HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

HSIP Project 

Identification

About the HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid highway program with the 

primary purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Many states and local agencies are successfully implementing innovative approaches to 

HSIP planning, implementation and evaluation. The HSIP Noteworthy Practices Series presents case 

studies of these successful practices organized by specific HSIP topics. The individual case studies 

provide summaries of each practice, key accomplishments, results, and contact information for those 

interested in learning more. 

HSIP Project Identification

States are required (23 U.S.C. 148) to perform 

safety project identification and analysis as part 

of the HSIP. However, the law does not specify 

the methodologies states shall use. The HSIP 

Manual (FHWA-SA-09-029) outlines the following steps for project identification: collect and 

analyze data; identify crash types and contributing factors; establish a crash pattern; conduct 

field reviews; identify countermeasures; assess 

countermeasure effectiveness; and use the current science (e.g., crash modification factors) to 

determine and prioritize project selection. The 

goal is to use data-driven decision making to 

identify and prioritize projects with the greatest 

potential for reducing deaths and serious injuries 

on all public roadways. 

In practice, methods used to identify candidate 

project locations vary significantly from state to 

state. Many states identify potential locations 

for safety improvements based on crash frequency or rate, while some have begun to use 

more advanced methods that incorporate safety 

performance functions (SPFs) or the Empirical 

Bayes (EB) method. In addition, some states are 

changing focus from “hot spot” improvements 

to a systemic approach. Qualitative information commonly used to identify candidate safety 

projects include panel reviews, input from public and law enforcement, field reviews, and road 

safety audits (RSA). 

Some state departments of transportation 

(DOT) select projects at the state level while 

others distribute funds to DOT District offices 

to use at each district’s discretion. Many states 

selecting projects at the state level solicit projects 

from DOT District offices and local agencies for 

consideration. States commonly conduct benefit-cost analyses to select and prioritize projects 

and rank them first using the highest benefit-cost 

ratio or net present value. 

One of the biggest challenges to effective project identification is the lack of data, particularly 

for local roadways. Even when quality data are 

available, many states do not have the training, 

resources, or tools to apply the more advanced 

and rigorous data analysis methods necessary to 

use them effectively. In addition, competing political or institutional realities could impose non-data 

driven factors on the decision-making process, 

making it difficult to select those HSIP projects 

with the greatest potential to improve safety. 

While many considerations enter into project 

selection, quantitative analysis should be used 

whenever possible in the prioritization process 

(e.g., comparing cost, effectiveness, and lifespan of the project). Quantitative information 

lends objectivity to the decision making process 

and helps maximize the safety benefit for the 

resources invested.

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Noteworthy Practices

The following cases demonstrate noteworthy practices several states are using in HSIP project identification:

• The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) developed four categories of safety warrants used in the network screening process 

to identify locations with severe crashes and crash patterns that can be addressed by engineering safety countermeasures. 

To provide a clear and consistent data-driven process, NCDOT developed a decision support tool to perform the initial 

prioritization of all candidate safety projects from across the state. (read more)

• The Missouri DOT (MoDOT) made the state’s HSIP more proactive through the systemwide implementation of engineering strategies described in Missouri’s Blueprint to Arrive Alive (Strategic Highway Safety Plan). Using HSIP funds, MoDOT 

incorporates the installation of rumble strips/stripes, improved signing and delineation, wider pavement markings, and 

improved shoulders into pavement resurfacing projects. Since 2007, almost two-thirds of MoDOT’s HSIP funds have been 

allocated to systemic improvements, resulting in a safer system overall. (read more)

• The Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) restructured its HSIP to provide funding for local agencies to address the large proportion of severe crashes occurring on local roadways, and developed funding goals for proactive and reactive improvements. 

MnDOT developed a “proactive spectrum” to establish safety funding goals for the Metropolitan District (Minneapolis/

St. Paul area) and rural districts. Minnesota has successfully increased the proportion of safety funding spent on proactive 

improvements. Almost 90 percent of projects programmed for fiscal year 2010-2011 are proactive. (read more)

• The Illinois DOT (IDOT), with the assistance of the University of Illinois, developed safety performance functions 

(SPFs) for all state routes and intersections using the Empirical Bayes (EB) method. IDOT uses the SPFs in the network 

screening process to identify locations with the highest potential for safety improvement. The use of SPFs in the network 

screening process enables the state to shift emphasis of the HSIP away from focusing on urban densely populated areas. 

The resulting broader focus includes low-cost safety improvements or systemic improvements that may not have been 

identified using previous screening methods. (read more)

• The Colorado DOT (CDOT) developed sophisticated predictive and diagnostic tools that incorporate calibrated SPFs for 

all public roadway types and intersections in the state. These tools enable CDOT to maximize potential crash reduction in 

the state within the constraints of available budgets. CDOT institutionalized the use of these tools by applying them to 

all CDOT projects. Over the seven years of applying these methods on all infrastructure projects, the state has achieved 

an unprecedented fatal crash reduction of 36 percent. (read more)

To access these full case studies, click on the individual links above or visit the FHWA Office of Safety on-line at: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip.

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

FHWA-SA-11-02

The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Safety Warrants 

and Spot Safety Index

North Carolina

The North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) started to identify shortcomings in its problem 

identification method in the mid-1990s. The previous 

method focused on identifying locations with a potential safety issue based on factors such as crash frequency, 

crash rate, and crash severity. In many cases, the locations 

identified did not exhibit a correctable crash type and 

were congestion related issues. For example, NCDOT 

repeatedly identified signalized intersections exhibiting a 

high frequency of rear-end collisions, but attributed the 

collisions to congestion and driver inattention rather than 

a roadway factor. 

Beginning with the 1996 HSIP, a set of safety warrants was 

established for intersections and roadway segments to target locations exhibiting a pattern of correctable crash types 

or conditions, as well as locations with a significant increase 

in crash frequency during the past calendar year. NCDOT 

has continued to expand and modify the safety warrants 

throughout the years to improve the identification process.

NCDOT initially screens the network (including local 

roads) for potential safety improvement locations using 

four categories of safety warrants: intersections, sections, 

bridges, and bicycle and pedestrian intersections. The 

safety warrants are analyzed annually using 5 to 10 years 

of crash data by querying the crash database. The current 

warrant criteria are based on crash frequency, severity, 

conditions, and percentage of target crashes. When a 

location meets the warrant criteria, it is flagged. As an 

example, an interstate segment would be flagged based 

on run-off road crashes if a minimum of 30 total crashes 

occurred on the segment, the crash rate is greater than 

60 crashes per mile, and a minimum of 60 percent of 

the total crashes were run off the road. After a location is flagged, a weighting factor is calculated based on 

the warrant criteria. The weighting factors are summed 

for locations meeting multiple warrants and are used to 

rank locations to determine which will receive priority for 

further analysis and investigation by the corresponding 

Regional Traffic Engineering and Highway Division staff. 

The Regional Traffic Engineers are responsible for identifying potential countermeasures and developing projects.

Intersection Warrants:

I-1: Frontal Impa

I-2: Last Year Increa

I-3: Frequency with Severity Index M

I-4: Night Location without Streetlig

I-5: Chronic Patte

Section Warrants:

S-1: Run Off Road- Wet Conditio

S-2: Run Off Ro

S-3: Wet Road Conditio

S-4: Non-Intersection Night Loca

without Streetlight

Bridge Warrant:

B-1: Brid

Bike/Ped Intersection Warrants:

P-1: Last 3 Years (pedestrian

P-2: Darkness with Streetligh

P-3: Alcohol Involveme

P-4: Chronic Locati

X-1: Last 3 years (bicyclist

X-2: Darkness with Streetligh

X-3: Alcohol Involveme

X-4: Chronic Locati

Key Accomplishments

•	 Developed network screening method to identify locations with severe and correctable

crash patterns.

•	 Continued to update network screening process

to improve the identification of relevant safety

issues and locations.

•	 Developed systematic project prioritization

ranking method that considers benefit-cost

analysis, departmental and regional priorities,

and ease of constructability.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

All safety projects are submitted to North Carolina’s Safety Oversight Committee, which was established to help 

select projects to receive Spot Safety Program funding. To provide clear and consistent data-driven selection process, 

the Spot Safety Index (SSI) was developed as a decision support tool to perform an initial prioritization of all candidate projects from across the state. It ensures safety investments are focused on locations with the greatest need 

and potential for improvement. The SSI is calculated based on a 100-point scale and is composed of four parts: 

Safety Factor (60 points), Constructability (5 points – e.g., ROW acquisition needs), Department Goals (5 points) 

and Division/Region Priority (30 points). The Safety Factor is based on the benefit-cost ratio, Severity Index, and 

whether the project is identified in the HSIP List or identified through a Road Safety Audit (RSA). An initial list of 

prioritized projects is developed by ranking projects based on the SSI. However, the Committee must take other 

considerations into account to develop the final list, including distribution of funding to the 14 districts and the effectiveness of countermeasures identified in the projects based on results from the state’s evaluation group.

Results

The development of the safety warrants for use in the network screening process has enabled NCDOT to focus 

their analysis on the identification of locations with severe crashes and crash patterns correctable by infrastructure safety countermeasures. NCDOT also has successfully established a clear and consistent data-driven 

process for selecting and prioritizing projects for funding.

Contact

Stephen Lowry

Safety Improvement Engineer

North Carolina Department of Transportation

919-773-2892

slowry@ncdot.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Implementation of

Systemwide Improvements

Missouri

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) 

has been successfully shifting the focus of its Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) towards a more 

proactive approach through the implementation of systemwide improvements. Many of these efforts began 

through the implementation of the Smooth Roads 

Initiative in 2004. The original initiative included 2,200 

miles of resurfacing, installation of reflective pavement 

markings and signage, improved shoulders with rumble 

strips/stripes, and safer guardrails. Given the safety 

benefits realized through these improvements, the state 

incorporated many of them into Missouri’s Blueprint to 

Arrive Alive (the state’s strategic highway safety plan).

Missouri’s Blueprint is used to guide HSIP investments. 

The Blueprint identifies the state’s “Targeted 10” strategies in education, enforcement, engineering, and public 

policy areas. These strategies were selected based on documented evidence supporting their life-saving and injury 

reduction potential. Six of the strategies are engineering 

countermeasures being implemented on a systemwide 

basis, including: 

• Expand the installation of shoulder and centerline 

rumble strips/stripes;

• Expand, improve, and maintain roadway visibility 

features (pavement markings, signs, lighting, etc);

• Expand installation and maintenance of roadway 

shoulders;

• Remove and/or shield fixed objects along roadside 

right of way;

• Improve and expand intersection safety with the use 

of innovative engineering designs (e.g., J-turns, roundabouts); and

• Improve curve recognition through the use of signs, 

markings, and pavement treatments.

The state uses HSIP funding for many of these strategies proactively incorporating the installation of rumble 

strips/stripes, improved signing and delineation, wider 

pavement markings, and improved shoulders into pavement resurfacing projects. 

Currently the state focuses its funding on the state roadway system since, historically, 77 percent of the fatalities 

in Missouri occur on state roads. In order to achieve the 

greatest benefit for the funds invested, Missouri originally focused on incorporating the safety enhancements 

into resurfacing projects on major roadways (about 5,600 

centerline miles) experiencing a disproportionate 45 percent of all fatal crashes. Following positive results from 

those original efforts, MoDOT is currently considering 

incorporating two-foot shoulders into future resurfacing 

projects on less traveled roadways (e.g., minor arterials, 

major collectors). Missouri also has become a national 

leader in the installation of cable median barrier to reduce 

cross-median fatalities on the majority of the interstate 

system throughout the state.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Allocated almost two-thirds of HSIP funds to systemwide improvements.

•	 Created a safer roadway system overall.
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Results

Since 2007, almost two-thirds of Missouri’s HSIP funds have been allocated to systemwide improvements. By 

focusing more on systemwide improvements, the state has been able to create a safer system overall. Between 2005 

and 2010, Missouri has seen a 30 percent drop in overall fatalities and a 41 percent reduction in lane departure fatalities. In addition, the installation of cable median barriers on the interstate system throughout the state resulted in 

an 80 percent reduction in cross median crash fatalities on Missouri freeways.

Contact

John Miller

Traffic Safety Engineer

Missouri Department of Transportation

573-526-1759

John.p.miller@modot.mo.gov

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Funding Goals for

Proactive Improvements

Minnesota

The data analysis conducted for the development of 

Minnesota’s original Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) in 2004 indicated a large percentage of severe 

crashes were occurring on local roadways. All Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding was managed by eight Area Transportation Partnerships (ATP)1

, 

and a small portion of the funding was allocated to local 

road safety improvements. To ensure the state was using 

HSIP funding in the best way possible, Minnesota restructured the program to provide funding for local agencies in 

Greater Minnesota (areas not within the Minneapolis-St. 

Paul metro area) and developed funding goals for proactive and reactive improvements.

Minnesota distributes HSIP funding to each district 

based on the proportion of fatal and serious injury 

crashes occurring in the district. The district funds are 

then allocated to local roads and state highways based on 

the proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring on the corresponding roadways. The split ranges 

from 28 percent to state highways and 72 percent to local 

roadways in the Metropolitan District, to a 50/50 split in 

District 1 (average across districts is 35 percent to state 

highways and 65 percent to local roadways).

In Minnesota approximately 70 percent of all crashes 

occur in urban areas; however, approximately 70 percent 

of the fatal crashes occur in rural areas. To address the 

inherent differences in the safety issues of urban and 

rural areas, Minnesota has established two separate goals 

to guide safety investments: 

• Metropolitan District (Minneapolis/St. Paul area): at 

least 30 percent of the safety funds go towards proactive low-cost safety improvements, and 

• Greater Minnesota (8 Rural Districts): at least 70 

percent of the safety funds go towards the proactive 

deployment of low-cost strategies. 

Minnesota developed a “proactive spectrum” decision 

support tool for use in project selection, which has been 

in use since 2007. The spectrum ranges from proactive 

low-cost projects (e.g. pavement markings, rumble strips, 

lighting, sign enhancements, etc.) to reactive/high-cost 

improvements (e.g., interchanges, roadway realignments, 

etc.). The proactive improvements are focused on improving the safety of the system overall, rather than focusing 

on a high crash location.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Implemented proactive approach to the HSIP

project selection process.

•	 Shifted funding to local jurisdictions.

1 An ATP is a group of traditional and non-traditional transportation partners, including representatives from MnDOT, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 

Regional Development Commissions, counties, cities, tribal governments, special interests, and the public, with the responsibility of developing a regional transportation improvement program (TIP) for their area. 
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Projects are selected for funding through a competitive selection process. Proactive projects are prioritized using 

a point system based on factors such as whether the project meets the intent of the SHSP, fatal and serious injury 

crashes per mile, cost per mile or per intersection, and traffic levels. Additional points are awarded if the location 

was identified in the High Risk Rural Roads Program or the Five Percent report. Reactive projects are prioritized 

based on the project’s benefit-cost ratio and other factors. The objective of this process is to prioritize and fund 

safety projects with the greatest impact on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.

Results

Minnesota has successfully shifted the focus of its HSIP to a proactive approach through the development of the 

“Proactive Spectrum.” This enables the state to focus on projects with the greatest potential impact on safety. 

The proportion of funding spent on proactive improvements has been increasing over the last few years. Of the 

projects programmed for fiscal year 2010-2011, almost 90 percent were proactive. Since 2007, Minnesota has 

funded safety projects on local and state roads to implement over: 6,714 miles of 6-inch wide edge lines; 80 miles 

of edge line rumble strips; 594 miles of edge line rumble stripes; 236 rural intersections with street lighting; 1,347 

curves with chevron signing; and 230 miles of cable median barrier.

Contact

Julie Whitcher

Minnesota Department of Transportation

651-234-7019

julie.whitcher@state.mn.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Development of SPFs 

for All State Routes and 

Intersections Illinois

While the development of SafetyAnalyst and the 

Highway Safety Manual was still underway, Illinois 

decided to incorporate a new analysis technique to assist 

the state in moving forward with the implementation of 

SafetyAnalyst. Within a year, the Illinois Department 

of Transportation (IDOT), with the assistance of the 

University of Illinois, developed safety performance functions (SPF) for state routes and intersections throughout 

the state using the Empirical Bayes (EB) method. The 

SPFs have been used in the HSIP network screening process since 2008 to identify potential locations for safety 

improvement projects.

SPF equations were developed for 12 peer groups of roadway segments (e.g., rural two-lane highway, rural multilane 

undivided highway, rural multilane divided highway, etc.) 

and eight peer groups for intersections (e.g., rural minor 

leg stop control, rural all-way stop control, rural signalized, etc.). The SPFs are used in the network screening 

process to calculate a Potential for Safety Improvement 

(PSI) for all locations. The PSI is the difference between 

the corrected crash frequency (calculated using the EB 

method) and the expected crash experience (based on the 

SPF) for a given traffic volume within the peer group. 

Since the focus of the HSIP is to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries, the PSI calculation is weighted to emphasize the most 

severe crashes. The weighted PSI calculations are then ranked in ascending order 

by location and peer group to identify locations with the greatest safety need or highest 

PSI value. Once the sites with the greatest 

potential for safety improvement are identified, the IDOT Districts review the locations 

and make recommendations for improvement. Candidate HSIP projects on the state 

roadway system are selected by the District’s 

Safety Committee and submitted to the 

Bureau of Safety Engineering.

When the SPFs were originally developed, there was 

not enough data to develop SPFs for the local roadway 

system. Illinois has been expanding the crash database 

for local roadways and, in the near future, the state will 

begin discussions about the development of SPFs for 

local roadways, as well as updating the existing SPFs for 

state roadways. Currently, local roadways are evaluated 

using an aggregate level analysis to identify potential 

safety issues (e.g., counties with overrepresentation of 

a particular crash type, crash severity, behavioral issue, 

etc.). Local agencies can submit safety improvement 

projects to the State Safety Committee for funding consideration through the Local Road Program component 

of the HSIP.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Developed SPFs for state routes and intersections throughout the state.

•	 Expanded knowledge and acceptance of analysis

techniques.

•	 Provided data-driven safety decision making tools.
Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

The Focus is Results

Results

Incorporating SPFs into the network screening process for safety improvement projects has led to several positive outcomes. Although other factors may involved, Illinois has seen a significant reduction in fatalities. In 2009, 

Illinois had the lowest number of fatalities since 1921. Transportation professionals are embracing the analysis 

results and making data-driven safety decisions. Using SPFs has helped shift the focus of the state’s program 

away from the urban, densely populated areas and provided a broader focus for safety projects, including low-cost 

safety improvements or systemic improvements that may not have been identified using previous analysis methods. 

Engineers throughout the state have become more familiar and comfortable with the use of SPFs through the 

state’s efforts, leading to a greater acceptance of SPFs and appreciation for improved quantitative data.

Contact

Roseanne Nance

Illinois Department of Transportation

217-785-5875

nancer@dot.il.gov

 FHWA-SA-11-02
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

Level of Service of Safety 

and Diagnostic Analysis

Colorado

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 

uses two methods for identifying locations with potential for safety improvement: Level of Service of Safety 

(LOSS) and Diagnostic Analysis. LOSS is based on the 

concept of Safety Performance Functions (SPF), while 

Diagnostic Analysis is developed around the idea of statistical pattern recognition.

Design engineers at CDOT pioneered development of 

the LOSS concept to quantify the magnitude of the 

safety problem. A crash rate implies a linear relationship 

between safety and exposure. While crash rates are commonly used to measure safety, they are often misleading 

since rates change with Annual Average Daily Traffic 

(AADT). To capture how this rate change takes place, 

CDOT engineers began calibrating SPFs in the late 1990s 

based on the work of Dr. Ezra Hauer. By 2001, CDOT 

had calibrated SPFs for all public roadways in Colorado, 

which were stratified by the number of lanes, terrain, 

environment, and functional classification. In 2009, in 

collaboration with consultants, CDOT developed SPFs 

for all intersection types. 

Development of SPFs supports the conceptual formulation of the LOSS concept. It uses qualitative measures to 

characterize the safety of a roadway segment in reference 

to its expected performance. If the number of crashes 

predicted by the SPF represents normal or expected 

crash frequency at a specific level of AADT, then the 

degree of deviation from the norm can be stratified 

to represent specific levels of safety. To describe road 

safety from the frequency and severity standpoint, two 

different SPFs were calibrated: one for the total number of crashes and the other for injury and fatal crashes. 

When the magnitude of the safety problem is assessed, it 

is described from the frequency and severity standpoint. 

The figure (Kononov and Allery, 2003) illustrates the 

LOSS concept using an SPF calibrated for total crashes 

expected on the 6-lane urban freeways. The delineated 

boundary line is located 1.5 standard deviations from 

the mean, reflecting a Negative Binomial error structure. 

Four LOSS categories were introduced:

• LOSS-I - Indicates low potential for crash reduction;

• LOSS-II - Indicates low to moderate potential for 

crash reduction;

• LOSS-III - Indicates moderate to high potential for 

crash reduction; and

• LOSS-IV - Indicates high potential for crash 

reduction.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Calibrated SPFs for all highways.

•	 Developed sophisticated predictive and diagnostic tools to maximize crash reduction in the state

within budget constraints.

•	 Institutionalized use of these tools throughout the

state of Colorado.

•	 Achieved unprecedented fatal crash reduction

of 36 percent over the seven years of sustained

application of these advanced methods on all

infrastructure and behavioral projects at CDOT.

•	 Provided substantive conceptual and analytical

input for the development of the Highway Safety

Manual (HSM).
HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series HSIP Project Identification

LOSS reflects how the roadway segment is performing in regard to its expected crash frequency and severity at a 

specific level of AADT. However, it only describes the magnitude of the safety problem; it does not provide any 

information related to the nature of the problem itself. To investigate the nature of the problem, Colorado uses 

Direct Diagnostics and Pattern Recognition techniques. 

A comprehensive methodology was developed to conduct diagnostic analyses of safety problems. The Direct 

Diagnostics and Pattern Recognition methods calculate a cumulative binomial probability of the crash types and 

related characteristics to identify overrepresented elements in the crash data (e.g., dark conditions, overturning vehicles) that may be related to abnormal crash patterns and crash causation. Direct Diagnostics is used for intersection 

analysis, and Pattern Recognition is used for roadway segments. 

CDOT initially used the combination of LOSS and Direct Diagnostics and Pattern Recognition to identify sites 

with potential for safety improvement only on safety motivated projects. Beginning in 2001, they are applied to all 

projects at CDOT, including resurfacing, reconstruction, realignment, widening, Environmental Assessments (EA) 

and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). CDOT conducts a statewide analysis using Direct Diagnostics and 

Pattern Recognition and recalibrates SPFs about every five years.

Results

CDOT developed sophisticated predictive and diagnostic tools to maximize potential crash reduction in the state 

within constraints of available budgets and institutionalized use of these tools throughout the state of Colorado. 

Over the seven years of application of the advanced methods on all infrastructure and behavioral projects at 

CDOT, the state has achieved an unprecedented fatal crash reduction of 36 percent, without reduction in travel or 

increase in safety expenditures. Additionally, these efforts provided substantive analytical and conceptual input for 

development of the Highway Safety Manual.

Contact

Bryan Allery

Colorado Department of Transportation

303-757-9967

bryan.allery@dot.state.co.us

Jake Kononov

Colorado Department of Transportation

303-757-9973

jake.kononov@dot.state.co.us

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Data Driven Decisions

 FHWA-SA-11-02 The Focus is Results