environment, and the various other specific 

circumstances involved. To interpret the model’s practices, it is important to consider the overall 

context in which they are used and determine how well the practices satisfy the goals of a 

process area within that context. 

FHWA is well positioned to take the lead in developing a Capability Maturity Model to serve as 

a self-assessment tool for states or MPOs to determine where they are in safety program 

performance management continuum, and what they need to do to get to the next level. CMMI 

models do not imply 

which processes 

are right for a 

given state, MPO, 

or project. Instead, 

CMMI models 

establish criteria 

necessary to plan 

and implement 

processes selected 

by the 

organization for 

improvement 

based on business 

objectives. Figure 

12 is an 

illustrative 

Capability 

Maturity Model 

Figure 12: Illustrative Capability Maturity Model
Section 5: Suggested Bridging Options

28

that could be used by states and MPOs in their efforts to achieve the Safety Focused Decision 

Making Framework. 

Institute Segmented Safety Planning Courses 

One of the most salient issues discussed at the Safety Planning Peer Exchange was the lack of 

uniformity with regard to training opportunities for safety planners at the states and MPOs. This 

inequity was also appreciated between varying levels of seniority and administrative 

responsibility within a given state or MPO (i.e., executive vs. mid-level manager vs. staff). That 

is to say, for multiple reasons, a one-size-fits-all training approach to the deployment of new 

tools and guidance is ineffective. 

The safety planning environment would benefit from scalable safety planning courses made 

available through a respected organization such as the National Highway Institute (NHI) or other 

similar training academies. Figure 13 illustrates how shifting the specific focus of a class, or 

targeting a segment of the safety planning community would increase the applicability of lessons 

learned and overall usefulness of the training. 

Figure 13: Illustrative Course Focus Segmented for Different Roles

As the training program matures, classes could progress from a few half-day classes and perhaps 

evolve to industry-recognized certifications or intensive rotations. 

Providing a new formal venue for safety planners to meet and network would be an additional 

advantage of these courses. The intermingling of safety planners from different regions with 

diverse perspectives and needs would foster dissemination of best practices and could help close 

some of the existing gaps described earlier. If these courses were to take a true multi-disciplinary 

approach, ultimately, they would help bridge the gaps between engineers and planners by giving 

them a common understanding and approach to addressing the needs of the environment.

Executive

•Courses focused on meta-data that drives top level 

decision making regarding funding and strategic 

priorities

Mid-Level Manager

•Courses focused on the use of robust data sets and 

available safety analysis tools to develop the 

performance management framework that will be 

instituted by their team/office 

Staff (Planners and Engineers)

•Courses focused on collecting robust data to be 

used in conjustion with available safety analysis 

tools in the assessment of current and future 

safety outcomes 
Section 5: Suggested Bridging Options

29

Develop and Distribute Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT) Toolkits

As discussed earlier, as federal and state funding is often uncertain, funding innovations and 

alternate sources of funding may help state and local transportation organizations maximize 

safety gains. States and local transportation agencies should also identify opportunities to include 

safety improvement elements into other transportation projects at the early stages (e.g., roadway 

design and construction). Exploring alternate funding sources and alternatives to incorporate 

safety in infrastructure projects is especially important when transportation appropriations slow 

or decrease.

To develop a KTT toolkit, safety planners would first identify target stakeholders. From there, a 

mix of KTT products, tools, and tactics to deliver key messages and inform/engage stakeholders 

would be developed. Finally, they would foster the adoption of safety planning concepts and 

practices through the deployment of the products, tools, tactics and activities outlined in a formal 

KTT plan. An effective safety planning KTT toolkit would include the following items to help 

familiarize stakeholders with the safety planner’s paradigm and concerns:

 Detailed stakeholder analysis to determine information requirements, communication 

preferences (e.g., location, frequency, technological availability), values/needs/concerns, 

preferred means of communication, and allies/resistors

 Workshops, webinars, brown bags, and focus groups

 Outreach material including newsletters, fact sheets, presentations, reports, etc.

 Formal promotional briefings

 Interactive, public-facing website 

If deployed nationally, the impact that KTT toolkits would have on the safety planning 

environment would be substantial. The KTT toolkits would encourage the sharing of best 

practices, expand the availability of robust data sets, and foster innovative solutions to systemic 

challenges.

Expansion Beyond Traditional Funding Sources

As discussed earlier, given that federal and state funding may be limited and not all 

transportation project funding includes a safety component, funding innovations and alternate 

sources of funding may help state and local transportation organizations maximize safety gains. 

Exploring alternate funding sources and alternatives to incorporate safety in infrastructure 

projects is especially important when transportation appropriations slow or decrease. An example 

of a strategy to expand funding is for safety planners to collaborate with engineers during the 

roadway design phase to include safety elements as part of the roadway design. 
Section 5: Suggested Bridging Options

30

Additional Research

More research is needed to define a broadly 

accepted method for calculating the expected 

safety outcomes across multiple projects within 

a program portfolio. Safety planners have 

become very adept at using available tools to 

help predict safety outcomes for specific 

projects, but have not yet effectively broadened 

their predictive capabilities to evaluate a larger 

program portfolio, as illustrated in Figure 14. 

Whatever methodology is ultimately developed 

to meet this need, the analysis will need to take 

into account the additional benefits, 

unexpected challenges, and unintended 

consequences (positive and negative) of 

different project groupings. This will be a key 

element in the maturing of safety planning data 

collection and analysis capabilities as more accurate predictions of program level safety 

outcomes will help achieve FHWA’s Safety Focused Decision Making Framework.

Project B

Project C

Project A

Program 1

(Project A+B+C)

Outcome Predicted Outcome Predicted Outcome Predicted 

Outcome Unknown

Figure 14: Predicting Project 

Versus Program Outcomes
Next Steps

31

6. Summary and Next Steps

FHWA continues to promote a programmatic 

approach to performance-based management of the 

roadway safety community as part of their Safety 

Focused Decision Making Framework. This 

Framework relies upon consistent monitoring, 

reporting, evaluation, and improvement of 

performance goals to promote achievement of the 

desired safety performance across the entire roadway 

system – resulting in improved roadway safety

nationwide.

The current environment has been baselined against 

the Safety Focused Decision Making Framework. 

Now that the major gaps within the tools, practices 

and training for system wide safety impact prediction 

have been identified, FHWA should take decisive 

steps toward the deployment of their Safety Focused 

Decision Making Framework. The activities 

discussed in the Suggested Bridging Options section 

outline some of the actions that are anticipated to 

yield the largest positive impact across the 

environment. FHWA will continue to work closely 

with safety planners at the state and local levels to 

mature and refine associated tools, guidance and 

training for the betterment of our national roadway 

system. 

Overview of Key Takeaways

Baseline of Current Safety Environment

 While there are a variety of helpful tools 

available to safety planners, some are used 

more commonly across the states and MPOs

 The challenges can be grouped into two 

categories, organizational and geographic, both 

with common contributing factors that can be 

identified as themes across the states and 

MPOs 

 Even those tools that are used most commonly 

have a diverse set of challenges associated with 

implementing them, often unique to a 

particular state or MPO

 As funding for safety programs becomes more 

challenging to secure, safety planners must 

expand beyond the traditional sources upon 

which states and MPOs currently rely and 

reach to include new, innovative revenue 

streams

Safety Focused Decision Making 

Framework

 FHWA envisions a safety planning process 

where transportation organizations are able to 

optimize the selection of highway safety 

infrastructure improvements across a roadway 

system and use performance management 

practices to track progress and promote 

achievement of safety performance targets

 The Safety Focused Decision Making 

Framework takes a programmatic approach to 

safety planning, and is composed of five highlevel steps with a continuous emphasis on data 

collection and project improvement

 Acceptance of this new safety culture is reliant 

on the clear communication and collaboration 

between and amongst safety planning 

stakeholders at all levels

Identification of Gaps

 When analyzing the current gaps, four themes 

became apparent – Performance Management 

of Safety Programs, Data, Communication and 

Knowledge Transfer, and Safety Planning

 Each theme has several key capabilities that

must be matured to reach the Safety Focused 

Decision Making Framework

 As the transportation environment continues to 

change and safety planners progress down the 

path toward realizing FHWA’s Safety Focused 

Decision Making Framework, indicators 

suggest that there will continue to be new 

challenges that arise in the areas of 

performance management, funding, and 

training 
Appendix A: List of Acronyms 

32

Appendix A: List of Acronyms

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic

ARC Atlanta Regional Commission

CAT Collision Assessment Tool

CMF Crash Modification Factors

CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration

CPM Crash Prediction Module

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FI Fatality and Injury

GIS Geographic Information System

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System

HSEC Highway Safety Executive Committee

HSIG Highway Safety Issue Group

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

IHSDM Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

ISAT Interchange Safety Analysis Tool

KTT Knowledge and Technology Transfer

MS Microsoft

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

NHI National Highway Institute

NHS National Highway System

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PBCAT Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool

PDO Property-Damage Only

RCW Revised Code of Washington

RPS Road Protection Score

RTP Regional Transportation Plans

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plans

SSAM Surrogate Safety Assessment Model

STIP State Transportation Improvement Plan

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TOT Total

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction

33

Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction

The matrix below provides a list of all nationally available tools discussed in this report. The matrix also provides the primary purpose of 

each tool, key data inputs, outputs, and recommended expertise of the users. Please note that the required expertise need not exist in a 

single user, but a group of users should have the collective expertise required in order to utilize the tools successfully.

Tool Primary Purpose Key Data Inputs Outputs Recommended Expertise

Safety Data Analysis Tools

Highway Safety Manual 

(HSM)

Attachment AProvides a 

framework for safety that aids 

practitioners in selecting 

countermeasures, prioritizing 

projects, comparing 

alternatives, and quantifying 

and predicting the safety 

performance of roadway 

elements during the planning, 

design, construction, and 

operation phases

Attachment B Crash Data: road 

location, date, crash type, 

severity, relationship to 

intersection, distance to 

intersection

Attachment C Roadway Data: 

road type, segment 

identification, intersection type

Traffic volume data such as 

Average Annual Daily Traffic 

(AADT): for intersections, major 

and minor street entering AADT 

A method to estimate crash 

frequency and severity and then 

conduct economic appraisals of 

improvements to use for 

prioritizing projects and 

calculating the effects of design 

alternatives

Basic understanding of 

traffic engineering, 

statistical analysis, 

transportation planning, 

and safety management 

Crash Modification 

Factors (CMF) 

Clearinghouse 

Provide transportation 

professionals with a web-based 

repository of CMFs and 

documents /training materials 

to support the proper 

application of CMFs

Search parameters to determine 

appropriate crash modification 

factors

Crash modification factors Basic understanding of 

traffic engineering, 

statistical analysis, 

transportation planning, 

and safety management
Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction

34

Tool Primary Purpose Key Data Inputs Outputs Recommended Expertise

Interactive Highway 

Safety Design Model 

(IHSDM)

Provides estimates of a 

highway design’s expected 

safety and operational effects 

of geometric design decisions 

on rural two-lane highways 

with some applications to rural 

multilane highways and 

urban/suburban arterials

Crash Data: specific road 

location of crash, collision type, 

severity

Roadway Data: lane width, 

shoulder width/type, horizontal 

curve length and radius, 

gradation, driveway density, 

passing lanes, roadside hazard 

rating

Intersection Data: traffic control, 

intersection skew angle, turn 

lanes, sight distance

Traffic volume data (AADT)

The IHSDM-HSM Predictive 

Method 2011 Release includes 

six evaluation modules: Crash 

Prediction, Policy Review, 

Design Consistency, Intersection 

Review, Traffic Analysis and 

Driver/Vehicle Modules. The 

Crash Prediction Module (CPM) 

supports implementation of Part 

C (Predictive Method) of the 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 

for rural two-lane highways 

(HSM – Chapter 10), multilane 

rural highways (HSM – Chapter 

11) and urban and suburban 

arterials (HSM – Chapter 12). 

The other IHSDM evaluation 

modules are applicable to rural 

two-lane highways. 

Basic understanding of 

geometric design 

concepts, ability to input 

data in Microsoft (MS) 

Windows environment 

through conversion of 

detailed geometric designs 

from other software or 

comma-separated file 

format (*.csv)

SafetyAnalyst A set of computerized 

analytical tools to identify 

safety improvement needs and 

supports use of costeffectiveness analysis to 

develop a system-wide 

program of site-specific 

improvement projects

Crash Data: location, date, 

collision type, severity

Roadway Data: segment 

number, 

segment location (in a form 

linkable to crash locations), 

segment length (mi), area type 

(rural/urban)

Intersection Data: intersection 

number, intersection location (in 

a form linkable to crash 

locations), area type 

(rural/urban), number of 

intersection legs, type of 

intersection traffic control, 

major-road traffic volume 

(AADT), minor-road traffic 

volume (AADT)

The Network Screening Tool

identifies sites with potential for 

safety improvements. 

The Diagnosis Tool diagnoses 

the nature of safety problems at 

specific sites.

The Countermeasure Selection 

Tool assists users in selecting 

countermeasures to reduce crash 

frequency and severity at 

specific sites.

The Economic Appraisal Tool

performs an economic appraisal 

of a specific countermeasure or 

alternative countermeasures for a 

specific site.

The Priority Ranking Tool

provides a priority ranking of 

sites and proposed improvement 

Understanding of traffic 

engineering, statistical 

analysis, transportation 

planning, and safety 

management
Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction

35

Tool Primary Purpose Key Data Inputs Outputs Recommended Expertise

Ramp Characteristics Data: 

ramp number, ramp location (in 

a form linkable to crash 

locations), area type 

(rural/urban), ramp length (mi), 

ramp type, ramp configuration 

(diamond/loop/directional/etc.), 

ramp traffic volume (AADT)

projects based on the benefit and 

cost estimates determined by the 

economic appraisal tool.

The Countermeasure Evaluation 

Tool provides the capability to 

conduct before/after evaluations 

of implemented safety 

improvements.

Systemic Safety Project 

Selection Tool

The systemic approach to 

safety involves widely 

implemented improvements 

based on high-risk roadway 

features correlated with 

specific severe crash types. 

The approach provides a more 

comprehensive method for 

safety planning and 

implementation that 

supplements and compliments 

traditional site analysis. It 

helps agencies broaden their 

traffic safety efforts and 

consider risk as well as crash 

history when identifying where 

to make low-cost safety 

improvements.

Crash Data

Roadway Data

Cost/Benefit data for specific 

roadway treatment strategies

Reduced risk of and the potential 

for the occurrence of future 

crashes.

Basic understanding of 

traffic engineering, 

statistical analysis, 

transportation planning, 

and safety management

Highway Performance 

Monitoring System 

(HPMS) Viewer and 

Geographic Information 

System (GIS) Tools

GIS software turns statistical 

data such as crashes and 

geographic data such as roads 

and crash locations into 

meaningful information for 

spatial analysis and mapping

Crash Data

Roadway Data

Traffic Operations Data

Provides graphical displays to 

support:

 Spot/Intersection Analysis

 Strip Analysis

 Cluster Analysis

 Sliding-Scale Analysis

 Corridor Analysis

Experience using GIS 

software
Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction

36

Tool Primary Purpose Key Data Inputs Outputs Recommended Expertise

PlanSafe Forecasting tool that enables 

state DOTs and MPOs to 

account for sociodemographic 

induced changes and 

infrastructure changes when 

forecasting safety impacts

Demographic Data: population, 

travel patterns, infrastructure 

(residential, commercial, etc.)

Crash Data

Predictive crash data based on 

expected changes to population

Experience using GIS 

software, statistical 

modeling, statistical 

analysis

U.S. Road Assessment 

Program (usRAP)

A method to benchmark the 

safety performance of specific 

roadway segments in 

comparison to similar 

roadways

Crash Data: specific road 

location of crash

Roadway Data: road type, 

section length, traffic volume 

(ADT) 

Color coded maps that show:

 fatal and serious injury 

crashes per mile of road,

 fatal and serious injury 

crashes per hundred million 

vehicle-miles of travel,

 ratio of fatal and serious 

injury crash rate per hundred 

million vehicle miles of 

travel to the average crash 

rate for similar roads,

 potential number of fatal and 

serious injury crashes saved 

per mile in a specified time 

period if crash rate per 

hundred million vehiclemiles were reduced to the 

average crash rate for 

similar roads,

 supplemental maps (similar 

to types above) that address 

specific crash types (e.g., 

roadway departure, drug or 

alcohol involved)

GIS cartography to assign 

crash coordinates to a 

specific roadway segment 

is preferred
Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction

37

Tool Primary Purpose Key Data Inputs Outputs Recommended Expertise

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Tools

Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Crash Analysis Tool 

(PBCAT)

Software to assist state and 

local pedestrian/bicycle 

coordinators, planners and 

engineers with improving 

walking and bicycling safety 

through analysis of a database 

containing details associated 

with crashes between motor 

vehicles and pedestrians or 

bicyclists

Crash Data: date, time, 

location, demographics of 

involved parties, subject actions, 

and other attributes

Analysis reports in spreadsheet 

form

Basic understanding of 

MS Office, transportation 

planning, and safety 

management

Bicycle Countermeasure 

Selection System –

BIKESAFE

Online tool provides 

practitioners with a process for

determining possible 

engineering, education, and/or 

enforcement treatments to help 

mitigate known bicycle crash 

problems and/or to help 

achieve a specific performance 

objective

Crash Data: date, time, 

location, demographics of 

involved parties, subject actions, 

and other attributes

List of potential 

countermeasures based on 

bicycle crash types and 

performance objectives

Basic understanding of 

transportation planning 

and safety management

Pedestrian Safety Guide 

and Countermeasure 

Selection System –

PEDSAFE

Online tool provides 

practitioners with a process for 

determining possible 

engineering, education, and/or 

enforcement treatments to help 

mitigate a known pedestrian 

crash problem and/or to help 

achieve a specific performance 

objective

Crash Data: date, time, 

location, demographics of 

involved parties, subject actions, 

and other attributes

List of potential 

countermeasures based on 

pedestrian crash types and 

performance objectives

Basic understanding of 

transportation planning 

and safety management
Appendix B: Tools Supporting Safety Impact Prediction

38

Tool Primary Purpose Key Data Inputs Outputs Recommended Expertise

Intersection/Interchange Safety Analysis Tools

Interchange Safety 

Analysis Tool (ISAT)

ISAT provides design and 

safety engineers with an 

automated tool for assessing 

the safety effects of geometric 

design and traffic control 

features at an existing 

interchange and adjacent 

roadway network. ISAT can 

also be used to predict the 

safety performance of design 

alternatives for new 

interchanges and prior to 

reconstruction of existing 

interchanges.

Intersection Data: area type 

(rural/urban), analysis years

Crash Data: dates, total number 

of crashes

Roadway Data: length of 

segment, number of lanes, traffic 

volume data (ADT), major-road 

traffic volume (AADT), minorroad traffic volume (AADT)

Ramp Characteristics Data: 

ramp type, ramp configuration 

(diamond/loop/directional/etc.), 

ramp traffic volume (AADT)

The primary outputs from an 

analysis include:

 Number of predicted crashes 

for entire interchange area

 Number of predicted crashes 

by interchange element type

 Number of predicted crashes 

by year

 Number of predicted crashes 

by collision type

Outputs are reported for three 

severity levels: total (TOT), fatal 

and injury (FI), and propertydamage only (PDO) crashes.

Basic understanding

of geometric design

concepts, and working 

knowledge of MS Excel 

spreadsheets

Surrogate Safety 

Assessment Model 

(SSAM)

SSAM is a tool for traffic 

engineers to perform 

comparative safety analysis of 

highway design alternatives 

using traffic simulation models

Detailed vehicle trajectory data 

exported from traffic simulation 

software (i.e., AIMSUN, 

Paramics, TEXAS, VISSIM)

Simulated conflict data 

including: total number of 

conflicts, number of conflicts by 

type (i.e., crossing, lane-change, 

or rear-end events), and conflict 

severity indicators (e.g., average 

TTC, PET, Delta-V values)

Experience with traffic 

simulation software and 

automated traffic conflict

analysis
Appendix C: Safety Planning Peer Exchange

39

Appendix C: Safety Planning Peer Exchange

Peer Exchange Overview

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) hosted a Safety Planning and Performance 

Management Peer Exchange event in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 16–17, 2012. This Peer 

Exchange was designed to provide an opportunity to present and discuss FHWA’s Framework 

for System-Wide Safety Impact Prediction, as well as various tools and methods that states and 

MPOs are using to identify and prioritize projects for safety improvement. 

Peer Exchange Background

Peer Exchange participants were selected for their involvement in instituting proactive safety 

planning and performance management practices within their state DOTs and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs). Nearly all Peer Exchange participants had been involved with 

an earlier phase of FHWA’s case study research on system-wide safety performance tools and 

practices and had participated in multiple phone calls with the research team to describe their 

organizations’ safety planning practices, use of safety data as part of the planning process, and 

use of performance measures and performance targets. 

Presentation and group discussion modules were designed to highlight current methods being 

used to incorporate safety into transportation projects and share new, innovative ideas for 

expanding collaboration and implementing new tools. Over the course of the Peer Exchange, 

attendees met in small groups to identify gaps and challenges to predicting safety outcomes and 

accurately measuring success of their highway safety programs. Individuals also shared their 

visions for highway safety prediction tools in the future and the research needs and opportunities 

to enhance safety prediction practices across a suite of projects, and reported back to the larger 

audience. This document summarizes the information captured during the Peer Exchange. 

Information from the Peer Exchange will be incorporated into a final report delivered to FHWA 

in the summer of 2013. 

Discussion Themes

The discussion over the two-day Peer Exchange broke out into four thematic areas –

performance management of safety programs, data, communication, and effective knowledge 

transfer. Attendees each brought to bear their unique experience, describing wants, needs, 

challenges and best practices across each theme. Many of the key points that were discussed here 

reinforced findings from earlier case studies the research team identified. 

Theme Key Points Discussed at Peer Exchange

Performance 

Management of Safety 

Programs

 Use and projected impacts of individual safety 

countermeasures is well understood; projecting the results of 

system-wide suite of safety countermeasures has not been 

done. 

 Performance measurement is institutionalized in many states 

and MPOs decision-making processes; the number and rate of 

highway fatalities and injuries are common measures used. 
Appendix C: Safety Planning Peer Exchange

40

However, setting performance targets and measuring the 

impact of projects/programs on achieving those targets is not a 

common practice.

 Safety is often addressed in standalone projects rather than 

integrated through planning, engineering, operations, and 

maintenance.

 The increased focus on performance-based programs in MAP21 may benefit safety programs because fatality and injury 

data is often more available than other highway performance 

measures. 

Data

 Because crash data is often used to identify countermeasures 

for individual high crash locations, accurate geo-location data 

on all crash location and highway features is needed. 

 The ability to use timely and robust data enhances 

organizational capabilities to prioritize projects and justify 

decisions throughout the safety planning lifecycle. 

 It is difficult to collect exposure data on the number and 

amount of pedestrian and bicycle travel. That limits 

comparison capabilities for fatality and injury data for 

ped/bike crashes.

 Future data sets need to be expanded and linked to other nontraditional types of roadway and crash data (e.g., university 

research, hospital reports, National Studies Center) to provide 

a more holistic view of and approach to safety. 

 Many tools (e.g., SafetyAnalyst) and guidance documents 

(e.g., HSM) require additional training or data formatting 

before use.

Communication

 States and MPOs rely on both formal and informal 

communication channels for information, guidance, and best 

practices.

 The sheer volume of information/guidance available to states 

and MPOs makes it difficult to down-select and prioritize 

projects. 

 Events such as this peer exchange reinforce the need to 

continue expanding professional networks and encourage 

knowledge transfer.

Effective Knowledge 

Transfer

 Opportunities exist to improve the sharing of best practices 

among FHWA headquarters, states, and localities.

 The 9 Proven Countermeasures Memo is an example of 

effective knowledge transfer – simple and direct.

 MAP-21 will require increased coordination among all levels 

involved in safety planning (e.g., U.S. DOT HQ, FHWA 

Division Offices, state DOTs, and MPOs). 
Appendix C: Safety Planning Peer Exchange

41

Participants

The follow table contains a list of participants who attended the Peer Exchange, as well as their 

organization. Special thanks to all of those who participated in this important event. 

Name Organization

Kyung-Hwa Kim Atlanta Regional Commission 

Alia Awwad was Atlanta Regional Commission 

(now Jacobs Engineering)

Bala Akundi Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Joe Santos Florida Department of Transportation

Norm Cressman Georgia Department of Transportation

Kajal Pater Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

(Michigan)

Pat Morin Washington State Department of Transportation

Greg Morris FHWA Georgia Division Office

Esther Strawder FHWA Headquarters

Heather Rothenberg FHWA Headquarters

Danena Gaines Cambridge Systematics

Susan Knisely Booz Allen Hamilton

Jocelyn Lewis Booz Allen Hamilton

Alex Jendzejec Booz Allen Hamilton