1

Safety Focused Decision Making Guide

Emphasis on Performance Management

FHWA is dedicated to promoting a performancebased management approach, as described in the 

Safety Focused Decision Making Framework 

above. This Framework helps translate 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 to achieve the desired safety performance 

across the entire roadway system. It also supports 

the key tenets of MAP-21, described by FHWA 

Administrator Mendez in the box to the right. 

“The cornerstone of MAP-21’s Federal 

highway program transformation is the 

transition to a performance and outcome-based program, which will 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 highway 

programs, and helping States and 

MPOs make targeted investments 

through performance-based planning 

and Programming.” 

Victor M. Mendez, 

FHWA Administrator

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 supports 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 

response. A number of nationally available safety 

analysis tools can be utilized to support roadway 

safety performance planning. 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.

The FHWA Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) envisions a safety planning decision 

making environment where transportation organizations take a holistic programmatic approach and optimize the selection of roadway safety infrastructure improvements across a roadway system using performance management practices to track 

progress and achieve safety performance targets. 

The Framework is defined by five high-level activities with continuous feedback 

loops for data collection and analysis and project modifications to enhance safety impacts. States and MPOs begin by identifying a list of potential projects, programs or 

strategies that will serve as the foundation of the larger safety program. Then, they 

refine that list through prioritization exercises designed to select the activities expected to affect the greatest safety impact using available funds within the given 

transportation environment. Following prioritization, the prediction of the safety outcomes helps 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. Please 

note that this Framework is one component of parallel, related planning activities, and 

will have some overlap with the TSP, HSIP, and LRT processes. 

Publication Number: FHWA-SA-13-034 
2

Commonly Used Safety Planning Tools

Safety Planning Tools that Support the Safety Focused Decision Making Framework

A number of nationally available safety analysis tools exist to support roadway safety performance planning. In 

the context of this guide, tools include technical assistance materials, computer-based spreadsheets and models, 

or geographic information systems. The majority of these tools have been directly supported by FHWA, whether 

through research, funding, development, training, dissemination, or other activities. 

The table below presents a listing of the tools used most frequently by states and MPOs as part of their safety 

planning process(es). The table also provides a synopsis of each tool’s primary purpose and denotes where, within the Safety Focused Decision Making Framework, each tools is most useful. Although these tools serve different purposes, each provides data and information that can be used to enhance safety considerations during the 

transportation planning process. Please keep in mind that this table and the following case studies are not designed to promote the use of one tool over another. 

 

 

 

 

 
3

Identifying the right projects and programs at the appropriate times is a necessary component to 

improving transportation safety. Safety project identification methods vary, but the application of 

commonly used practices generally depends on organizational capabilities and available resources, 

including staff with analytical skill sets and access to the necessary sources of data. A common challenge is leveraging the available data to formulate a mix of projects that lead to an effective safety program. 

1

Identify Potential Projects and Programs

Example of Applying Safety Planning Tools to Identify Potential Projects and Programs

Four of the commonly used tools can be applied to this step in the process, including GIS, HSM, SafetyAnalyst, and the 

Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool. While each of these tools approaches this step in a unique way, they all work to 

provide safety professionals the ability to identify potential projects and programs using a formalized, data-driven, repeatable process. For instance, GIS data can be used at the state 

and local level by leveraging the geo-coded information in the 

identification of hot-spot locations where safety improvement 

projects could have a large/immediate impact. Many States 

are currently developing GIS tools and programs. Some commonly reported challenges with GIS data include establishing 

data sharing standards within/between states and MPOs, consistent data formatting, data accuracy, and emphasizing GIS 

uses beyond its mapping capabilities. An example of a state 

that has been able to overcome some of these challenges is 

Utah with UPlan. UPlan is a web-based GIS decision-support 

mapping and informational tool. UPlan allows all stakeholders 

access to the same maps and data. 

Key Takeaways

 Safety project identification methods vary depending on the organization

 WSDOT’s data-driven decision-making policies 

strongly influence their project identification 

 There are currently several available tools that are 

effective at this step, including GIS, SafetyAnalyst, 

and the Systemic Approach to Safety

 Utah’s web-based decision-support mapping and 

informational tool, UPlan, is an example of effective 

use of GIS data

Notable Practice Case Study: Washington State’s Department of Transportation

One notable practice is mandating performance 

measurement for all program activities. Datadriven 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. 

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. 

Red - Engineering analysis 

Green - Planning involvement 

Orange - Programming actions 

Blue - Work product 

WSDOT Safety Planning & Programming Steps 
4

Narrow & Select Mix of Projects and Programs

States and MPOs typically have a longer list of desired projects and strategies than money available 

to complete each of them. This necessitates a method of prioritizing projects/programs to select 

those with most benefit and greatest impact to complete in the short and longer term. 

2

Example of Applying Safety Planning Tools to Narrow & Select Mix of Projects and Programs

In line with this step, FHWA has recently released a new Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool. The Systemic Safety 

Project Selection Tool involves widely implemented improvements based on high-risk roadway features correlated with 

specific severe crash types. The Tool provides a comprehensive method for safety planning and implementation that 

supplements and compliments traditional site analysis. It is 

designed to help states and MPOs broaden their traffic safety efforts and consider risk as well as crash history when 

identifying where to make low-cost safety improvements 

(i.e., examining crash data to identify fatal/serious injury 

crash locations with similar roadway characteristics that can 

be treated proactively with effective, low cost countermeasure on a system-wide basis). Focused on enabling safety 

professionals to narrow and select projects, guidance includes a step-by-step process for conducting systemic safety 

planning, 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 the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool. 

Key Takeaways

 Standardizing project prioritization and selection 

methodologies is a fundamental element of good 

program management

 ARC has developed a proven approach to evaluating 

potential projects and placing them into one of four 

tiers to allow for easy comparison

 The Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool will enable safety professionals to identify potential locations for safety investment based on the presence of 

high-risk roadway features 

Notable Practice Case Study: Atlanta Regional 

Commission (ARC) 

The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) evaluates potential projects and places projects into one of four tiers to allow for comparison. ARC follows a two-stage process for 

identifying projects for inclusion in its Regional Transportation Plan (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 prioritization, 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 (SHSP); project is already part of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and significant engineering, environmental documentation, or acquisition is already underway. 

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 of the five 

categories including mobility, connections, safety, economic growth, and environment/community impact. Each project 

receives a score for each of the five categories. The maximum score that a project could receive in any category is 100. 

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. 

ARC’s Plan 2040 Project Evaluation Tiers 
5

Predict Safety Outcomes of Projects and Programs

Safety professionals have traditionally relied on a tool, or set of tools, supported by crash data to 

help predict the impact of a particular safety improvement project or strategy. 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. 

3

Example of Applying Safety Planning Tools to Predict Safety Outcomes of Projects and Programs

The Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse provides transportation professionals with a web-based 

repository of CMFs and associated documents/training materials to support the proper application of CMFs. It 

highlights those factors that have considerable supporting research regarding their successful implementation 

and demonstrated effectiveness (or lack thereof). For this reason, it is a highly effective tool when it comes to 

predicting safety outcomes of projects and programs.

CMFs 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 

and SPFs based on similarities between and across 

states and MPOs will continue to help foster an improved safety culture at the programmatic level.

The CMF Clearinghouse does, however, have it’s limitations with regards to its predictive capability of a cadre of CMFs. This would be the case in the instance of 

attempting to predict the larger programmatic impact of 

several concurrently implemented countermeasures. In 

fact, the CMF Clearinghouse website explicitly states 

that there is limited research documenting the combined effects of multiple countermeasures and that, unless the CMFs act independently, multiplying may 

overestimate the effect of combining them.

Key Takeaways

 The challenge for states and MPOs moving forward 

will be leveraging existing tools and data to begin 

predicting safety impacts across a suite of projects

 Missouri is improving safety by implementing proven countermeasures for roadways with particular 

characteristics to reduce the risk of future crashes by 

are selecting a countermeasure to apply at the programmatic level across larger sections of roadway

 Some states and MPOs have begun examining how 

the CMF Clearinghouse in conjunction with SPFs 

and the HSM could be used to predict outcomes at 

the program level

Notable Practice Case Study: Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) Programmatic Approach to Safety Planning

FHWA encourages states and MPOs to take a holistic approach to safety planning and to begin predicting outcomes at the programmatic level. In order to effectively predict outcomes at the programmatic level, individual outcomes for 

each project within the program must first be defined. Missouri is an example of 

one state that has successfully identified and implemented such system-wide 

improvements. Their “Blueprint to Save More Lives,” which is the state’s SHSP, identifies their “Necessary Nine” strategies in the areas of education, enforcement, engineering, and public policy. These strategies were selected based on

documented evidence supporting their lifesaving and injury reduction potential. Out of these nine strategies, five are engineering countermeasures that are being implemented on a system-wide (programmatic) 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 the programmatic level across larger sections of roadway.
6

There are several steps that need to be completed during the project implementation phase of the 

safety improvement process. Upon project approval, it is necessary determine how implementation 

will occur, including timelines, budget, performance measures, and roles and responsibilities for accomplishing the stated outcomes. This defined implementation approach organizes, integrates, and documents the necessary activities that will be carried out to support completion of a project and/or program, and is an essential element of transportation planning activities. 

4

Implement Projects and Programs

Notable Practice Case Study: Performance Measures as a Part of 

Transportation Planning 

Effective implementation plans always includes discrete performance measures by 

which the overall impact of a project or program can be gauged. These become the 

guidelines for organizing and managing the project. 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 collect performance data and evaluate projects and program on an 

ongoing basis. This helps mitigate risks and improves efficacy of particular projects 

that are repeated across similar environments. 

When creating performance measures in transportation planning, FHWA’s “A Primer on Safety Performance Measures for the Transportation Planning Process” can 

serve as a valuable resource. This document provides information about nationally 

available data sources, and guides users through the process of identifying, validating, refining, and incorporating performance measures into transportation planning. The Primer draws from current literature, professional experience, and notable state DOT and MPO practices. Key elements of the Primer include: a definition of performance measures; a step-by-step description and flowchart showing how safety performance measures can 

be identified and integrated into the transportation planning process; characteristics of effective performance measures; a 

checklist to assess an organization’s current status with respect to the use of safety performance measures in the transportation planning and decision-making process; a list of references; and case studies of noteworthy practice. In addition 

to the Primer, use of a logic model can help states and MPOs identify performance measures that relate to strategic objectives and the broader program management scheme.

Example of Applying Safety Planning Tools to Implement Projects and Programs

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) provides 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. The HSM is interconnected with several other 

tools discussed in this guide, and can be used to identify which safety features, when implemented, will be the most 

impactful. Data outputs of the HSM that are developed throughout the safety planning process can be used to establish 

meaningful performance measures. That is to say, the HSM 

can be a source of credible safety performance measures.

As DOTs and MPOs incorporate the HSM in their project 

selection process, many are beginning to calculate state specific SPFs. For example, North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT) partnered with the University of 

North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center to develop 

SPFs for different types of roadways in North Carolina. SPFs 

were estimated for nine crash types for 16 roadway types using statewide data from North Carolina. Researchers also created Excel files that NCDOT can use to calibrate the SPFs in 

the future as a means to support implementation of the HSM 

prediction methodology.

Key Takeaways

 Development of a detailed implementation plan 

must be part of regular safety planning activities

 FHWA’s “A Primer on Safety Performance 

Measures for the Transportation Planning Process” 

can serve as a valuable resource when conducting 

implementation planning

 As DOTs and MPOs incorporate the HSM in their 

project selection process, many are beginning to calculate state specific SPFs
7

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. 

5

Achieve State and Local Safety Targets

Notable Practice Case Study: 

NCDOT’s Executive Dashboard 

Dashboards are used to inform internal or external stakeholders about 

progress to date and support 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 performance 

data including charts and tables, up 

and down arrows, and red/green/

yellow indicators of progress. The figure above provides an example of the NCDOT’s Executive Dashboard used to 

track progress against strategic goals. Reporting on key metrics aligned to goals enables leaders to see trends over time, 

make decisions based on performance, evaluate the impact of various performance drivers, and control the success of 

their actions. Simple, easy-to-access dashboards create 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. 

NCDOT‘s Executive Dashboard 

Example of Applying Safety Planning Tools to Achieve State and Local Safety Targets

Analyzing the impact of a safety project or program is not always as easy as it may seem. To do this effectively, safety professionals rely on some of the analysis tools described in this guide. In the world of transportation analysis 

tools, SafetyAnalyst offers advanced analysis capabilities and can be used by highway agencies to improve their programming of site-specific highway safety improvements. More specifically, SafetyAnalyst provides a set of software 

tools used by state and local highway agencies for the highway safety management process documented in Part B of 

the AASHTO’s Highway Safety Manual. It applies the Empirical Bayes (EB)1approach and can be used by highway 

agencies to improve their programming of site-specific highway safety improvements. 

Ohio’s Department of Transportation (ODOT) is perhaps 

the most advanced of all states in its use of SafetyAnalyst. 

ODOT has incorporated the tool into the state’s regular 

transportation planning processes and uses its Network 

Screening Tool to analyze high priority locations with the 

greatest potential for safety improvement. 

To date, SafetyAnalyst has not been fully implemented by 

any state. A number of other states are in the early stages 

of adopting or modifying the tool to suit their needs, including Florida, Missouri, and Washington. Some states 

have reported the data requirements, including the data 

formatting requirements, difficult to comply with, which 

has limited their use of the tool. 

Key Takeaways

 Tracking progress toward achieving goals and safety 

targets through the use of reporting tools such as 

performance dashboards is a best practice

 The NCDOT uses an Executive Dashboard to track 

and report progress against achieving their strategic 

goals

 One notable aspect of SafetyAnalyst is the Countermeasure Evaluation Tool, which provides an analysis of implementation success by performing before/

after evaluations to validate whether or not established safety targets had been achieved 1 More information on the EB approach can be found at 

http://www.safetyanalyst.org/screening.htm