Performance Management Practices 

and Methodologies for Setting Safety 

Performance Targets

Task B-1 – Literature Review

October 24, 2011
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. 

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

contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. 

Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because 

they are considered essential to the objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner 

that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to 

ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its 

programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. 
final report

Performance Management Practices 

and Methodologies for Setting 

Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 – Literature Review

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-14-007

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets: Task B-1 Literature Review

5. Report Date

October 24, 2011

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Audrey Wennink

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00020

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report, June 2011 to October 2011

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

The contract manager for this project was Keith D. Williams.

16. Abstract

This document reviews the role of target setting in a performance management framework, safety performance 

measures, and provides of examples of national safety target setting.

17. Key Words

Safety, performance measure, target, goal, 

transportation

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

46

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review 

i 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Target Setting ......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Role of Target Setting .................................................................................... 3

2.2 Goal Setting .................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Types of Safety Performance Measures ...................................................... 6

Number of Fatalities/Serious Injuries ........................................................ 7

Number of Fatal/Injury Crashes ................................................................. 7

Fatality Rate per VMT ................................................................................... 8

Fatality Rate by Population .......................................................................... 8

2.4 Approaches to Target Setting ....................................................................... 8

Examples of National Target Setting ........................................................ 12

United States ............................................................................................ 12

Canada ...................................................................................................... 13

Denmark ................................................................................................... 14

United Kingdom ..................................................................................... 14

Norway ..................................................................................................... 15

Australia ................................................................................................... 16

Finland ...................................................................................................... 17

Japan ......................................................................................................... 17

The Netherlands ...................................................................................... 18

European Commission ........................................................................... 19

United Nations ........................................................................................ 19

2.5 Allocation of Resources .............................................................................. 22

2.6 Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 23

2.7 Data ................................................................................................................ 23

3.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 25

4.0 References ............................................................................................................. 27

Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review 

iii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Advantages and Risks of Target-Setting Approaches ........................... 9

Table 2.2 Predicted Number of Road Users Killed or Injured in Norway 

in 2020 according to Different Options .................................................. 16

Table 2.3 Representative Sample of Safety Targets ............................................... 20

Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review 

v 

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Performance Management Framework ................................................... 4

Figure 2.2 Factors Influencing Target Setting Approaches ................................... 11

Figure 2.3 U.S. DOT Performance Target Setting for Highway Fatalities ........... 13

Figure 2.4 Japan Methodology for Target Setting ................................................... 18

Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

1

1.0 Introduction

Over the last 15 years, use of performance management has dramatically 

increased in the transportation arena to plan, prioritize, track, and improve the 

effectiveness of nearly all functions to achieve an agency’s fundamental goals, 

including safety. Performance information guides decisions about priorities and 

resource allocation, not only for capital project delivery, but also for internal 

agency management and operations (Cambridge Systematics, 2009). 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has begun a process for 

identifying a methodology for setting a national traffic fatality performance 

target. This literature review catalogues and analyzes existing fatality target 

setting practices for transportation agencies. The objective is to identify relevant 

theories, ideas, or recommendations for fatality target setting strategies and 

examples of specific methodologies in use. 

The point of departure for this literature review is recent research conducted for 

NCHRP 666: Target-Setting Methods and Data Management to Support 

Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies. This document and the literature reviewed for NCHRP 666 was screened for content 

specific to safety target setting. Additional literature from the National 

Transportation Library was identified through on-line databases, including 

Transportation Research Information System (TRIS) and Research in Progress 

(RIP). Keywords used to search included ‘safety’, ‘target’, ‘goals’, and ‘transportation’ among others. Transportation agency web site searches in countries 

known to have developed safety programs also were conducted, including the 

United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Other recent 

research reports on performance-based planning were reviewed, including 

NCHRP Project 08-62 – Transportation Performance Management Programs – 

Insight from Practitioners and Proceedings from the National Forum on 

Performance-Based Planning and Programming. In total, 65 documents offered 

information useful to this task (a detailed listing is included in Section 4.0, 

References). The review did not include all state Strategic Highway Safety Plans. 

These and other state safety plans are being reviewed in a separate task to 

develop a compendium of state practices in setting safety targets. 

General observations from the literature review included: 

• Target setting is a key element of performance management. Targets provide 

a direct link between goals and investment decisions. They allow agencies to 

gauge progress over time.

• Much of the relevant literature defines safety targets as reductions in: 

1) actual fatalities/serious injuries, 2) fatal/serious injury crashes, or

3) fatality/injury rates. 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

2 

• A few key documents (Whitelegg and Haq, 2006) suggest agencies adopt 

interim targets based on a broader vision (e.g., Vision Zero). Sweden, 

Finland, Australia, and the Netherlands have established a zero fatality 

vision. Within the U.S., Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Utah, Washington 

and others have adopted versions of the “Target Zero” goal.

• Few agencies use a data intensive, modeling approach to set targets for fatalities (Washington and Kim, 2007). Japan and the United Kingdom (UK) have 

incorporated road safety measures and vehicle safety technologies into 

forecasting models, but the final target is set as a matter of policy, combining 

information from modeling, expert opinion, and the practicality of the longterm vision. 

In approaching this work the use of language is important. In the report two 

types of targets are described, hard targets and stretch goal targets. Hard targets 

are raw numbers or percentages, while stretch goal targets – in many cases zero –

are treated as goals.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

3

2.0 Target Setting

While many agencies set targets, limited information is available on the target setting process. Relevant findings from the literature can be categorized into four 

areas, including: the role of target setting, goal setting, types of safety measures, 

and approaches to safety target setting. 

2.1 ROLE OF TARGET SETTING

Target setting is generally understood as an element of performance management that is a policy-directed, data-driven business practice linking an 

organization’s goals and objectives to resources and results. The outcomes of 

performance management may include more efficient distribution of limited 

resources and increased accountability and transparency in decision making. 

Figure 1.1 shows target setting as a central element of the six components of 

performance management (Cambridge Systematics, 2010): 

• Setting Goals and Objectives. An organization’s policy goals and objectives 

define agency priorities and provide the foundation for performance-based 

planning and management decisions; 

• Selecting Performance Measures. Performance measures capture the 

expected outcomes implied by the goals and objectives and help an organization monitor progress towards those outcomes; 

• Setting Performance Targets. Establishing a quantifiable target for each performance measure allows agencies to provide a concrete definition of 

objectives and gauge specific progress over time towards goals; 

• Allocating Resources. An organization builds on the preceding steps by 

allocating resources such as time and money through budgeting processes to 

achieve specific performance targets; 

• Measuring and Reporting Results. Monitoring and reporting progress to 

decision makers and other stakeholders allows organizations to identify key 

factors influencing performance and necessary actions to improve results; 

and 

• Quality Data. Effective decision making within each element of the performance management framework requires a solid foundation of accurate, 

timely, and appropriate data. 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

4 

Figure 2.1 Performance Management Framework 

Goals/Objectives

Performance Measures

Quality Data Target Setting

Evaluate Programs, 

Projects, and Strategies

Measure, Evaluate, 

and Report Results

Actual Performance 

Achieved

Allocate Resources

Budget and Staff

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Transportation safety is one of the most commonly measured performance areas 

for transportation agencies, both internationally and in the U.S. In the U.S., 

safety performance measure tracking and the use of safety targets has grown 

substantially since the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) required development of Strategic 

Highway Safety Plans.

Both long-term and interim targets are used in many countries in national, 

regional, and local road safety programs. The types of safety targets in use

include hard targets (i.e., reduce fatalities to a specific number) and stretch goal 

targets (i.e., achieve zero fatalities by some future year). However, the literature 

presents little documentation of the methods and approaches used to set these

safety targets. The most commonly documented approach is to establish a topdown visionary target and track success using interim, hard targets. 

The literature provides several observations and recommendations about target 

setting. 

• Setting targets can have a significant effect on safety performance, even if the 

targets are not achieved. Targets demonstrate a government’s commitment 

to reducing fatalities and injuries on its roadways. It is recommended all 

countries adopt ambitious, empirically derived road safety targets to help 

drive improved performance and accountability (Joint Transportation 

Research Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development and International Transport Forum, 2008). For example, in 

Australia, target establishment strengthened commitment to national action 

on road safety issues. The country made significant gains in many areas, 

achieving a 34 percent reduction in the per capita fatality rate even though 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

5

this fell short of the target of a 40 percent reduction (Australian Transport 

Council, 2011).

• Targets demonstrate that transportation leaders are likely to support proposed policy and legislative changes and allocate sufficient resources to 

safety programs. In the Netherlands the Ministry of Transport recently 

lowered the safety target from 580 fatalities by 2020 to 500. This follows a 

decade where the number of injuries dropped by over 10 percent and the 

number of road fatalities decreased by 30 percent. By continuing to set 

aggressive targets, leadership is demonstrating continued ambition to make

additional safety gains (Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water 

Management, 2009).

• Targets also can raise the profile of safety by creating a visible goal for various entities to work toward collaboratively. This can drive decisions about 

institutional coordination, legislative needs, resource allocation, performance 

monitoring, research, and knowledge transfer (Joint Transport Research 

Centre of the International Transport Forum and the Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development, 2008).

• UK researchers have noted that it is important to use a sound methodology 

to prepare a target for reducing roadway crashes and fatalities. If the 

methodology is not sound, the target will lack credibility and jeopardize 

safety efforts. Additionally, if key stakeholders realize a poor methodology 

has produced an overly ambitious target that cannot be achieved, they will 

lose motivation and progress will be hampered (Broughton, J. 2009).

2.2 GOAL SETTING

Setting an overarching goal provides a framework and focus for safety efforts. 

Perhaps the most well known goal is the Swedish Road Administration’s Vision 

Zero, which was introduced in 1995. The Vision Zero concept is guided by the 

belief that the road transport system must be designed with the understanding

that people make mistakes, and traffic crashes cannot be avoided completely. 

Therefore, the roadway system must be designed so human error does not result 

in serious or fatal injuries. This perspective shifts the major share of safety 

responsibility from road users to those who design the roadway system 

(Swedish Road Administration, 2006).

Several countries, particularly developed countries with strong road safety initiatives, have followed Sweden’s lead and developed a long-term goal to have no 

fatalities or serious injuries occur on the roadway system. This vision is often 

accompanied by interim targets to measure progress. Countries taking this 

approach include Finland, Australia, and the Netherlands. In the U.S. several 

states have adopted a Vision Zero approach, including Arizona, Iowa, Utah, and 

Washington. In addition to its “Target Zero” goal, Washington State also has 

identified interim targets: To achieve Target Zero, the State must decrease traffic 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

6

fatalities by 25 each year between 2008 and 2030. Iowa’s “One Death is One Too 

Many” provides an overall vision, and interim fatality targets also have been set 

for the State.

Countries adopting zero as a vision/goal for traffic fatalities have made substantial progress; however some concerns with such a target also have been identified. One benefit of such an ambitious goal is it can push a society past its 

comfort zone and stimulate the development of new safety measures. However, 

taking on the goal of eliminating a known cause of death, such as traffic crashes, 

may be so expensive it reduces resources available to address other causes of 

death and may increase general mortality. (Elvik, 1999.) For example, 

Netherlands leadership recognizes that to reduce fatalities past a certain point 

will impact quality of life in other ways. Society must ask if getting to zero 

roadway fatalities is worth cutting down all the trees next to the roadway or 

establishing societal restrictions that would negatively impact quality of life in 

other ways (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, 2009).

A related approach, adopted by Canada’s road safety stakeholders, is to have the 

“safest roads in the world.” The approach does not set a specific target or long- term

goal but does provide a potentially easy means to check on progress and to identify shorter-term targets by examining the performance of others. (CCMTA, 2011.)

2.3 TYPES OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Five common types of safety measures used for targets were identified in the literature, including raw numbers of fatalities/serious injuries, number of fatal/serious 

injury crashes, fatality and injury rates based on vehicle miles traveled, and fatality/

serious injury rate by population. Number of licensed drivers is also used as an 

exposure measure in some of the literature (i.e., as the denominator in a rate-based 

measure instead of population or vehicle miles of travel).

As states and regions follow the strategic highway safety planning approach defined 

by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), they have defined safety emphasis areas to focus efforts to improve 

safety. Some states have set targets related to these emphasis areas, though typically 

for the same fatalities and serious injuries statistics described above. For example, in 

New Mexico, a target was set for the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. 

(Note: a comprehensive review of target setting practices in strategic highway safety 

plans will be provided in a future task.)

Beginning with 2010 Highway Safety Plans and Annual Reports, states are using 

a core set of safety performance measures developed by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Governors Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA). Three of the recommended performance measures and 

recommended data sources, as defined in Traffic Safety Performance Measures for 

States and Federal Agencies, are:
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

7

• Number of traffic fatalities (FARS);

• Number of serious injuries in traffic crashes (State crash data files); and

• Fatalities per vehicle miles traveled (FARS/FHWA).

Number of Fatalities/Serious Injuries

Many states and countries identify the total number of fatalities as the primary 

safety performance measure and set targets for reducing this number. This 

measure is easily understood by stakeholders and the public. Examples of the

approach include:

• The Kansas City region set a target to decrease transportation-related fatalities in the Kansas City region from 245 to 183 or fewer, by 2012. To meet this 

target, regional fatalities must fall by 3.9 percent annually. The regional target is based on Missouri’s Blueprint to Arrive Alive. In Missouri, while the

vision is to work toward zero fatalities, the interim target is 850 or fewer 

fatalities by 2012.

• The target in Kentucky is to reduce fatalities by 5 percent from the 2006-2008 

level by 2010 and an additional 10 percent by 2012.

• Finland set a target to halve the total number of fatalities to 125 by 2020.

As safety measurement evolves, increasingly attention is being paid to the toll in 

serious injuries as well as fatalities. In 2005, Japan established the target of a 

reduction in fatalities to no more than 5,500 by 2010 (a decrease of 1,200 annual 

fatalities compared to 1999). The serious injury target was a 25,000 reduction by 

2010, compared to 2005, and a reduction of 50,000 serious injuries by 2015. 

Australia’s target for 2020 is to reduce both the annual number of traffic fatalities

and the annual number of serious injuries by 30 percent. At this time the 

European Commission plans to develop a serious injury target, but has not 

because of inconsistencies in the definition for severe and minor injuries

(European Commission, 2010).

Number of Fatal/Injury Crashes

Some states measure the number of fatal crashes – crashes involving one or more 

fatalities. Using the number of fatal crashes as a target does not account for variation in vehicle occupancy. The total number of fatalities will be higher as more 

than one person may die in a crash. This type of measure also may be expanded 

to include injury or serious injury crashes either as a separate category or a combined fatal and injury crash target. For example, the Cheyenne Metropolitan 

Planning Organization set its target at a 20 percent reduction in fatal and injury 

crashes from 2008 to 2020.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

8 

Fatality Rate per VMT 

A number of states track safety using a fatality rate, such as the rate of fatalities 

per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (100 MVMT). The fatality rate performance measure controls for the amount of vehicle traffic, and thus, theoretically, 

makes it a comparable measure across states. In California the target was set to 

reduce the fatality rate on the California State highway system to 1.00/100 

MVMT by 2008 and to continuously reduce annually thereafter toward a goal of 

the lowest rate in the nation. The available literature suggests that other countries rely more on raw fatality numbers than on rates. No international examples 

we found using fatalities per MVMT as safety performance measures. 

Fatality Rate by Population 

The fatality rate per unit of population is a measure of safety that accounts for 

population growth over time and normalizes safety results in areas with different population levels. For example, in the 2004 Transportation Safety Action 

Plan, the Oregon Transportation Commission established a performance measure of transportation deaths per 100,000 people. Sometimes states or regions will 

look at fatality rate per unit of population to get a snapshot of where higher and 

lower rates fall among a number of jurisdictions. Mortality rate per 100,000 

people also is the most common exposure-based statistical reporting measure 

adopted by the public health community. The World Health Organization 

(WHO) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regularly publish mortality rates and set health targets per 100,000 people. 

2.4 APPROACHES TO TARGET SETTING

NCHRP 666: identifies a number of approaches to target setting, not all of which 

are applicable to safety (Table 2.1). The range of target setting approaches 

includes: 

1. Edict – A target is set by agency leadership, elected officials, or other policymaking body; 

2. Expert – A target is set through a consensus-based planning process within 

the context of a performance-based resource allocation exercise;

3. Customer Feedback – A target is set based on feedback from users of the 

transportation system; 

4. Benchmarking – A target is set based on targets established by peer 

jurisdictions; and 

5. Modeling – A target is set by modeling the expected impact of strategies and 

investments on future performance.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

9

Table 2.1 Advantages and Risks of Target-Setting Approaches

Target-Setting 

Approach Advantage Risk

Approach to Balancing 

Advantages with Risks

Edict • Less time and money 

intensive.

• Unequivocal and wellunderstood.

• Lack of defensibility

and inclusion.

• Use hybrid approach.

Expert Opinion • Insures broad 

understanding and 

acceptance within and 

outside agency.

• May founder in effort to 

be inclusive.

• Appoint internal champion 

to lead effort to identify the 

“critical few” measures and 

targets.

Customer 

Feedback

• Insures more 

transparent process.

• May be confusing to 

discuss technical 

measures with public.

• Describe measures and 

targets in the simplest terms 

possible.

Benchmarking • Provides a peer group 

comparison.

• Can be misused for 

comparative rankings.

• Continue to refine 

comparative analysis 

techniques.

Modeling • Defensibility.

• Better understanding of 

future performance.

• More time and money 

intensive.

• Models change over 

time.

• Continue to refine modeling 

techniques.

• Use hybrid approach.

Source: NCHRP 666: Target-Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based 

Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies. 

Stretch goal targets are generally determined via edict (a decision by a policymaker or group of policy-makers, DOT directors, or others) or in combination 

with expert opinion.

Benchmarks to compare performance against peers tend to be hard or percent 

change targets. However, Japan’s medium-term goal to achieve the world’s safest roadway conditions and Canada’s vision of making its roads the safest in the 

world may be considered stretch goal targets. European Union (EU) member 

states have been encouraged to develop national road safety strategies to achieve 

the regional target. The European Commission recommends each state 

concentrate its efforts on areas where performance is the lowest, using as an 

indicator the results obtained by the best performers in such areas. Each country 

could therefore establish its national safety target, such as a fatality rate by 

vehicle kilometers driven. The Missouri DOT does not set specific targets for 

safety or any other performance measure. However, for each safety measure 

included in the MoDOT Tracker, MoDOT benchmarks its performance against 

other states, showing Missouri’s ranking in the nation.

Modeling-based approaches are defined here as any data-driven methodology 

for setting a target. Modeling approaches include extrapolating recent trends 

into the future or using a model to forecast the effects of funding, projects, and 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

10

policies on future safety performance. This often involves comparing a “do 

nothing” scenario to scenarios that combine investments and policies at various 

levels (i.e., from moderate to aggressive action).

Due to the technical challenges of forecasting safety impacts and the public policy implications of safety, modeling is rarely if ever solely used to set safety 

targets. Instead, modeling approaches provide information to decision makers 

who ultimately select a target using additional information sources (such as 

customer-feedback or expert opinion). 

A small number of countries have used or are using empirically-derived targets, 

based on quantitative modeling of potential strategies. With this approach, targets are based on empirical evidence of the selected interventions’ previous 

effectiveness combined with best estimates of future effectiveness, using a model 

linking inputs and outcomes. For example, Japan developed targets based on 

anticipated effects of vehicle safety improvements. Targets based on safety 

effectiveness, supported by research are more realistic and achievable, which

helps secure political support (International Transport Forum). 

A number of factors influence target setting types. Figure 2.2 relates these 

factors, shown in the first column, back to the target-setting approaches, shown 

in the bottom row, by indicating the level of influence of each factor in each type 

of approach. The ratings in the table show the extent to which an element is 

priority or the level of resources needed for various types of target setting 

approaches. For example, in the case of a target by edict, the level of customerservice focus would be low; for a target developed using modeling, strong 

technical resources would be needed.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

11

Figure 2.2 Factors Influencing Target-Setting Approaches

Political/Legislative Influence Varied Strong Strong Varied Varied

Customer Service Focus Low priority High priority Highest priority Priority Priority

PBRA History/Evolution in State 

of the Practice Shorter history Varied Longer history Varied Longer history

Commitment to Regular 

Communication and Reporting Low priority High priority High priority Priority Priority

Span of Control/ Agency Jurisdiction Limited/focused Broad Broad Any Limited modes

Financial Resources Few Few Strong Medium Strong

Timeframe Varied Varied Varied Short Varied

Technical Resources/ Planning and 

Forecasting Capability Low Low Low Medium Strong

Organizational Structure Very centralized Varied Varied Varied Varied

Stakeholder Expectations Low priority High priority High priority Priority Priority

Internal Support Low priority High priority Priority High priority Priority

Types of Resources to be Allocated Internal funds and staff Funding for 

projects/programs

Funding for 

projects/programs Varied Funding for projects/programs

Culture Less oriented to PBRA Stakeholder-oriented Customer-oriented Competitive Technical

Edict Expert 

Opinion

Customer 

Feedback

Benchmarking Modeling

Source: NCHRP 666: Target-Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies. 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

12

To evaluate the factors affecting target-setting for a particular measure in a 

public agency or private organization, a practitioner can begin by asking a few 

simple questions: 

• Why is the target needed? 

• Who will be using the targets? 

• Where in the process will the targets be used?

• When should targets be attained? 

• How will targets be calculated and achieved?

• What is the target? 

Examples of National Target Setting 

Limited information is available in the literature on the practical details of target 

setting. In most cases, targets are presented by the national government or by a 

state leadership, with no supporting documentation on how the target was 

developed. Following are examples of targets set by various countries with 

information about the approach where available. 

United States 

In May of 2007, the American Association of State Highway Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) Board of Directors adopted the revised national highway 

safety target of halving fatalities in two decades. This replaced the AASHTO 

target set in 2003 to reduce the national fatality rate to no more than one fatality 

per 100 MVMT (AASHTO, 2005). The motivation behind setting the new target

of halving fatalities within 20 years was AASHTO’s recognition that the previous 

target would not be reached by 2008 and a new approach to engaging stakeholders was needed. AASHTO consciously selected a numerical target that 

would resonate more with the public than an exposure-based figure. This is 

expected to be a more successful approach given that achievement of a target is 

largely impacted by broad acceptance and support by the public, media, and

public/private institutions of highway safety goals (AASHTO, 2007b). 

To set the previous goal of 1.0 fatalities per 100 MVMT, a simple analysis was 

conducted that compared the reductions in fatalities that would be required to 

hit various potential targets. At the time the 1.0 per MVMT target was developed, data were available through 2001 and about 42,000 fatalities occurred 

annually for a fatality rate of 1.51 per MVMT. At the time, VMT was expected to 

grow by roughly 2 percent per year, which would yield 50,000 fatalities by 2008 

if the current fatality rate remained constant. Analyses were conducted to 

determine the result of lowering the fatality rate by different amounts. The final 

target chosen was 1.0 fatality per MVMT shown in Figure 2.3, which translated 

into a target of a 20 percent reduction in fatalities from 2001 to 2008. To achieve 

the target, the fatality rate had to be reduced by 34 percent because of the anticipated growth in VMT (Cambridge Systematics, 2006b). 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review 

13

Figure 2.3 U.S. DOT Performance Target Setting for Highway Fatalities

Source: NCHRP Report 97 – Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement: Final Report and 

Guidebook, Transportation Research Board.

Canada 

In Canada, the national target for 2008-2010 called for a 30 percent decrease in 

the average number of road users killed or seriously injured compared with 

1996-2001 average figures (Canadian Council of Motor Transport 

Administrators, 2006). The methodology for setting the target was not described 

and is assumed to be by edict and expert opinion. A number of subtargets and 

intermediate outcome targets also were set, including: 

• Ninety-five percent rate of seat belt wearing and proper use of appropriate 

child restraints by all motor vehicle occupants; 

• Forty percent decrease in the number of fatally or seriously injured unbelted 

occupants; 

• Forty percent decrease in the percentage of road users fatally or seriously 

injured in crashes involving drinking drivers; and

• Forty percent decrease in the number of road users fatally or seriously 

injured on rural roadways (defined as roads where the speed limit is 80-90 

km/hr).

In its most recent safety plan released in 2011, Canada no longer includes hard 

targets. The goal will be to achieve downward progress in fatalities and serious 

injuries, tracked through rate-based measures. However, if local jurisdictions 

would like to establish targets they will be permitted to do so (Canadian Council 

of Motor Transport Administrators, 2011). 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

14

Denmark 

While the overarching vision is “every accident is one too many,” Denmark also 

has set an interim safety target. The target established for 2012 is no more than 

300 fatalities and 2,443 serious injuries. This represents a 40 percent reduction 

compared to 1998 levels. While previous targets included fatalities and all injuries, the current target includes only serious injuries to focus efforts on the most 

serious areas of need. To identify the target, Denmark forecasted the safety 

effects of all the measures that were deemed cost effective. The target time period 

of 12 years was selected purposely to allow local jurisdictions sufficient time to 

conduct analysis of local trends and identify and implement appropriate 

countermeasures (Danish Ministry of Transport, 2000). 

United Kingdom 

In the late 1990s the UK established a methodology to forecast road safety

countermeasure effects and support safety target development. This methodology 

provides a series of statistical models that were used to forecast the number of 

casualties under a number of assumptions about the changes in road travel and the 

assumed effects of new road safety countermeasures that might be introduced. An 

important feature of the methodology is it can incorporate the effects of existing road 

safety countermeasures where they can be estimated reliably.

The UK found only three types of measures could be reliably estimated: 

• Improved standards of secondary safety in cars; 

• Countermeasures to reduce the level of alcohol impaired driving; and 

• Road safety engineering countermeasures. 

The UK updates the forecasting models annually, and results show the 

methodology is reliable overall. 

As a result of the analysis, the UK set targets for 2010 compared to the average 

for 1994-1998: a 40 percent reduction in the total number of people killed or 

seriously injured; a 50 percent reduction in children killed or seriously injured; 

and a 10 percent reduction in the minor injury rate based on distance traveled 

(OECD, 2002). This followed the previous target set in 1987 to reduce roadway 

casualties by one-third by 2000. 

Research was conducted to develop a safety target for the period after 2010 (Post 

2010 Road Casualty Reporting). However, since this report was developed, a decision was announced in 2011 in the Department for Transport’s Strategic 

Framework for Road Safety to abandon use of a national safety target in favor of 

devolving responsibility to local jurisdictions, which will develop individual performance measures. It is anticipated effectiveness will be increased by 

supporting local capacity building and enabling flexibility and creativity instead 

of a prescribed central safety target. The report does, however, introduce a 

number of performance measures to track safety performance over time.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review 

15

Norway 

Norway’s National Transport Plan defines a safety target to reduce the number 

of fatalities or serious injuries by at least a third by 2020, compared to 2005-2008. 

This represents roughly the same reduction in the next 10 years as in the previous 20 years. It must be noted that the target exists under the umbrella of a 

Vision Zero goal as Norwegian politicians historically have found any target 

other than zero untenable (Elvik, 2009). 

To develop this target, Norway conducted a detailed analysis of the potential 

effects of safety countermeasures. Researchers considered 139 road safety countermeasures, of which 45 were included in an impact assessment with benefitcost analysis. The other 94 safety countermeasures were not included for reasons, including: 

• Effects of the countermeasure are too poorly known to support an impact 

assessment; 

• The countermeasure does not improve safety; 

• The countermeasure has been fully implemented in Norway; 

• The countermeasure overlaps another countermeasure and was not included 

to prevent double counting; and

• The countermeasure is unable to be analyzed. 

Norway considered the potential impact of these measures through 2020, finding 

that 39 of the 45 measures analyzed were cost effective. The future effectiveness 

of the countermeasures was estimated in the context of four policy approaches: 

1. Optimal use of all safety countermeasures for which benefits exceed costs

(including benefits beyond only safety benefits). These countermeasures 

include vehicle, roadway engineering, enforcement, and education safety 

strategies. The predicted level of fatalities in 2020 without the measures is 

285, which can be reduced by 48 percent to 138 fatalities if all measures are 

used to the fullest extent. However, constraints are not factored in, such as 

public acceptance or financial limitations, so it is unlikely full 

implementation of all countermeasures will be possible. 

2. Optimal use of road safety countermeasures under national control. Under 

this policy, current strategies would be used to the fullest extent. Some 

strategies included here that are not included in Policy 1 include speed 

enforcement and speed cameras.

3. Continuation of present policies at current levels. 

4. Strengthening of present policies, e.g., increased enforcement of speed, 

impaired driving, and safety belt use; upgraded pedestrian crossings; and 

increased roundabout installation. 

Table 2.2 shows the forecasted safety results for each of the policy approaches. 

The road safety impact assessments show that if the most aggressive level of 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

16

safety countermeasures is implemented (Policy 1), it is possible to reduce roadway fatalities and injuries by as much as 50 percent. However, given that even 

the most ambitious set of policy options did not achieve a reduction to 125 fatalities, the target is unlikely to be achieved fully (Elvik, 2007). 

Table 2.2 Predicted Number of Road Users Killed or Injured in Norway in

2020 according to Different Options

Policy Options and Assumptions Made Number of Road 

Users Killed 

per Year 

Number of Road 

Users Seriously 

Injured per Year

Number of Road 

Users Slightly 

Injured per Year

Mean annual numbers 2003-2006 250 980 10,870

Predicted for 2020 as a result of traffic growth 285 1,109 12,650

Predicted for 2020 as a result of traffic growth and 

market penetration of vehicle safety systems

222 913 12,010

Policy option A: Optimal use of road safety 

measures, including effects of traffic growth and 

market penetration of vehicle safety systems

138 652 9,942

Policy option B: Constrained optimal use of road 

safety measures, including effects of traffic growth 

and market penetration of vehicle safety systems

171 769 10,974

Policy option C: Continue present use of road 

safety measures, including effects of traffic growth 

and market penetration of vehicle safety systems

190 822 11,406

Policy option D: Strengthening current use of road 

safety measures, including effects of traffic growth 

and market penetration of vehicle safety systems

143 691 10,551

Policy objectives for 2020 125 490

Source: Prospects for Improving Road Safety in Norway, 2007. 

Australia 

Australia established its first National Road Safety Strategy in 1992, which set a 

framework for national collaboration on road safety over two decades. With the 

2001-2010 strategy, Australia was one of the first countries to formally adopt the 

Safe System approach to road safety improvement, which seeks to develop a 

roadway system that will not permit human error to result in serious injury or 

death. 

Australia’s National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 is guided by the overarching 

vision that no person should be killed or seriously injured on Australia’s roads, 

and also sets interim targets. The 10-year plan sets a target to reduce the annual 

numbers of both deaths and serious injuries on Australian roads by at least 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review 

17

30 percent. Under the previous National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010, a target 

was set to reduce the annual rate of road fatalities per 100,000 people by 

40 percent, which is approximately equivalent to a 30 percent reduction in the 

absolute number of fatalities. The actual reduction achieved over that period 

was 23 percent. While the previous strategy set a target for fatalities only, the 

new strategy includes serious injuries as an important dimension of the roadway 

safety problem (Australian Transport Council, 2011). 

Australia’s method for setting its most recent safety target was influenced by 

data modeling by the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), 

which estimated the potential reductions in deaths and serious injuries expected 

from a range of road safety interventions. This effort included review of 

Australian and other research on the effectiveness of a number of road safety 

countermeasures. The modeling was one input into target setting. The targets 

set in Australia seek to balance the evidence about what can realistically be 

achieved and desire to move the country toward zero roadway fatalities, which 

will require innovation and renewed national commitment to safety. Australian 

officials recognize the level of fatal and serious injury reduction achievable by 

2020 depends on the costs and policy changes the community will accept in 

return for a safer road transport system (Australian Transport Council, 2011). 

Finland

While Finland is guided by its overarching Vision Zero goal, it has established an 

interim safety target to halve the number of road fatalities (270 in 2010) during 

the next decade. The Annual Report 2010 on transport notes the importance of 

safety culture increases as the number of accidents approaches zero. 

Japan 

Japan has established the long-term goal to be a crash free society and also set 

interim targets. In 1999, the Transport Engineering Council established a target 

to achieve a 1,200 annual fatality reduction by 2010 compared to 1999. The target 

was reached five years early, and therefore an additional reduction of 800 fatalities was added to the target for 2010 (Japanese Transport Policy Council). 

In 2006, Japan revised its safety targets with a focus on the capabilities of vehicle 

technologies to reduce fatalities. The safety target was modified to no more than 

5,500 fatalities by 2010. Japan divided vehicle safety technologies into the following two groups:

1. Those activated before a crash to avoid the crash or to reduce the impact 

speed, described as “active safety” technologies; and

2. Those activated upon crash involvement to mitigate injury by minimizing the 

impact, (e.g., restraining the occupants), described as “passive safety 

technologies.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

18

Japan estimates the passive technologies currently in use have nearly reached

their potential to reduce fatalities. To continue to reduce fatalities in the years 

following 2010, Japan feels greater promotion of active safety technologies 

designed to prevent crashes and slow down crash impact speeds is essential. 

Figure 2.4 shows how targets were set in Japan based on anticipated vehicle 

safety technology effectiveness. The yellow line indicates initial reduction of 

1,200 fatalities by 2010, which was based on advanced vehicle technology. 

Adjusting for the inclusion of “passive safety” technologies, the target was 

reduced by a further 800 fatalities by 2010 (blue line). Targets beyond 2010 will 

incorporate “active safety” measures in vehicles to achieve accelerated reduction 

in traffic mortality (green line). 

Figure 2.4 Japan Methodology for Target Setting

Source: Japan Road Transport Subcommittee of Land Transport Committee of Transport Policy Council, 

Vehicle Safety Measures for Building a Society Free from Road Traffic Accidents, 2006.

The Netherlands 

The Netherlands was one of the first countries to formulate quantitative targets 

for road safety. In 1987 the first Long Range Plan for Road Safety was published, 

including the 2000 target of 25 percent fewer fatalities and injuries compared to 

1985. The Second Transport Structure Plan of 1990 reduced the targets for 2010 

to 50 percent fewer road deaths and 40 percent fewer injuries compared to 1986. 

To achieve these targets a two-pronged approach involved focusing on enforcement, impaired driving, speed, and occupant protection, as well as “sustainable 

safety,” which is similar to the Safe Systems approach. 

The 2020 target was originally established as no more than 580 fatalities, 

although the methods for setting the target were not described. In its Road 

Safety Strategic Plan 2008-2020, The Minister of Transport, Public Works and 

Water proposes a further reduction in the national safety target to a maximum of 

500 fatalities. However, the report notes that to do so all the measures from the 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review 

19

Road Safety Strategy must be implemented, vehicle technology must meet 

expectations, and programs on alternatives methods of paying for transport must 

be implemented. Analysis by the Department of Transport and Shipping (DVS) 

and the Knowledge Institute for Mobility Policy (KiM) have determined such a 

fatality reduction is possible; however, the methodology is not known. 

European Commission

The European Commission recently established a target of halving the overall 

number of road deaths in the EU by 2020. Developing a unified target is 

intended to reduce disparities between the EU member countries and to provide 

a more consistent level of roadway safety throughout Europe. This is a 

continuation of its strategy to reduce by half roadway fatalities previously 

established between 2003 and 2010. Although the initial target was not met by 

the end of 2010, the European Commission believes the road safety action plan 

provided a catalyst. The 2020 target represents an ambitious goal for the region 

and demonstrates Europe’s commitment to road safety (European Commission,

2010). 

Some European countries have adopted the EU fatality targets. For example, 

Greece established a target for reducing the number of road deaths by 50 percent 

by 2020. Achievement of this target would result in 650 fewer fatalities.

United Nations 

On May 11, 2011 the United Nations General Assembly formally announced the 

Decade of Action for Road Safety (2011 to 2020), which is based on the “safe systems” approach (World Health Organization, 2011). No overarching target for 

this effort has been set. Instead, the effort asks individual countries to “set realistic and long-term targets for national activities based on the analysis of 

national traffic crash data through: 1) identifying areas for performance 

improvements; and 2) estimating potential performance gains.” The UN plans to 

set an “ambitious yet feasible” target for reduction of traffic fatalities by 2020 by 

building on the safety targets of individual countries. 

The report also calls for countries to establish and support data systems for 

ongoing monitoring and evaluation at both national and local levels. These systems would measure and monitor: 

• Road traffic deaths, injuries and crashes; 

• Intermediate outcomes, such as average speed, helmet use rates, safety belt 

use rates, etc.; 

• Outcomes of road safety interventions; 

• The economic impact of road traffic injuries; and

• Exposure to road traffic injuries. 

Table 2.3 identifies a number of road safety targets throughout the U.S. and other 

countries. While this list is not comprehensive, it provides a sense of the key 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

20

safety measures and targets in use today. In a future task a compendium of state 

safety targets will be developed, which will provide a more comprehensive list 

for the U.S.

Table 2.3 Representative Sample of Safety Targets

Jurisdiction

Performance 

Measure Target Date

Target Setting 

Approach

Reference 

Document

Missouri Fatalities 850 fatalities 2012 Unknown Missouri’s 

Blueprint to Arrive 

Alive

New Mexico Fatalities and 

fatality rate

Alcohol related fatality <= 

172; No alcohol related 

fatality <= 264; Traffic fatality 

= 2 per 100 MVMT

Unknown Good to Great: 

Performance 

Measures Report

Oregon Fatalities and 

fatality rate

9.75 (or 342 lives lost) per 

100,000 population by 

2010; 9.00 (or 315 lives lost 

based on 2002 population 

figures) per 100,000 

population by 2025.

Short-term: 

2010; 

Long-term: 

2025

Unknown Oregon 

Transportation 

Plan

Rhode 

Island

Fatalities and 

fatality rate

Reduce number of fatalities 

(based on a three year 

average) from 81 in 2001 to 

72 in 2015, 66 in 2025, and 

63 in 2030. Fatality rate 

(per 100 MVMT) target: 

0.79 in 2015; 0.65 in 2025; 

0.60 in 2030.

Short-term: 

2015; 

Intermediat

e: 2025 

Long-term: 

2030

Unknown Rhode Island 

Transportation 

2030

South 

Carolina

Fatalities 784 fatalities 2010 Unknown South Carolina 

Statewide 

Comprehensive 

Multimodal 

Transportation 

Plan

Vermont Fatality rate Reduce five-year average 

to 1 fatality per 100 MVMT

2010 Unknown Vermont Long

Range 

Transportation 

Business

Washington Fatalities Zero deaths 2030 Unknown The Gray 

Notebook
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

21

Table 2.3 Representative Sample of Safety Targets (continued)

Jurisdiction

Performance 

Measure Target Date

Target Setting 

Approach

Reference 

Document

Wyoming Fatalities 142 fatalities Unknown Freight 

Performance 

Measures: 

Approach 

Analysis

Ohio Fatality Rate 1 per 100 MVMT Unknown Freight 

Performance 

Measures: 

Approach 

Analysis

North 

Carolina

Fatality Rate < 1.63 per 100 MVMT Unknown Freight 

Performance 

Measures: 

Approach 

Analysis

International –

Australia

Fatalities and 

serious 

Injuries

Reduce annual number of 

fatalities and serious 

injuries 30 percent

2020 Modeling/

Expert Opinion

National Road 

Safety Strategy 

2011-2020

International –

Denmark

Fatalities and 

serious 

injuries

300 fatalities; 2,443 

serious injuries

2012 Modeling Every Accident is 

One Too Many

International –

Finland

Fatalities Halve the number of 

fatalities to 135

2020 Modeling Trafi Annual 

Report 2010

International –

Japan

Fatalities; 

injuries

5,500 fatalities

Reduction in annual 

number of the injured –

25,000 fewer by 2010 and 

50,000 fewer by 2015 

compared to the 2005 

baseline

2010

(fatalities)

2010/2015 

(injuries)

Modeling Vehicle Safety 

Measures for 

Building a Society

Free from Road 

Traffic Accidents

International –

Netherlands

Fatalities and 

serious 

injuries

500 fatalities 2020 Unknown Road Safety 

Strategic Plan 

2008-2020
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

22

Table 2.3 Representative Sample of Safety Targets (continued)

Jurisdiction

Performance 

Measure Target Date

Target Setting 

Approach

Reference 

Document

International –

New Zealand

Fatality rate 

among 

specific risk 

groups

Reduce fatality rate of 

young people from 21 per 

100,000 population to a 

rate similar to that of 

young Australians of 13 

per 100,000; reduce the 

level of fatalities caused 

by drink and/or drugged 

driving, currently 28 

deaths per one million 

population, to a rate 

similar to that in Australia 

of 22 deaths per one 

million population; reduce 

the road fatality rate of 

motorcycle and moped 

riders from 12 per 

100,000 population to a 

rate similar to that of the 

best performing Australian 

state, Victoria, which is 8 

per 100,000; reduce the 

road fatality rate of older 

New Zealanders from 15 

per 100,000 population to 

a rate similar to that of 

older Australians of 11 per 

100,000.

2020 Benchmarking Safer Journeys: 

New Zealand’s 

Road Safety 

Strategy 2010-

2020

International –

Norway

Fatalities Reduce the number of 

fatalities or serious 

injuries by at least a third, 

compared with 2005-2008

2020 Modeling Norway National 

Transportation 

Plan 2010-2019

International –

Sweden

Fatalities Vision Zero Edict Safe Traffic: 

Vision Zero on 

the Move

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

2.5 ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

Performance management involves dividing resources across a range of performance areas; however, not many agencies are actively using measures as part of 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

23

resource allocation. Decisions on resource allocation within and across different 

types of investments require analysis of tradeoffs to understand how different 

allocation options will affect the achievement of policy objectives. After 

identifying the key factors that influence performance, agencies can direct 

resources toward areas with the greatest improvement potential and the most 

importance to stakeholders. Resource allocation should be aligned with progress 

toward targets (Cambridge Systematics, 2010).

However, performance management cannot compensate for insufficient funding. 

Funding constraints must be incorporated into development of a range of 

options and consideration of tradeoffs (Cambridge Systematics, 2010).

2.6 EVALUATION

Ongoing monitoring of system performance provides data and information that 

should be fed back into the goals and performance measures. Monitoring typically refers to the process of reviewing and communicating performance results 

to determine the success of an agency towards meeting its goals and targets. 

Evaluation typically refers to the process of reviewing the tools and methodologies used to develop targets, analyze data, and forecast future performance. Both 

are important components of an overall performance management program. 

A well designed monitoring process can indicate where and when course corrections are needed to improve safety performance. Safety system monitoring

includes ongoing collection of traffic counts, crash data, health outcomes data

and other means of determining the performance of the transportation system

with respect to safety. Monitoring is undertaken by a range of agencies and then 

information is fed back into the planning process (FHWA, 2009). As data are collected and progress toward targets is monitored, targets can be adjusted based 

on the feasibility of achieving them. If targets are reached more quickly than 

expected, they can be reset so direction is set for continued progress. 

Evaluation is critical to performance management because agencies desire to 

have quality information to help with decision making. Agencies can review 

practices and benchmark practices and tools against those used by other agencies 

to better understand the resources required to improve safety performance.

2.7 DATA

Selecting performance measures requires balancing two considerations – the 

quality of data available and the ability of the performance measure to capture 

an agency’s goals and objectives. Performance measures are sometimes identified based on appeal as “good information to have,” but if the necessary data do 

not exist or are expensive to collect, it will be challenging to use the measure. On 

the other hand, some agencies start with the data they have in hand, and identify 

what measures they can report. But if the measure does not capture the 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

24

fundamental objective of the agency’s goals and objectives, it will not help 

support decision making.

Either way, when screening performance measures, it is important to determine

if quality data are available. To make this determination, it is usually necessary 

to consult with the data collection and processing units within the responsible 

agencies. Often, required data are collected by various agencies or divisions 

within an agency for a variety of purposes. Safety stakeholders will need to 

build the necessary relationships to access and use the data sources to measure 

transportation safety performance.

A strategy for systematic data collection to support performance measures over

time must be put in place. Data collection schedules, organizational roles and 

responsibilities, resource allocations, and data collection methodologies must be 

incorporated into the standard procedures of the implementing agencies. It will 

be important to ensure data collection approaches meet the quality standards 

and schedule needs for selected safety performance measures (FHWA, 2009).
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

25

3.0 Conclusions

The cost of roadway deaths runs into billions of dollars worldwide. 

Transportation agencies across the globe are cognizant of the societal burden and 

are taking steps to reduce fatalities. 

In the U.S., use of safety targets has grown substantially since SAFETEA-LU

required development of Strategic Highway Safety Plans. With the introduction 

of a standard set of performance measures for states by GHSA and NHTSA,

safety will be measured more consistently moving forward, although additional 

improvements, such as tracking injuries, are still needed. Safety targets can be 

effective by inspiring stakeholders involved in improving safety, tracking

progress, and evaluating the effectiveness of investment decisions. 

Numerous countries throughout the world (with the majority in Europe) have 

pursued and achieved safety targets over the years. While limited examples of 

well described target setting methodologies are available, current good practice 

involves a combination of top-down long term goals and as bottom-up interim 

targets (usually of a 7-10 year duration). A few agencies are developing interim 

targets closely aligned to the selection of countermeasures, their estimated effectiveness, vehicle safety technologies, and implementation quality. Such a process 

requires defining the country’s level of ambition for road safety and taking into 

account the institutional arrangements and strategies needed to improve safety. 

This target setting approach combines both idealism and realism.

Some European countries have 30 or more years of experience in safety target 

setting. This experience has revealed several pitfalls to avoid when setting safety 

targets (SafetyNet 2009).

• Targets without political support are unlikely to impact funding or the 

availability of resources.

• A purely symbolic target has no value. Targets should be accompanied by a

realistic safety program to ensure progress. The national target should define

actions and goals of all responsible key agencies.

• Much can go wrong with implementation. Early problem detection is critical 

to maintain a course toward achieving the target.

Targets must be ambitious but realistic. If targets are unrealistically ambitious 

for the defined time period and require a rate of progress significantly beyond 

that achieved previously, they will be perceived as being out of reach and will 

not be accepted. On the other hand, if the national strategy target is too easily

obtained, a major opportunity for saving lives may be lost.

The UK and Canada provide examples of evolution in target setting as a policy 

decision. After decades of target setting and significant progress in reducing 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

26

roadway fatalities, both have decided to abandon national safety targets. The 

UK and Canada feel that to get to the next level in safety, they must enable 

greater local autonomy and establish a context for greater innovation at the local 

level. While target setting had important outcomes for these agencies, they 

believe a more flexible and holistic approach will enable continued progress.

At this stage, the brief literature review has examined most domestic and international studies that discuss fatality target setting strategies. Even though many 

states and countries have a safety target in place, few have a well defined 

methodology documented in available literature. The scope of the research 

includes building upon this literature review through examination of state 

SHSPs and other state safety planning materials, and producing a research technical paper. The next step will examine in detail methodologies used for establishing performance measures and target setting by transportation agencies in 

non safety areas. Finally, this research effort will investigate how industries outside of transportation use targets to make progress in key areas while facing

similar challenges in terms of the number of independent and uncoordinated 

entities attempting to reach the same goal.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

27

4.0 References

AASHTO (2005). Strategic Highway Safety Plan, http://safety.transportation.org/

doc/Safety-StrategicHighwaySafetyPlan.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

AASHTO (2007a). Report on Performance-Based Federal-Aid Highway Program.

AASHTO (2007b). Revised Policy Resolution PR-07-01.

AASHTO (2010). Strategic Plan 2010-2014, http://highways.transportation.org/

Documents/SCOH%20Strategic%20Plan%202010-2014.pdf – Accessed July 2011.

Arizona Department of Transportation (2009). Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2011-2015.

Australian Transport Council (2001). National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010.

Australian Transport Council (2011). National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020, 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/national_road_safety_strategy/f

iles/NRSS_2011_2020_15Aug11.pdf – Accessed October 2013.

Braceras, C. M., Tally, R. F., Proctor, G., Bremmer, D., Hank, L. E., Hayse, J., Kane, 

A. R., Leiphart, K. L., March, J. W., Pickrell, S. M., Stanley, J. W., van der Velde, J. 

and Yew, C. P. (2010). Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability, 

Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-PL-10-011, http://www.international.

fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf – Accessed August 2011. 

Broughton, J., (2009). Post 2010 Road Casualty Forecasting, Department of Transport, 

UK. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk + http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/

exit.cfm?link=http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/

rsrr8.pdf – Accessed September 2011.

Broughton, J. et al (2009a). Road Safety Strategy Beyond 2010: A Scoping Study. 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk + http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/

roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/rsrr105.pdf – Accessed September 2011.

Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2006). Summary of the Eighth Fundamental 

Traffic Safety Program, http://www8.cao.go.jp/koutu/kihon/keikaku8/english/

summary.html – Accessed July 2011. 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2009). Performance-Based Management: State of the 

Practice White Paper. http://www.ampo.org/assets/1017_whitepaperfor2009

ceoleade.pdf – Accessed September 2011.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Boston Strategies International, Inc., Gordon Proctor 

& Associates, and Markow, M. J. (2010). NCHRP Report 666 – Target-Setting 

Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by 

Transportation Agencies, Transportation Research Board, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_666.pdf – Accessed July 2011.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

28

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and High Street Consulting Group (2010). NCHRP 

Report 660 – Transportation Performance Management: Insight from Practitioners, 

Transportation Research Board, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/

nchrp_rpt_660.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc., High Street Consulting Group, Bay, P. N., and 

Volpe National Transportation Center. (2010). Report on National Forum on 

Performance-Based Transportation Planning and Programming, Transportation 

Research Board, http://www.camsys.com/pubs/NCHRP20-24(58)_National

ForumSummary%5B1%5D.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc., PB Consult, Inc., and Texas Transportation Institute 

(2006a). NCHRP Report 551-Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation 

Asset Management, Transportation Research Board, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_551.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Texas Transportation Institute, University of 

Washington, Dowling Associates (2006b). NCHRP Report 97 – Guide to Effective 

Freeway Performance Measurement: Final Report and Guidebook, Transportation 

Research Board, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w97.pdf –

Accessed July 2011.

Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (2011). Canada’s Road 

Safety Strategy 2015. http://www.ccmta.ca/crss-2015/_files/road_safety_

strategy_2015.pdf. Accessed September 2011.

Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (2006). Road Safety Vision 

2010- 2005 Annual Report. http://www.ccmta.ca/crss-2015/_files/

road_safety_strategy_2015.pdf. Accessed September 2011.

Commission of the European Communities (2001). European Transport Policy for 

2010: Time to Decide, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/2001_white_

paper_en.htm – Accessed July 2011.

Danish Ministry of Transport (2000). Every Accident is One Too Many,

http://www.trm.dk/graphics/synkron-library/trafikministeriet/

publikationer/pdf_uk/003.pdf – Accessed September 2011.

Department of Transport, United Kingdom (2011). Strategic Framework for Road 

Safety, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_

data/file/8146/strategicframework.pdf – Accessed October 2013. 

Elvik, R. (1999). Can injury prevention efforts go too far? Reflections on some possible 

implications of Vision Zero for road accident fatalities, Accident Analysis and 

Prevention, Vol. 31, pp. 265-286.

Elvik, R. (2007). Prospects for Improving Road Safety in Norway, Institute of 

Transport Economics, Norwegian Centre for Transport Research -

https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%C3%98I%20rapporter/2007/

897-2007/897-2007-nett.pdf – Accessed September 2011.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

29

European Commission (2011). Commission Staff Working Document –

Accompanying the White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport 

Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, 

http://www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/knowledge/attachments/

EC%20(2011)%20white_paper_working_document_en.pdf – Accessed June 2011.

European Commission (2009). Quantitative Road Safety Targets, 

http://www.dacota-project.eu/Links/erso/knowledge/Fixed/70_qrst/

quantitative%20road%20safety%20targets.pdf – Accessed July 2011.

European Commission (2010). Towards a European road safety area: policy 

orientations on road safety 2011-2020, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/

pdf/com_20072010_en.pdf – Accessed July 2010.

European Commission (2011). White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European 

Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/2011_white_paper_en.htm – Accessed 

July 2011.

Federal Highway Administration (2009). A Primer on Safety Performance Measures 

for the Transportation Planning Process. http://tsp.trb.org/assets/BB_FHWA_

PerformanceMeasurePrimer_Dec09_FIN.pdf – Accessed September 2011.

Finnish Transport Safety Agency, Finland (2010). Trafi Annual Report, 2010.

Gordon Proctor & Associates, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., American 

Transportation Research Institute, StarIsis Corporation, and Council of Supply 

Chain Management Professionals (2011). NCFRP Report 10 – Performance Measures 

for Freight Transportation, Transportation Research Board, 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/ncfrp_rpt_010.pdf – Accessed 

July 2011.

Hammond, P. J. (2009). The Gray Notebook, Washington State Department of 

Transportation, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/EFA555E7-4B17-

4640-B85A-16FD190F4BD5/0/GrayNotebookDec08.pdf – Accessed July 2007.

Hedlund, James (2008). Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal 

Agencies. http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/

Articles/Associated%20Files/811025.pdf. Accessed August 2011.

Herbel, S., Meyer, M. D., Kleiner, B. and Gaines, D. (2009). A Primer on Safety 

Performance Measures for the Transportation Planning Process, Federal Highway 

Administration, FHWA-HEP-09-043, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/tsp/

fhwahep09043/fhwahep09043.pdf – Accessed July 2011.

Illinois Department of Transportation (2007). Illinois State Transportation Plan, 

2007, http://www.illinoistransportationplan.org/pdfs/stp_final_summary_

final_1207.pdf – Accessed July 2011. 
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

30

Joint Transportation Research Centre of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and International Transport Forum (2008) Towards 

Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach, 

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/targets/

08TargetsSummary.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

Kraay, undated, The Netherlands Traffic & Transport Plan with a Special Focus on 

Speed Behavior, AW Transport Research Centre, Ministry of Transport, 

Netherlands. http://www.ictct.org/dlObject.php?document_nr=217&/

Kraay.pdf – Accessed October 2011.

Mah, D., White, V., Ng, S., and Bloomer, K. (2007). Caltrans Strategic Plan, 2007-

2012, The California Department of Transportation, http://www.dot.ca.gov/

docs/StrategicPlan2007-2012.pdf – Accessed August 2011. 

McMullen, S. B. and Monsere, C. (2010). Freight Performance Measures: Approach 

Analysis – Final Report, The Oregon Department of Transportation, 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/2010/Freight_

Performance_Measures.pdf?ga=t – Accessed July 2011.

Mercer, B. (2009), Reducing Fatalities by Half, AASHTO – ftp://ftp.mdt.mt.gov/

research/LIBRARY/SLF4-1-SAFETY_LEADERSHIP_FORUM-REDUCING_

FATALITIES-HALF-AASHTO.PDF – Accessed September 2011.

Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks, Greece (2011). The National 

Road Safety Strategic Plan for Greece, 2011-2020, http://www.nrso.ntua.gr/

geyannis/images/stories/ge/Conferences/geyannis-c57.pdf – Accessed July 

2011.

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water, Netherlands (2009), Road Safety 

Strategic Plan, 2008-2020. http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/

bestanden/5a_Philippens_ICSC2012.pdf – Accessed September 2011.

Mid-American Regional Council Transportation Department (2009). Kansas City 

Regional Transportation Safety Blueprint, http://www.marc.org/transportation/

safety/pdf/regionalblueprint2009.pdf – Accessed August 2011. 

Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (2008). Missouri’s Blueprint to Arrive Alive, 

http://www.savemolives.com/documents/FINALBlueprintdocument.pdf –

Accessed July 2011.

Nebraska Department of Roads (2008). Performance Measures: A PerformanceBased Transportation Agency, http://nlcs1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/R6000/B274-

2008.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

New York City Department of Transportation (2008). Sustainable Streets 2008 and 

Beyond, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/stratplan.shtml – Accessed 

July 2011. 

New Zealand Ministry of Transport (2010). Safer Journeys – New Zealand’s Road 

Safety Strategy 2010, http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/saferjourneys

strategy/ – Accessed July 2011.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

31

New Mexico Department of Transportation (2007). Good to Great: Performance 

Management Report.

Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications (2009). National 

Transport Plan 2010-2019. http://www.regjeringen.no/Upload/SD/Vedlegg/

NTP/Binder1ntp_engNY.pdf – Accessed September 2011.

Oregon Department of Transportation (2004), Oregon Transportation Safety Action 

Plan. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/Transportation_Safety_Action_

Plan.pdf?ga=t – Accessed September 2011.

Oregon Department of Transportation (2006). Oregon Transportation Plan, 2006-

2030.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002). Safety On 

Roads: What is the Vision?, http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/

Pub/pdf/02SafetyOnRoads.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

The Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller Foundation (2011). Measuring 

Transportation Investments – The Road to Results, http://www.pewstates.org/

uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2011/Measuring_Transportation_Investments.pdf –

Accessed July 2011.

Rhode Island State Planning Council (2010). Transportation 2030.

Road Transport Subcommittee (2006). Vehicle Safety Measures for Building a 

Society Free of Traffic Accidents, Land Transport Committee of Transport Policy 

Council, Japan, http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/2006/i_road_transport_bureau/

2006report(vehiclesafety)english.pdf – Accessed July 2011.

SafetyNet (2009) Quantitative Road Safety Targets. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/

road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pdf/quantitative_road_safety_targets.pdf –

Accessed September 2011.

Sauwens, J. (2010). Report on the Consultation of the Subsidiary Monitoring Network 

on the Communication: Towards a European Road Safety Area: Policy Orientations on 

Road Safety 2011-2020, European Commission, http://eur-lex.

europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2010:0903:FIN:EN:PDF –

Accessed July 2010.

Swedish Road Administration (2006). Safe Traffic: Vision Zero on the Move, 

http://publikationswebbutik.vv.se/upload/1723/88325_safe_traffic_vision_

zero_on_the_move.pdf – Accessed July 2010.

Transportation for America (2011). Measuring Performance in the Federal 

Transportation Program: A Path to Progress and Accountability, 

http://t4america.org/docs/NTO%20Strategic%20Planning%20Whitepaper%

20031611.pdf – Accessed July 2011.
Performance Management Practices and Methodologies for Setting Safety Performance Targets

Task B-1 - Literature Review

32

Transport Research Center of the OECD and International Transport Forum (2008).

Towards Zero Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach – Exec 

Summary, http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/targets/

08TargetsSummary.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

Vermont Agency of Transportation (2009). Vermont Long-Range Transportation 

Business Plan.

Washington, S. and Kim, D. (2007). Feasibility of Forecasting Highway Safety in 

Support of Safety Incentive and Safety Target Programs – Final report 597, The 

Arizona Department of transportation, http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/

utils/getfile/collection/statepubs/id/6878/filename/7167.pdf – Accessed July 

2011.

Wegman, Fred and Aarts, Letty (2006), Advancing Sustainable Safety, SWOV 

Institute for Road Safety Research.

Whitelegg, J. and Haq, G. (2006). Vision Zero: Adopting a Target of Zero for Road 

Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries, Stockholm Environment Institute, http://seiinternational.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Future/vision_

zero_FinalReportMarch06.pdf – Accessed July 2011.

Wilbur Smith Associates (2007). MIDOT State Long-Range Transportation Plan, 

2005-2030: Key Findings, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_

SLRP_Key_Findings-3-27-07_191398_7.pdf – Accessed August 2011.

World Health Organization (2011). Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road 

Safety 2011-2020, http://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/

english.pdf –%20Accessed%20July%202011.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov

October 24, 2011

FHWA-SA-14-007