http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

State Policies and Procedures on

Use of the Highway Safety Manual

September 2016
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

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.

Cover photos source: iStockphoto LP.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-16-119

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

4. Title and Subtitle

State Policies and Procedures on Use of the Highway Safety Manual

5. Report Date

September 2016

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Robert E. Hull, P.E.

Elizabeth Wemple, P.E.

Joseph Fish

Kimberly Kolody Silverman, P.E.

Dante Perez-Bravo

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

555 12th Street, Suite 1600

Oakland, CA 94607

CH2M

8501 West Higgins Road, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60631-2801

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

Informational Report, September 2015 

to September 2016

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HSSP

15. Supplementary Notes

The FHWA task managers for this report were Ray Krammes and Jerry Roche. The Highway Safety Manual Implementation 

Pooled-Fund Study (TPF-5(255)) funded this project. Pooled-fund State representatives served as reviewers.

16. Abstract

The 2010 publication of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), 1st Edition, by the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) was an important milestone in advancing the quality of safety analyses supporting highway 

investment decision making. One impediment to progress that will be addressed in this informational report is the lack of State 

policy on the use of the HSM in those processes. The States participating in the HSM Implementation Pooled-Fund Study 

(TPF-5(255)) identified the need for a compilation and synthesis of existing State policies and development of sample policy and 

procedures language covering a range of activities in which use of the HSM would be beneficial. The State Policies and Procedures 

on Use of the Highway Safety Manual Informational Report was created to present sample language as generalized statements 

adapted from noteworthy examples of existing language in State DOT manuals and policies. For States in which integrating the 

HSM into typical agency practices has been slower than desired, the informational report provides a starting point that can 

accelerate efforts to develop and adopt policies and procedures to support implementation of the HSM. 

17. Key Words

Highway Safety Manual, policy, procedure, transportation 

planning, programming, design, engineering, design 

exception, operations, maintenance, safety management, 

predictive method, Louisiana, Washington

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

50

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1

Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 1

Organization of the Report.................................................................................................................... 2

Sample Language Terminology .............................................................................................................. 2

Policy Statements and Guidance/Procedure Language Format...................................................... 3

SAMPLE LANGUAGE .......................................................................................................... 5

Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 5

Highway Safety Manual in Planning and Programming...................................................................... 5

Highway Safety Manual in Engineering and Design ........................................................................ 10

Highway Safety Manual in Operations and Maintenance .............................................................. 18

Roadway Safety Management Process.............................................................................................. 23

Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 27

CASE STUDIES....................................................................................................................28

Louisiana .................................................................................................................................................. 28

Washington............................................................................................................................................. 30

Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 32

APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................................33

Highway Safety Manual Tools............................................................................................................. 33

Source Information and Links............................................................................................................. 33

Additional Sources................................................................................................................................ 39
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Highway Safety Manual tools. ....................................................................................... 33

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Chart. Roadway safety management process. .......................................................... 24
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3R—Resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation

AJR—Access Justification Reports

AASHTO—American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

B/C—Benefit/cost

CMF—Crash Modification Factor

DelDOT—Delaware Department of Transportation

DOT—Department of Transportation

ECAT—Economic Crash Analysis Tool

EIS—Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA—Federal Highway Administration

FDOT—Florida Department of Transportation

GDOT—Georgia Department of Transportation

HSIP—Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM—Highway Safety Manual

IDOT—Illinois Department of Transportation

INDOT—Indiana Department of Transportation

IHSDM—Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

ISATe—Enhanced Interchange Safety Analysis Tool

ICA—Intersection Control Analysis

ICE—Intersection Control Evaluation

LADOTD—Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

LHSC—Louisiana Highway Safety Commission

LSP—Louisiana State Police

MUTCD—Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 v

MoDOT—Missouri Department of Transportation

NCHRP—National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act

NHDOT—New Hampshire Department of Transportation

NYSDOT—New York State Department of Transportation

ODOT—Ohio Department of Transportation

PennDOT—Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PRR—Preservation/rehabilitation/replacement

RSA—Road Safety Assessment

SRI—Safer Roads Index

SPF—Safety Performance Function 

SHSP—Strategic Highway Safety Plan

TIA—Traffic Impact Analyses

TRB—Transportation Research Board

VDOT—Virginia Department of Transportation

WSDOT—Washington State Department of Transportation

WSP—Washington State Patrol

WTSC—Washington Traffic Safety Commission
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

1 

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW 

The 2010 publication of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), 1st Edition, by the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) was an important 

milestone in advancing the quality of safety analyses supporting highway investment 

decisionmaking. AASHTO, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program (NCHRP), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and State 

Departments of Transportation (DOT) have worked collaboratively to support implementation 

of the HSM. As part of this collaborative effort, FHWA worked with AASHTO and participating 

States to organize the HSM Implementation Pooled-Fund Study which is funding this project. 

The objective of this pooled fund study is to develop tools and materials that advance 

implementation of the HSM. 

State DOTs report good progress in implementing HSM concepts and methods within their 

safety management processes. They report slower progress, however, in project development 

processes (for example, planning, programming, environmental processes, design, construction, 

operations, and maintenance). One impediment to progress that will be addressed in this 

informational report is the lack of State policy on the use of the HSM in those processes. 

The States participating in the HSM Implementation Pooled-Fund Study identified the need for a 

compilation and synthesis of existing State policies and development of sample policy and 

procedures language covering a range of activities in which use of the HSM would be beneficial. 

Within this report, the “sample” language is presented as generalized statements adapted from 

noteworthy examples of existing language in State DOT manuals and policies. For States in 

which integrating the HSM into typical agency practices has been slower than desired, 

information presented herein will provide a starting point that can accelerate efforts to develop 

and adopt policies and procedures to support implementation of the HSM. It is not the 

expectation or intent that States would use the sample language verbatim, rather that they 

would use it as a template which they could customize. 

More than 60 HSM-related State agency documents were gathered and reviewed during the 

development of this report. A majority of the documents focus on planning and programming, 

engineering and design, operations and maintenance, and roadway safety management 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 2

processes. These documents were gathered from a compiled list of sources identified by 

FHWA, the project team, and the Pooled-Fund Study States. 

From this compilation of source documents, the project team identified and extracted 

noteworthy examples of HSM-related policies and procedures language, as well as example 

applications to use as the basis for development of the sample language presented in this 

informational report.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

The main body of this report is organized as follows: 

• Section 2: Sample Language—This section provides noteworthy examples or 

applications of State DOTs policy and procedures language and accompanying sample 

policy and procedures language. This information is provided for: 

− Planning and Programming.

− Engineering and Design.

− Operations and Maintenance.

− Roadway Safety Management Process.

• Section 3: Case Studies—This section provides case studies from two States and 

their experiences incorporating HSM-based language in policy or manuals.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE TERMINOLOGY

With State DOTs at different levels of HSM implementation, the sample language in this 

informational report is presented in the format of “shall,” “should,” and “may” conditions. The 

FHWA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is an excellent example of the 

application of the “may,” “should,” and “shall” concept and is used as the basis to define these 

conditions.1 The following is a description of each of these three categories:

 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 

2009 Edition, p. 10. See http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm. 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 3

• Shall—The verb “shall” is typically used as a statement of required or mandatory 

application of the HSM or a specific component of the HSM. The verbs “must” and “will” 

are synonyms for “shall.”

• Should—The verb “should” is typically used as a statement of recommended, but not 

mandatory, practice in typical situations. The verbs “recommend” and “consider” are 

synonyms for “should.”

• May—The verb “may” is typically used as a statement of practice that is a permissive 

action and bears no requirement or recommendation. The verbs “can” and “could” are 

synonyms to “may.”

When considering the strength of sample language, use of the words “may” or “should” implies 

choice; however, this informational guide is not prescribing language but rather offering examples.

POLICY STATEMENTS AND GUIDANCE/PROCEDURE LANGUAGE FORMAT

In the development of sample language, the overall intent of the language must be considered. 

In this informational report supporting development of sample language for State practices, 

there are two categories of language presented: policy statements and guidance/procedure 

language. A policy statement provides a basis for and the principles undergirding the policy. 

Policy statements indicate why actions are to be completed rather than how to complete them. 

The guidance/procedure language contains more descriptions of the topic and generally 

provides directions, advice, and information. 

Throughout the report, for each topic area the report provides a description of the topic or 

process along with a noteworthy State DOT example or application (if available) and sample 

language in the form of a policy statement followed by procedures information. This approach is 

shown throughout the report in the following format:

• Process (transportation planning, programming, design, design exception, etc.).

This section provides a description of the topic area and essential characteristics of the 

specified process/program. This section also may describe an opportunity to use the 

HSM to evaluate safety performance throughout the process steps.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 4

• Noteworthy example(s):

This section describes a noteworthy example of current policy or procedures language 

or example application from a State DOT. The example is specific to the section topic 

(i.e., planning and programming, engineering and design, operations and maintenance, 

roadway safety management process).

− A noteworthy example labeled as an “Example Application” is a description of how 

the HSM is used by the identified State DOT within a policy or guidance document. 

− A noteworthy example labeled as “Example Language” is a direct quote or extraction 

of the information from the State DOT’s policy and/or guidance documents. 

• Sample policy language. 

The sample policy language is a template describing a direction for using the HSM for the 

topic area and begins with the phrase, “It is the policy of the Department.”

• Sample procedures language. 

The sample procedures language is a template describing how to implement a policy using 

the HSM and begins with the phrase, “To implement this policy.” This information may 

include a responsible position/office and/or use of specific HSM chapters, methods, or tools.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

5 

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

OVERVIEW 

The report provides noteworthy examples or applications of policy or procedures statements 

along with the sample language. The selected State Department of Transportation (DOT) 

examples or applications cover specific areas in the project development process, including 

planning and programming, engineering and design, operations, and maintenance, and roadway 

safety management processes. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL IN PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING

Federal requirements state that safety must be explicitly considered in the transportation 

planning process. In addition, Federal legislation requires that transportation agencies prepare 

strategic highway safety plans, long-range transportation plans, and other statewide plans. 

Integrating safety into long-term system plans (20-year plans) provides highway agencies with 

the ability to set the vision, goals, and strategies to proactively develop transportation systems 

that will result in fewer fatalities and serious injuries. Near-term planning (5- to 10-year project 

planning) also provides the opportunity to plan and program projects to address known safety 

issues or integrate safety features into projects focused on other transportation services such 

as mobility, maintenance, connectivity, or access. The programming process allocates funds to 

projects according to an ongoing cycle–often a four-year cycle at the State level. Analysis 

methods identified in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) can be used to support decisionmaking 

in the long-term planning process, project-planning process, and project-prioritization process.

Long-Range Transportation Planning

The long-range transportation planning process can broadly be defined as having the 

following elements: 

• Data collection and analysis to identify needs, priorities, policies, programs, and projects.

• Goals and objectives to frame those needs and priorities and establish evaluation criteria.

• Performance measures and targets to evaluate alternatives and track progress 

towards the goals and objectives. 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 6

• Project analysis, prioritization, and programming to identify the mix of projects 

that meet the goals and objectives of the plan and help to make progress towards the 

performance target.

• Evaluation to understand the extent to which safety performance for the 

transportation system, modes, or behaviors is changing and where future investments 

can be made.2 

Descriptive safety data analyses can be used to establish goals, objectives, and performance 

measures for a long-range transportation plan. Also, safety data is an important component of 

the examination of current conditions for a transportation system. As explained in the HSM, 

descriptive analyses summarize and tabulate information about crashes such as crash frequency, 

severity, or type using crash counts.3 Forecasting safety performance of a transportation 

network can be done using network-level safety forecasting methods provided in the HSM; 

however, the models would have to be very comprehensive to match the scale of most State 

and urban transportation networks. As planning activities become more project specific (nearterm planning or programming activities), the HSM Part C predictive method and/or Crash 

Modification Factors (CMF) in the HSM become more relevant. 

Noteworthy Example

• Example Application: The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) used their 

AASHTOWare Safety Analyst model to develop the Access Ohio 2040 long-range 

transportation plan. Future vehicle miles traveled from the State travel demand model 

were combined with crash data from the statewide AASHTOWare Safety Analyst model 

to predict the future safety impacts of alternative networks. Source: Ohio Department of 

Transportation, “Access Ohio, 2040,” February 2013, Page 27. See 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPR/StatewidePlanning/access.ohio/Pages/

default.aspx.

4

 

 

2 See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Performance Based Planning and 

Programming Guidebook, September 2013.

3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2010, p. 5-2.

4 All hyperlinks provided in this document were accessed by the authors on August 16, 2016.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 7

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department that HSM methods shall (should/may) be used in long-range plans 

to identify projects, programs, or policies that support safety goals and objectives in the plan. 

Sample Guidance/Procedure Language

To implement this policy, the HSM methodologies shall (should/may) be used in the long-range 

transportation planning process. Descriptive analyses summarizing statewide and/or regional 

crash trends (e.g., crashes by type, urban or rural, behavior) can provide information about the 

types of projects which might drive down fatalities and serious injuries. State or regionwide 

safety prediction models can be developed and used to estimate future safety conditions and 

evaluate alternative transportation system scenarios. 

Near-Term Transportation Planning and Programming

In near-term transportation planning and programming, projects are assessed, project 

alternatives are considered and defined, project purpose and need are developed, and projects 

are prioritized and programmed (i.e., funding is committed for design and construction).5 The 

HSM can be readily integrated into the near-term planning and programming process to 

incorporate consideration of the safety performance of various roadway features, as well as 

comparing one project to another for prioritization.

For example, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Safer Roads Index (SRI) uses 

HSM concepts in its transportation programming process; Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) is using planning-level CMFs in its project funding prioritization process 

through its Smart Scale program; and Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development (LADOTD) has a fact sheet linking its project development process to types of 

safety analyses methods from the HSM. 

Noteworthy Examples

• Example Application: The Illinois Department of Transportation enhanced its 

approach to incorporating safety into IDOT’s overall transportation management 

process by establishing the SRI and Safety Tiers for State-maintained routes. The goal is 

to improve the integration of quantitative safety performance in transportation project 

planning and programming. The SRI is now being used in planning and programming and 

 

5 The section “Near-Term Transportation Planning and Programming” does not provide an exhaustive list of nearterm planning and programming activities.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 8

is being considered alongside pavement condition and bridge condition factors to 

improve selection and prioritization of transportation projects. More information about 

the Safer Roads Index can be found at http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportationsystem/safety/roadway/index. 

• Example Application: The Virginia Department of Transportation’s Smart Scale 

established a project prioritization and scoring process to improve transparency of 

projects selected for funding. Safety is one of six factors and each factor has several 

measures. The safety measures identify the number of fatal and severe injury crashes and 

rate of fatal and severe injury crashes. VDOT developed a set of planning-level CMFs for 

use in the prioritization process. More information about Smart Scale can be found at 

http://www.virginiahb2.org/about/default.asp. A presentation about the planning-level 

CMFs used in the prioritization process can be found at 

http://www.virginiahb2.org/documents/hb2_planning_level_cmfs_201508_final.pdf. 

• Example Application: The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

has a “Highway Safety Manual Project Applications” fact sheet containing guidance 

regarding which methods from the HSM should be used for different parts for the 

LADOTD project development process. Among other items, the fact sheet recommends 

the HSM Part C predictive method or CMFs for planning-level project or corridor 

studies to evaluate alternatives. More information can be found at 

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Highway_Safety/Misc%2

0Documents/Louisiana%20Fact%20Sheet%20Project%20Map.pdf. 

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department to select and implement projects that help the State achieve 

its safety goals with consideration given to the cost effectiveness of the potential projects and 

funding constraints. The HSM shall (should/may) be used to evaluate project alternatives and 

prioritize projects to quantitatively consider safety performance in the near-term planning and 

programming process. 

Sample Guidance/Procedure Language

To implement this policy, the HSM methodologies shall (should/may) be used to integrate 

quantitative safety analysis in the near-term planning and programming of funding for 

transportation projects. Quantitative safety analysis allows for safety performance to be 

estimated and therefore tradeoffs between alternatives or across projects defined. Safety (i.e., 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 9

number and severity of crashes) can be considered alongside other performance measures such 

as capacity, environmental impacts, right-of-way impacts, or construction costs. The 

HSM Part C predictive method and/or CMFs can be used to estimate the changes in crash 

frequency or severity associated with different roadway alternatives. The tradeoffs can be 

considered in the form of the number of crashes, the number of fatalities or severe injuries, or 

the economic costs of the crashes.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires examination of potential impacts to 

the social and natural environment when considering proposed transportation projects 

involving Federal funds or requiring Federal approval.6 There are three major categories of 

NEPA assessment: Categorical Exclusions (listed or documented), Environment Assessments, 

and Environmental Impact Statements.7 The HSM Part C predictive method and CMFs readily 

support the evaluation of alternatives that are under consideration in the NEPA process. 

Examples of HSM-related language in State DOT NEPA procedures were not identified in this 

project; possible language is presented below.

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department that safety shall be a consideration in the NEPA project 

alternatives evaluation and documentation. The existing crash conditions and estimated number 

and severity of crashes associated with the no-build and build alternatives shall (should/may) be 

estimated using HSM methods. The outcomes of the quantitative safety analyses shall be 

considered and documented.

Sample Guidance/Procedure Language

To implement this policy, safety can be meaningfully integrated into the NEPA process by 

estimating changes in crash frequency or severity associated with different alternatives being 

investigated. Changes in crash frequency or severity due to different roadway features shall 

(should/may) be estimated using the HSM Part C predictive method and/or CMFs. 

 

6 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Integrating Road Safety Into NEPA Analysis; 

A Practitioners Primer,” June 2011 (see http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwasa1136/fhwasa1136.pdf, Page 3).

7 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Integrating Road Safety Into NEPA Analysis; 

A Practitioners Primer,” June 2011 (see http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwasa1136/fhwasa1136.pdf, page 4).
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 10

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL IN ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 

Within the process of delivering a roadway project for construction, engineering-and more 

specifically engineering design—consumes a large share of the effort and time required. The 

design process can be an iterative effort starting from a high-level concept to more detailed 

design and analysis, resulting in a complete final design of the facility. This report focuses on 

integrating the HSM into three categories of engineering and design:

• Preliminary Engineering. 

• Design Process.

• Design Exception Process.

Preliminary Engineering

Preliminary engineering encompasses a wide range of practices with a roadway project. In this 

informational report, preliminary engineering is narrowly centered on activities that would be 

considered during the concept or scoping phases of a project prior to design. Example language 

related to preliminary engineering was discovered through the research for this report only in 

the following areas: 

• Project-Level Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA).

• Access Justification Reports (AJR).

Project-Level Traffic Impact Analyses 

As part of the preliminary engineering process, project-level traffic impact analyses are an 

excellent opportunity to use the HSM to evaluate safety performance. 

Noteworthy Example

• Example Language: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)—

The minimum contents of a Traffic Impact Analysis report are listed in the Traffic 

Analysis Procedures Manual and Development Services Manual. The depth and detail of 

content under each element varies in relation to the scale and complexity of the project. 

Traffic safety components of the report are: Traffic Analysis part (d)(7)—Safety 

performance analysis (see chapter 321 and the Traffic Analysis Procedures Manual) and 

Conclusions and Recommendations part (e)(2)—Predicted safety performance with and 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 11

without mitigation measures. The Sustainable Highway Safety Policy directs WSDOT to 

use effective and efficient resources, like the HSM, to achieve the goals of the 

Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan: Target Zero. Source: Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Engineering and Regional Operations 

Development Division, Design Office, “Design Manual” (M 22 01.12. November), 2015. 

See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/320.pdf. 

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department for traffic impact analyses to include a safety performance 

assessment. For the decisionmaking process within preliminary engineering activities, these 

analyses provide valuable information to evaluate the safety performance regarding changes to 

access the roadway system, the roadway design, and the resulting traffic impacts. The HSM shall 

(should/may) be used in traffic impact analyses to evaluate the safety performance associated 

with modifications to the roadway.

Sample Procedures Language

To implement this policy a Traffic Impact Analysis shall be prepared during the preliminary 

engineering phase of a project and shall include an assessment of safety performance as a key 

component of the TIA. In this analysis, CMFs are a useful tool that shall (should/may) be used to 

estimate the anticipated safety impacts of the proposed roadway modifications or design.

In addition to the CMFs, the HSM Part C predictive method is a valuable tool in this assessment 

process and shall (should/may) be used to compare the safety performance with or without 

proposed modifications for the design of the highway.

Interstate System Access Change Request

As part of the process to change access to the Interstate highway system, the FHWA’s decision 

to approve new or revised access points to the Interstate highway system requires 

documentation of the impacts of the proposed access. The Interstate System Access Change 

Request is used to describe the formal request made to FHWA by a State DOT. With this 

process, the FHWA’s interest is to ensure all new or revised access points: 

• Are considered using a decisionmaking process that is based on information and analysis 

of the planning, environmental, design, safety, and operational affects [sic] of the 

proposed change. 

• Support the intended purpose of the Interstate System. 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 12

• Do not have an adverse impact on the safety or operations of the Interstate System and 

connecting local roadway network or other elements of the transportation system. 

• Are designed to acceptable standards.8 

As part of this FHWA policy, requests for a proposed change in access must include a 

description and assessment of the impacts and ability of the proposed changes to safely and 

efficiently collect, distribute and accommodate traffic.9 The HSM can be used to complete the 

required safety performance assessment.

Noteworthy Examples

• Example Language: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)—The objective of 

this safety analysis is to examine the effects of the proposed new access or modified access 

on the performance of the facility. As such, the safety analysis should proactively aim at 

reducing or correcting potential safety problems in the planning and design phase of the 

projects before they are constructed. For build alternatives analysis the Requester may use 

new tools for quantitative analysis of safety performance to predict crashes and compare the 

safety performance of the alternatives. Safety analysis tools that may be used are the 

Highway Safety Manual published in 2010 and enhanced Interchange Safety Analysis Tool 

(ISATe). Additional tools that can be used to perform Safety Analysis are Interactive Highway 

Safety Design Model (IHSDM) and SafetyAnalyst.10 Source: Florida Department of 

Transportation, “FDOT Interchange Access Request—User’s Guide,” 2013. See 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/programs/SM/intjus/pdfs/Final2013IARUG.pdf. 

• Example Language: Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)—The Access 

Justification Report (AJR) should include the following: Highway Safety Analysis. Use the 

2014 Supplement to the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), or the Enhanced Interchange 

Safety Analysis Tool (ISATe), for the needed safety analysis. Source: Illinois Department 

of Transportation, “New or Revised Interstate Access Approval,” 2015. See 

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/assets/uploads/files/doing-business/manuals-split/design-andenvironment/bde-manual/chapter%2037%20interchanges.pdf. 

 

8 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “FHWA Interstate System Access Informational 

Guide,” August 2010, p. 3 (FHWA Access Guide). See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/interstate/pubs/

access/access.pdf. 

9 FHWA Access Guide, p. 82.

10 “SafetyAnalyst” refers to AASHTOWare Safety Analyst.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 13

• Example Language: Washington State Department of Transportation—Identify and 

document the predicted safety performance of the proposed access point revision 

proposal(s), including the freeway section, speed change lanes, ramps, 

collector/distributor (c-d) lanes, ramp terminal intersections, and the adjacent affected 

local surface system, including segments and intersections. Document the predicted 

safety performance of the freeway section using the Highway Safety Manual (to access 

ISATe), speed change lanes, ramps, c-d lines, ramp terminal intersections, and the 

adjacent affected local surface system, including segments and intersections within the 

study limits for each of the proposed “no-build,” “build,” and possibly other scenarios 

and alternatives as determined by the support team. Source: Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Engineering and Regional Operations 

Development Division, Design Office, “Design Manual” (M 22 01.12. November), 2015. 

See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/550.pdf. 

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department to protect the functionality of the Interstate system and 

preserve the investment made in the system. With all proposed new or modified access to the 

Interstate system, an access justification report shall be completed and safety performance shall 

be an evaluation consideration in the report. The objective of an access justification safety 

analysis is to examine the effects of the proposed new access or modified access on the safety 

performance of the facility. This safety analysis is a proactive approach to address potential 

safety impacts identified in the planning and design phase of the project. When completing the 

safety analysis, HSM methods shall (should/may) be used to evaluate the safety performance of 

project design alternatives.

Sample Procedures Language

To implement this policy the Interstate access justification report shall include a quantitative 

assessment of the safety impacts of the proposed access modification. This quantitative 

assessment shall (should/may) use the HSM Part C predictive method to evaluate predicted 

safety performance of the proposed access change, including the freeway section, speed change 

lanes, ramps, collector/distributor lanes, ramp terminal intersections, and the adjacent affected 

local surface system, including segments and intersections.

The Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM), Enhanced Interchange Safety Analysis 

Tool (ISATe), and/or HSM spreadsheets are available tools that can be used to support this 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 14

safety performance assessment. In addition, CMFs from the CMF Clearinghouse and/or Statespecific CMFs developed by the Department can be used in the safety performance assessment.

Design Process

Design manuals provide the practices and methods for developing and documenting the design 

of improvements to the transportation network. The highway design process involves the 

application of engineering principles to meet each project’s objectives in the best overall public 

interest. Application of these principles requires considering and balancing social, economic, and 

environmental issues to achieve a safe and efficient transportation system. The design manual 

supplements the engineering analyses and judgment that is applied to project design. It provides 

uniform procedures for documenting and implementing design decisions. 

Noteworthy Examples

• Example Language: Washington State Department of Transportation—The HSM and 

associated analysis tools have been developed to aid decisionmaking and documentation 

in the project development process. It helps quantify safety performance implications of 

decisions in project development and provides a basis for predicting and documenting 

the potential safety performance of those decisions. Safety analysis tools may be 

appropriate for design decisions to analyze and document the safety performance of 

design alternatives and design element dimensioning decisions, including cross section 

design element dimensioning and other countermeasures treatment options. Source: 

Washington State Department of Transportation, Engineering and Regional Operations 

Development Division, Design Office, “Design Manual” (M 22 01.12. 321.06 November), 

2015. See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/321.pdf. 

• Example Language: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)—A safety 

assessment, including the potential safety benefits shall be discussed if the proposed 

improvements will contribute to a reduced number and/or severity of crashes. Consider 

using American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to calculate crash frequencies to quantify the substantive 

safety performance of the alternatives. Source: Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation, “District Highway Safety Guidance Manual,” (Publication PUB 638 (12-14)). 

December 2014. See www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20638.pdf. 

• Example Language: Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)—“Design Policy 

Manual 2015—Roundabout Feasibility Study.” A feasibility study must be prepared for all 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 15

proposed roundabouts. The objective of the feasibility study is to document the 

decisionmaking process which demonstrates that a roundabout is (or is not) the most 

appropriate intersection control form. A feasibility study should include the following 

components: section 2, Safety Assessment: include a tabulated analysis of intersection 

crash data for the five most recent years for which data is available and a comparison to 

statewide intersection averages. Crash reductions factors should be obtained either from 

the FHWA Report No. FHWA-SA-08-01,1 Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction 

Factors or the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Web site at 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/. Further information regarding safety and roundabouts 

is presented in chapter 5 of NCHRP 672 and in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual. 

Source: Georgia Department of Transportation, “Design Policy Manual,” 2015. See 

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/DesignPolicy/GDOT-DPM.pdf. 

• Example Language: Washington State Department of Transportation—The 

Secretary’s Executive Order E1085, “Sustainable Highway Safety Program,” directs 

engineers to base project-level decisions on safety analysis of specific locations and 

corridors and focus on proven lower-cost targeted countermeasures at specific locations 

that optimize the return on investment of safety dollars. Sustainable Safety is therefore 

an essential part of successful Practical Design implementation. It provides the process 

and methods to incorporate safety performance assessment and peer review into 

Performance-Based Practical Design. Sustainable Safety allows the planner, engineer, and 

decisionmaker, to identify and quantify the safety performance of alternatives during 

project development. Source: Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT), Engineering and Regional Operations Development Division, Design Office, 

“Design Manual,” (M 22 01.12. 321.01. November), 2015. See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/

publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/321.pdf. 

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department that the HSM shall (should/may) be used to evaluate the 

safety performance of the roadway design. Using the HSM to determine design tradeoffs 

(higher-than-minimum standards or lower-than-full standards) will meet the intent of the design 

manual for determining recommended values or range of values for the roadway design.

Sample Procedures Language

To implement this policy, the designer shall (should/may) evaluate using the HSM the safety 

performance of the proposed design elements as part of the decisionmaking process 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 16

determining the presence and dimensions of the proposed design features. The HSM Part C 

predictive method and/or CMFs are resources available to complete this assessment. The 

sources of CMFs are the HSM Part D, the CMF Clearinghouse, and/or State-specific CMFs

developed by the Department. 

The documentation of safety analyses supporting (or informing) design decisions is the 

responsibility of the office completing the design. Components of this documentation include 

the safety analyses used, and a safety impact comparison of design alternatives. Also, by 

performing predictive safety analysis and incorporating existing crash history when appropriate, 

the designer shall (should/may) conduct a safety performance assessment to identify the 

contributing factors and determine the appropriate countermeasures to include in the design 

based on these factors.

The Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM), Enhanced Interchange Safety Analysis 

Tool (ISATe), and/or HSM spreadsheets are available tools that can be used to support the 

safety performance assessment.

As a component of the safety analysis documentation, the designer shall (should/may) complete 

an economic assessment to support evaluation of different design alternatives. For this 

documentation, the HSM chapter 7—Economic Appraisal identifies various methods that shall 

(should/may) be used for the economic analysis, including benefit/cost (B/C), net present value, 

and cost effectiveness analysis.

Design Exception Process

The design exception process provides an excellent opportunity to expand HSM policy and 

guidance/procedure language as well as overall HSM implementation outside of the Highway 

Safety Improvement Process or other typical safety programs. This “process” term should be 

considered to be inclusive of design exceptions, design variances, design waivers, or other 

terms used in State DOT documents. 

Noteworthy Examples

• Example Language: Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)—Design exception 

documentation will be based upon the analysis of the three-year crash history performed 

at the time of scoping. Projects can use the Safety Analyst Locations for Design 

Exception Process Maps or Spreadsheet to perform this analysis. Alternatively, one may 

complete the calculations included in AASHTO’s Highway Safety Manual with Ohiospecific proportional tables and calibration factors. ODOT has developed a spreadsheet 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 17

tool to aid in completing the HSM calculations called the Economic Crash Analysis Tool 

(ECAT). Source: Ohio Department of Transportation, “Design Controls and 

Exceptions,” January 2014. See https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/

Engineering/Roadway/DesignStandards/roadway/Pages/locationanddesignmanuals.aspx. 

• Example Language: Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)—If the design

exception request involves safety-related features that are adequately addressed in the

AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, then documentation of the exception should include a

safety analysis as described in the manual. In general, this safety analysis should compare

the expected number of crashes for the facility with the design exception to the expected

number of crashes of the facility without the design exception. Currently, not all safetyrelated features are explicitly addressed in the Highway Safety Manual. A list of features

currently addressed by the manual include: lane width, shoulder width, shoulder type,

center line rumble strips, horizontal alignment (length, radius), grade, roadside hazard

rating, fixed objects, driveway density, median width, side slope, lighting, intersection skew

angle, and turn lanes. Not all features in the manual are addressed for each facility type.

Source: Missouri Department of Transportation, “Design Exception Process,” 2015. See

http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=131.1_Design_Exception_Process.

• Example Language: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation—Confidential Safety

Study. The purpose is to evaluate the traffic crash history within the project limits to

determine what, if any, existing highway safety concerns are present, and then identify

how these safety concerns would be addressed by the proposed project using the design

exception and by using full-design criteria. Refer to Publication 638, District Highway

Safety Guidance Manual for information on the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and

evaluating the impact of changes in design elements on safety performance. Source:

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Publication 10X (DM-1X);

Appendix P—Design Exceptions, 2015. See

https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/publications/pub%2010/Pub10X_Cover.pdf.

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department that all projects will be designed to meet the existing and 

future traffic needs in the most economical manner with emphasis on safety, operations, and 

maintainability. Particular attention with project design must be given to the controlling criteria 

for design. If any of the controlling design criteria cannot be met, a formal design exception is 

required. If the design exception involves features that are adequately addressed in the HSM, 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 18

then the evaluation analysis and documentation shall (should/may) be completed using the 

methodologies described in the HSM. 

Sample Guidance/Procedure Language

To implement this policy the HSM shall (should/may) be used to evaluate the safety 

performance of a design modification to controlling design criteria. Documentation of the safety 

performance is key in addressing this policy for the design exception process. From a safety 

perspective, this documentation should examine contributing factors of crashes as well as the 

relationship between the roadway features being considered in the design exception and these 

contributing factors. The design exception documentation using the HSM is intended to discuss 

the safety performance of the full design feature versus the feature designed as indicated in the 

design exception. 

The safety assessment included in the documentation shall include, at a minimum, a crash 

history, crash rates, and crash frequencies of the project location. The HSM is an excellent 

resource for evaluating the impact to safety performance of changes in the controlling design 

criteria. The HSM Part C predictive method and/or CMFs shall (should/may) be used in a 

comparative analysis of the predicted crash frequency with or without the proposed change in 

project design. 

To support the safety performance evaluation, a number of commercially available products and 

tools developed by State DOTs or by the FHWA are available. The Interactive Highway Safety 

Design Model (IHSDM) and/or HSM spreadsheets are examples of available tools that can be 

used for the safety performance assessment. Also, Safety Performance Functions (SPF) and 

CMFs from the CMF Clearinghouse and/or State-specific CMFs developed by the Department 

can be used in the safety performance assessment.

Additionally, to document the economic assessment of the design change, chapter 7 of the HSM

contains methods, including benefit/cost (B/C), net present value, and cost effectiveness, that 

can be used for the economic analysis documentation.

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL IN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

There are some specific areas within Operations and Maintenance where the HSM can be 

applied; however, there are limited specific examples that are available to develop sample policy 

or guidance language. Noteworthy examples along with sample language within each of the 

following areas are presented:
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 19

• Traffic Operations.

• Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects.

Traffic Operations

The objective of traffic operations activities is to optimize the performance of existing 

infrastructure through implementation of processes and projects to preserve capacity and 

address safety performance of the transportation system. This report focuses on integrating the 

HSM into two categories of traffic operations activities:

• Intersection Control Evaluation.

• Traffic Impact Analyses.

Intersection Control Evaluation

State and local transportation agencies are actively implementing intersection designs beyond 

the conventional signalized intersection or stop-controlled intersection. A few examples of 

these designs are roundabouts, diverging diamond interchanges, and continuous flow 

intersections. To address the need to provide an objective process to evaluate and select 

between intersection control alternatives, a number of State DOTs are developing Intersection 

Control Evaluation (ICE) policies and procedures. The goal of ICE is to provide a performancebased decisionmaking process, and the HSM is a valuable resource to complete the safety 

performance analysis within the ICE process. California, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, 

Washington, and Wisconsin all have developed ICE policies and procedures. 

Specific to traffic signals, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) Traffic Design 

Manual (2015) requires that a Traffic Signal Justification Study include an assessment of the 

safety implications of installing a new traffic signal, modifying an existing traffic signal, or 

removing an existing traffic signal. 

Noteworthy Examples

• Example Application: The Washington State Department of Transportation includes

in its Intersection Control Analysis (ICA) an assessment of current conditions associated

with the project location. A component of this assessment is an analysis of crash history

using the HSM methodologies to determine the expected and predicted crash 

frequencies of the proposed intersection alternatives. Source: Washington State 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 20

Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Engineering and Regional Operations 

Development Division, Design Office, “Design Manual” (M 22 01.12. November), 2015. 

See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1300.pdf. 

• Example Language: Delaware Department of Transportation—A Traffic Signal

Justification Study should include an assessment of the safety implications of installing a

new traffic signal, modifying an existing traffic signal, or removing an existing traffic signal.

The HSM should be consulted to assist in performing the safety assessment. DelDOT’s

preferred method for conducting the safety assessment is to use the “predictive

method” from the HSM to estimate anticipated crash frequency. It is DelDOT’s

preference that a comparative analysis be performed using SPF’s to compare the base

(no improvements) scenario with the scenario that considers all proposed

improvements. Additionally, the analyst should compare the SPF results with actual crash

data, if available. Source: Delaware Department of Transportation, “Traffic Design

Manual,” 2015. See http://deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/traffic_design/

2015/2015_chapter_4.pdf#search=traffic%20design%20manual.

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department to use the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) to assess 

intersection alternatives and according to the most recent adopted edition of the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The ICE shall include an assessment of the safety 

performance of the intersection alternatives. The HSM shall (should/may) be used to assist in 

performing the safety assessment.

Sample Procedures Language 

To implement this policy, when completing the ICE process, the HSM Part C predictive method 

and/or CMFs shall (should/may) be used to evaluate the safety performance of the proposed 

intersection projects and to provide better decisionmaking information for project selection 

and funding prioritization.

In addition, when considering operational changes such as signal timing or modifying 

intersections to include left-turn and/or right-right turn lanes or lighting upgrades, the 

HSM Part C predictive method and/or CMFs shall (should/may) be used to evaluate the safety 

performance of these modifications.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 21

Traffic Impact Analyses

According to the Traffic Engineering Handbook, traffic impact analyses (TIA), also known as 

traffic impact studies, are widely used to estimate the travel impacts of new or expanded land 

development as part of the approvals process.11 

Noteworthy Example

• Example Language: New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)—Crash 

Modification Factors and Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) are an excellent tool to use to 

estimate the expected crash reduction and/or the expected safety benefits associated with 

various countermeasures. These may be useful in identifying the appropriate 

countermeasures based on the existing resources available for a project. Source: New York 

State Department of Transportation, “Traffic Impact Study for DOT Projects,” August 2014. 

See https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/dqab-repository/. 

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department that requests for roadway access connections include a traffic 

impact analysis (TIA). The TIA shall include a safety performance assessment. These analyses 

provide essential information for the decisionmaking process to evaluate the safety 

performance regarding changes to access the roadway system and the resulting traffic impacts. 

The HSM shall (should/may) be used to evaluate the safety performance associated with 

modifications to the roadway.

Sample Procedures Language

To implement this policy a traffic impact analysis shall be prepared for developments which 

desire access to the highway and shall include an assessment of traffic safety impact as a key 

component of the analysis. In this analysis, CMFs are a useful tool that shall (should/may) be 

used to estimate the anticipated safety impacts of the proposed roadway modifications.

In addition to the CMFs, the HSM Part C predictive method is a valuable tool in this assessment 

process and shall (should/may) be used to compare the safety performance with or without 

proposed modifications for access to the highway.

 

11 Institute of Traffic Engineers, “Traffic Engineering Handbook, Seventh Edition,” January 2016, page 188.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 22

Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects

Preservation and maintenance is one of the final stages of the project development process. It is 

important for protecting the roadways investment and maintaining the existing transportation 

system in a state of good repair. Opportunities to implement the HSM methods include 

resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (3R) projects and can include only resurfacing and/or 

restoration projects as well as maintenance activities. Some areas where the HSM can be used 

include geometric changes, shoulder and roadside improvements, traffic control, and guidance 

enhancement, and surface condition upgrades.

Noteworthy Example

• Example Application: The Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development produced the Guidance for Safety Improvements for PRR Projects 

(LADOTD, 2010) as the policy for preservation/rehabilitation/replacement (PRR) 

projects in Louisiana. This policy was developed to ensure baseline safety improvements 

are required to be considered in the project development process. A Safety Assessment 

Process Checklist must be completed based on three years of crash data to identify 

locations with overrepresentation of crash frequency or crash types for each PRR

project. The HSM is listed as a resource to complete this safety assessment. Source: 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, “Guidance for Safety 

Improvements for PRR Projects,” 2010. See http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/

Divisions/Engineering/Road_Design/Systems_Preservation/Documents/Guidance%20for

%20Safety%20Improvements%20for%20PRR%20Projects%2009_30_10.pdf. 

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department that 3R projects are designed and constructed with due 

consideration of appropriate levels of traffic operations, safety, and maintenance. All 3R 

projects shall include an estimate of the safety benefits of the proposed treatments. The HSM

shall (should/may) be used to estimate the safety impacts. The safety impacts of the treatment 

shall be included in the project documentation.

Sample Procedures Language

To implement this policy, when completing the safety assessment for the 3R project 

documentation and dependent on the scale of the project, the HSM Part C predictive method 

and/or CMFs shall (should/may) be used to evaluate the proposed project for funding.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 23

In addition, if safety countermeasures are considered for inclusion in the 3R project, the HSM

Part C predictive method and/or CMFs shall (should/may) be used to evaluate the safety 

performance of these countermeasures, and the results of the analysis shall be included in the 

project documentation.

ROADWAY SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Many if not all States have documented policies and procedures for implementing the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). These policies and procedures provide information on the 

State safety project selection and prioritization process, crash-cost estimates and benefit/cost 

analysis methodology (including project service life), and forms for applying for State HSIP

funds. States also develop a variety of manuals for explaining how to conduct safety 

investigations that support the HSIP process. The roadway safety management process shown 

in figure 1 is the traditional approach taken to safety investigations. Methods in the HSM

advance the roadway safety management process by providing quantifiable, repeatable, reliable 

results for each step in the roadway safety management process. Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, 

Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Washington all have included HSM methods or 

software consistent with the HSM as part of their policy and procedures for HSIP management 

and implementation.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 24

Network 

Screening

Diagnosis

Select 

Countermeasures

Economic 

Appraisal

Prioritize 

Projects

Safety 

Effectivenss 

Evaluation

Figure 1. Chart. Roadway safety management process.

(Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.) 

Noteworthy Examples

• Example Application: The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) 

HSIP policy states that AASHTOWare Safety Analyst is used to prioritize HSIP projects 

and requires that cost effectiveness and expected reduction, in the form of a CMF or 

crash frequency, be tracked for all HSIP projects. Source: New Hampshire Department 

of Transportation, “Highway Safety Improvement Program: Manual and Guidance,” 

December 2013. See http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/

hwysafetyimprovements/documents/hsip_nhguidance_122013.pdf.

• Example Application: The Washington State Department of Transportation design 

manual states that the tools available for use in selecting recommended countermeasures 

include the HSM, AASHTOWare Safety Analyst, Road Safety Assessments (RSA), HSM

prediction models, and the CMF Clearinghouse. Source: Washington State Department 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

 25

of Transportation, Engineering and Regional Operations Development Division, Design 

Office, “Design Manual,” (M22 01.12 November), 2015. See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/

publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/321.pdf.

• Example Application: The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) HSIP 

policy requires that the latest CMFs presented in the HSM and the CMF Clearinghouse 

be applied to estimate the expected safety benefits of various countermeasures. Source: 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation, “Planning, Implementation, and Program 

Effectiveness of Rhode Island’s Highway Safety Improvement Program—Fiscal Year 

2013.” 2013. See http://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/community/safety/

Highway_Safety_Improvement_Program.pdf.

• Example Application: The Illinois Department of Transportation HSIP recommends the 

HSM Part C predictive method and CMFs as tools for evaluating safety projects. Illinoisspecific safety performance functions (SPF) and calibration factors are available. Applicants 

must use benefit/cost analysis and CMFs from the HSM or the CMF Clearinghouse to 

demonstrate effectiveness of projects. Source: Illinois Department of Transportation, 

Highway Safety Improvement Program, 2015. http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportationsystem/local-transportation-partners/county-engineers-and-local-public-agencies/fundingopportunities/highway-safety-improvement-program. 

• Example Application: The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) HSIP

guidance recommends a B/C ratio at or above 2.0 based on acceptable CMFs and an 

accurate total project cost estimate. In all cases, 1.0 is the minimum acceptable B/C ratio. 

Source: Indiana Department of Transportation. “Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Local Project Selection Guidance,” March 2013. See www.in.gov/indot/files/

LocalHSIPProjectSelectionGuidance.pdf. 

• Example Application: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) HSIP

policy indicates before-and-after studies of safety improvement projects compare various 

features and characteristics of the subject location before construction and after. 

Information derived from the evaluation process, such as reliable CMFs and an evaluation 

of the efficacy and benefits of projects, are critical to the planning process and to the 

success of the HSIP in Arizona. Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, 

“Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual,” May 2015. See https://www.azdot.gov/

business/engineering-and-construction/traffic/traffic-safety/arizona-highway-safetyimprovement-program. 
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

26

Sample Policy Language

It is the policy of the Department to use HSM methods to quantify safety performance as part 

of the State roadway safety management process and HSIP process to reduce fatal and serious 

injury crashes. 

Sample Procedures Language

To implement this policy, activities within the HSIP process shall include network screening, 

diagnosis and countermeasure selection, economic appraisal, predicted changes to crash 

frequency and severity, and project prioritization. The HSM shall (should/may) be used to 

evaluate safety performance in the following manner: 

• HSM chapter 4—Network Screening methods shall (should/may) be used to prioritize 

sites for specified safety improvements. To the extent available data permit, a network 

screening performance measure that accounts for regression-to-the-mean bias shall 

(should/may) be used.

• HSM chapter 5—Diagnosis and chapter 6—Countermeasure selection shall (should/may) 

be used in the improvement evaluation process to study crash patterns and contributing 

factors and identify potential countermeasures to reduce crash frequency or severity. When 

project characteristics allow, the HSM Part C predictive method shall (should/may) be used 

to evaluate the safety impacts of alternatives under consideration. Anticipated changes in 

crash frequency and severity, as determined by the HSM Part C predictive method and/or 

CMFs, shall be used as a factor in project selection or prioritization. 

• HSM chapter 7—Economic Appraisal provides methods that shall (should/may) be 

used for estimating economic impacts (benefits and costs) of alternative treatments and 

selecting or prioritizing improvements using benefit/cost (B/C), net present value, or cost 

effectiveness analysis.

• HSM chapter 8—Project Prioritization methods shall (should/may) be used within this 

programming process if considering implementation of countermeasures over a roadway 

system or with multiple locations.

• HSM chapter 9—Safety Effectiveness Evaluation shall (should/may) be used to evaluate 

the effectiveness of improvements implemented using HSIP funds.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

27

The Department provides safety analysis tools that shall (should/may) be used for these 

evaluations. The tools are consistent with the principles and methodologies within the HSM. 

There are a number of commercially available products, products developed by States, and 

products developed by FHWA that can be used.

SUMMARY

Although State DOTs have made good progress in implementing HSM concepts and methods 

within the safety management processes, expanding the reach of the HSM into other DOT

processes such as planning and programming, project development, operations, and 

maintenance has been limited. To address an identified impediment to progress, the States 

participating in the HSM Implementation Pooled-Fund Study identified the need for a 

compilation and synthesis of existing State policies and development of sample policy and 

procedures language covering a range of activities in which use of the HSM would be beneficial. 

The sample policy and procedures language is presented as an adaptation from noteworthy 

examples of existing language or applications in State DOT policies and manuals. Research for 

this informational report identified noteworthy State DOT examples covering a wide range of 

agency practices. These examples do not address all of the practices where the HSM could be 

used in the State DOTs, however. The sample language presented is based on processes for 

which some States already have language and/or processes or Pooled Fund Study States 

specifically requested sample language.

The sample policy language within this report provides State DOTs with an opportunity to 

develop policy language directing the use of the HSM in specific agency activities. To further this 

effort, the sample procedures language contains more descriptions, advice, and information of the 

HSM methodologies that State DOTs can use as a template for their own procedures documents.

For States in which the process of integrating the HSM into typical agency practices has been 

slower than desired, the information presented will provide a starting point that can accelerate 

efforts to develop and adopt policies and procedures to support implementation of the HSM. 

The sample language is intended to serve as a template that State DOT staff could adapt for use 

in their policies and manuals. State DOT staff can tailor the sample language to fit their agency’s 

goals and objectives to expand implementation of the HSM.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

28

CASE STUDIES

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Implementation Pooled Fund Study States also requested 

information on how other States went about incorporating HSM-related language into their 

policy and procedures documents. This section presents as case studies the approaches taken 

by Louisiana and Washington. 

LOUISIANA12

In Louisiana, the traffic safety effort is driven by the State’s “Destination Zero Deaths” mission, 

and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is the vehicle to achieve this mission.

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development developed Louisiana’s SHSP in 

partnership with the Louisiana State Police (LSP) and the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission 

(LHSC). The plan identifies infrastructure and operations as one of the four emphasis areas the 

HSM as an important strategic guide. Specifically, the HSM implementation steps were identified 

as the following:

• Develop an Implementation Plan for adopting the HSM as a guideline for Louisiana 

Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) project safety analysis.

• Conduct HSM training courses to ensure practitioners are able to integrate the HSM

into daily project.

• Planning, programming, and engineering activities.

• Evaluate and compare State crash, roadway, and traffic volume data availability to HSM

data needs.

LADOTD safety staff determined that the support of the 

Department of Transportation and Development 

(DOTD) leadership was an essential component for 

successful implementation of the HSM within the DOTD

business units. Successful implementation also depended 

on having a champion within the agency who was 

 

12 Interviews with April Renard, LADOTD, May 26, 2016 and Dan Magri, LADOTD, June 9, 2016.

With the Secretary’s complete support 

and the business unit leaders of the 

HSM Implementation Team focused 

on using the HSM...“it was accepted 

this is the way we do it now. This 

thought guides the institutionalization 

of the HSM in its use and in our 

policies.” – Dan Magri, LADOTD
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

29

committed to the HSM implementation effort and to promoting use of the HSM at all levels of 

the agency. For LADOTD, the Highway Safety Administrator is the HSM champion. In addition, 

the LADOTD Secretary provided support for HSM integration into the agency’s business units. 

High-profile fatalities generally capture executive staff attention, especially when stakeholders 

contact the Secretary. Any time the Secretary needed information on a particular fatal crash, 

LADOTD safety staff took the opportunity to speak about the SHSP and Destination Zero 

Deaths initiatives. The Secretary supported these initiatives by assigning district employees to 

participate in regional safety coalitions throughout the State. In addition, the Secretary spoke of 

safety as LADOTD's number one priority and took the opportunity to address safety with 

engineering as a part of a multidisciplinary approach. Today, the LADOTD includes safety in the 

Department’s vision and mission statements and views the HSM as a vital component in fulfilling 

the vision and mission to improve safety in Louisiana.

Given the Secretary’s interest in safety and involvement with American Association of State 

Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), she was named as the chair of the AASHTO

Safety Management Subcommittee. As the subcommittee’s leader, she recognized the evolution 

in the science of safety and supported the effort to fully implement the HSM in the LADOTD

and nationally.

As specified in the SHSP, LADOTD established an HSM Implementation Plan and an HSM

Implementation Team comprised of representatives from the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), and several 

business units within LADOTD.

After AASHTO published the HSM in the spring of 2010, LADOTD, with the support of 

FHWA, conducted its first two HSM training courses in October 2010 to ensure practitioners 

were able to integrate the HSM into project planning, programming, and engineering. Following

this initial training, two additional training sessions were conducted, one in December 2010 and 

one in April 2011.

An important aspect of the implementation process 

was the use of the HSM on the I-12 to Bush project. 

The Army Corps of Engineers asked LADOTD for 

input on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

regarding the potential safety performance of the different proposed alignments. This effort 

showed the benefits of the HSM and created agency enthusiasm and engagement regarding the 

use of the HSM throughout the agency.

“The use of the HSM grew organically 

from a single project to widespread 

use and continues to grow with 

fundamental changes to policies and 

manuals.” – April Renard, LADOTD
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

30

Together, these factors allowed for continued and supported growth in the implementation of 

the HSM. For LADOTD, using the HSM preceded and informed changes to the supporting 

policy and guidance documents. As the HSM use grew incrementally with project development, 

the HSIP, and the design exception process, HSM-based policy and guidance language evolved 

and continues to be incorporated in these types of document. It is recognized by LADOTD

leadership that continued institutionalization of the HSM requires the HSM-based language be 

an explicit component of its current policy and guidance documents.

WASHINGTON13

In 2000, Washington State was the first State in the U.S. to adopt a zero-deaths based 

philosophy by creating the Target Zero initiative. As a leader in early adoption and innovation, 

the State was one of the first to consider implementation of the HSM across its planning, 

programming, and project development process.

According to the Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the vision of Target Zero is 

to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero by 2030. For this effort, the Washington 

State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) partnered with the Washington State Patrol 

(WSP) and Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) and other organizations throughout 

the State.

In conjunction with Target Zero providing a vision for 

traffic safety, WSDOT recognized that safety was only 

one aspect of its entire program and tradeoffs would 

be necessary given the budget constraints that the 

department faced. Accordingly, WSDOT launched 

several initiatives to implement the principles of 

“practical solutions.” Practical solutions focused on designing projects based on performance of 

design criteria for the context and needs of a given location while limiting right-of-way and 

environmental impacts. These initiatives centered on decisionmaking processes that were data 

driven and performance based, including quantitative safety analysis and evaluating risk of crashes. 

For WSDOT, several significant components emerged, leading to incorporation of HSM-based 

language in critical documents, in particular the Design Manual, as well as the following:

 

13 Interview with John C. Milton, Washington State Department of Transportation, June 8, 2016.

“Within the Department, need provides 

opportunity. With HSM language in our 

policies and guidance documents 

regarding our approach to quantifying 

safety performance, we are able to 

highlight implementation and use of 

the HSM.” – John C. Milton, WSDOT
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

31

• AASHTO publication of the HSM in 2010.

• Federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation (FAST) Acts.

• Secretary’s Executive Order E 1085, Sustainable Highway Safety Program.

• Secretary’s Executive Order E 1096, Agency Emphasis and Expectations.

• Secretary’s Executive Order E 1090, Moving Washington Forward: Practical Solutions.

Sustainable Safety is an approach to transportation safety at WSDOT that uses “...tools and 

procedures based on accepted science, data, and proven practice” in accordance with 

Secretary’s “Executive Order E 1096, Agency Emphasis and Expectations,” to target safety 

needs and “deliver the right solutions at the right time and at the right location.” Practical 

Solutions is an approach to making project decisions that focuses on resolving the project need 

for the least cost without adversely impacting safety performance. Sustainable Safety is the 

approach adopted for resolving safety performance issues within WSDOT’s Practical Solutions 

as directed in both E 1096 and the Secretary’s “Executive Order E 1090, Moving Washington 

Forward: Practical Solutions.”14

Throughout this undertaking, WSDOT recognized that it is necessary to have an internal 

champion who is responsible for leading HSM implementation. The Director of Quality 

Assurance and Transportation System Safety accepted this role, along with partners in planning, 

programming, design, and traffic operations. In addition, as evidenced by the Secretary’s Executive 

Orders, there is strong executive leadership and support for the HSM within the organization.

At the time of HSM publication WSDOT did not implement formal training on the HSM. The 

agency did, however, develop pilot courses for quantitative safety analysis, and now more 

formal training is being deployed. This effort included HSM training, sustainable safety, and

human factors training. This training effort will augment the success WSDOT realized through 

small and deliberate HSM implementation steps and growing skills through on-the-job 

application of quantitative safety analyses.

For WSDOT, this confluence of the HSM publication and Secretary’s Executive Orders allowed 

for near simultaneous change in all manuals and guidance while initiating implementation of the 

HSM. Within WSDOT, updating the Design Manual was a significant contribution to the 

 

14 Washington State Department of Transportation, Design Manual M 22-01.12, November 2015, page 321-1.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

32

institutionalization and widespread use of the HSM throughout the agency. The support of the 

Chief Engineer, State Design Engineer, State Traffic Engineer, and the Director of Multimodal 

Planning was critical to this success.

SUMMARY

Several common themes were identified in the course of the review of these two State’s 

programs that may provide guidance to other States implementing the HSM and incorporating 

HSM-based language into State DOT policies and guidance documents.

Theme 1—Zero-Deaths Based Plans, Strategies, and Strategic Highway Safety Plans

The HSM provides a science-based data-driven safety-performance-based approach to achieve 

the vision of reaching zero deaths and to support the SHSPs. An essential component of this 

effort is to continually drive HSM implementation and institutionalization of the HSM by 

incorporating language in supporting policy and guidance documents.

Theme 2—Champions for Highway Safety Manual

A dedicated champion for implementing the HSM and guiding the changes in manuals and policy 

is important. In addition, executive-level support and leadership across agency business units 

provides for greater success in integrating the HSM into the agency’s processes and 

incorporating it into policies and guidance.

Theme 3—Need Provides Opportunity

In both States, small implementation steps led to success with the HSM; however, the process 

to include HSM-based language in policies and manuals differs for each. For Louisiana, 

incremental HSM implementation led to incremental changes in policy and guidance. In 

Washington, large-scale changes in philosophy and direction, including the use of HSM, led to 

widespread change in manuals and executive orders. The inclusion of HSM-based language in 

these documents sets the stage for institutionalization of the HSM.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

33

APPENDIX

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL TOOLS

The section “Sample Language” of this document referenced several Highway Safety Manual 

(HSM) tools. The following list identifies these tools and provides links to obtain more 

information about these tools and their uses.

Table 1. Highway Safety Manual tools.

Tool Link

AASHTOWare Safety Analyst http://www.safetyanalyst.org.

Interactive Highway Safety Design 

Model (IHSDM)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/projects/safety/com

prehensive/ihsdm/

Interchange Safety Analysis Tool 

enhanced (ISATe) http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/tools_sub.aspx#2

Highway Safety Manual

spreadsheets http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/tools_sub.aspx#2

Crash Modification Factor

Clearinghouse http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

SOURCE INFORMATION AND LINKS

The section “Sample Language” of this document listed specific State Departments of 

Transportation documents as sources accompanying a noteworthy example. The following list 

identifies the sources of information used in this informational report. A source may be shown 

in more than one category.
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

34

Planning and Programming

Long-Term Transportation Planning

State Resource Link

Ohio Department of 

Transportation (ODOT)

Access Ohio 2040 http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisi

ons/Planning/SPR/StatewidePlanni

ng/access.ohio/Pages/default.aspx

Near-term Transportation Planning and Programming

State Resource Link

Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT)

Safer Roads Index http://www.idot.illinois.gov/trans

portation-system/safety/

roadway/index

Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and 

Development (LADOTD)

Highway Safety Manual 

Project Applications 

fact sheet

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_

LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/

Highway_Safety/Misc%20Docum

ents/Louisiana%20Fact%20Sheet

%20Project%20Map.pdf

Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT)

Smart Scale http://www.virginiahb2.org/about

/default.asp

http://www.virginiahb2.org/docu

ments/hb2_planning_level_cmfs

_201508_final.pdf
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

35

Engineering and Design

Preliminary Engineering—Project-Level Traffic Impact Analyses

State Resource Link

Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT)

Design Manual. M 22 01.12 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publica

tions/manuals/fulltext/M22-

01/320.pdf

Preliminary Engineering—Access Justification Reports

State Resource Link

Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT)

Interchange Access Request 

User’s Guide

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning

/systems/programs/SM/intjus/pdfs/

Final2013IARUG.pdf

Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT)

Revised Interstate Access 

Approval

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/asset

s/uploads/files/doingbusiness/manuals-split/designand-environment/bdemanual/chapter%2037%20interch

anges.pdf

Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT)

Design Manual. M 22 01.12 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publica

tions/manuals/fulltext/M22-

01/550.pdf
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

36

Design Process

State Resource Link

Georgia Department of 

Transportation (GDOT)

Design Policy Manual 

Revision 4.10

http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSm

art/DesignManuals/DesignPolicy/

GDOT-DPM.pdf

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (PennDOT)

District Highway Safety 

Guidance Manual. 

Publication PUB 638 (12-14)

www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsfo

rms/Publications/PUB%20638.pdf

Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT)

Design Manual. M 22 01.12 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publica

tions/manuals/fulltext/M22-

01/321.pdf

Design Exceptions

State Resource Link

Missouri Department of 

Transportation (MoDOT)

Design Exception Process http://epg.modot.org/index.php?t

itle=131.1_Design_Exception_

Process

Ohio Department of 

Transportation (ODOT)

Design Controls and 

Exceptions

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divi

sions/Engineering/Roadway/Desi

gnStandards/roadway/Pages/locat

ionanddesignmanuals.aspx

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (PennDOT)

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation Design 

Manual. Publication 10X 

(DM-1X). Appendix P 

Design Exceptions

https://www.dot.state.pa.us/publi

c/PubsForms/publications/pub%2

010/Pub10X_Cover.pdf
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

37

Operations and Maintenance

Traffic Operations—Intersection Control Evaluation

State Resource Link

Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT)

Design Manual. M 22 01.12 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publica

tions/manuals/fulltext/M22-

01/1300.pdf

Delaware Department of 

Transportation (DelDOT)

2015 Traffic Design Manual http://deldot.gov/information/pu

bs_forms/manuals/traffic_design/

2015/2015_chapter_4.pdf#searc

h=traffic%20design%20manual

Traffic Operations—Traffic Impact Analyses

State Resource Link

New York State Department 

of Transportation (NYSDOT)

Traffic Impact Study for 

Department of 

Transportation (DOT)

Projects

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/

engineering/design/dqab/dqabrepository/

Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects

State Resource Link

Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and 

Development (LADOTD)

Guidance for Safety 

Improvements for 

Preservation/rehabilitation/r

eplacement (PRR) Projects

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_

LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/

Road_Design/Systems_Preservat

ion/Documents/Guidance%20for

%20Safety%20Improvements%20

for%20PRR%20Projects%2009_3

0_10.pdf
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

38

Roadway Safety Management Process

State Resource Link

Arizona Department of 

Transportation (ADOT)

Highway Safety 

Improvement Program 

Manual

https://www.azdot.gov/business/

engineering-andconstruction/traffic/trafficsafety/arizona-highway-safetyimprovement-program

Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT)

Highway Safety 

Improvement Program

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/trans

portation-system/localtransportation-partners/countyengineers-and-local-publicagencies/fundingopportunities/highway-safetyimprovement-program

Indiana Department of 

Transportation (INDOT)

Highway Safety 

Improvement Program 

Local Project Selection 

Guidance

www.in.gov/indot/files/LocalHSIP

ProjectSelectionGuidance.pdf

New Hampshire Department 

of Transportation (NHDOT)

Highway Safety 

Improvement Program: 

Manual and Guidance

http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/proje

ctdevelopment/highwaydesign/h

wysafetyimprovements/documen

ts/hsip_nhguidance_122013.pdf

Rhode Island Department of 

Transportation (RIDOT)

Planning, Implementation, 

and Program Effectiveness 

of Rhode Island’s Highway 

Safety Improvement 

Program—Fiscal Year 2013

http://www.dot.ri.gov/document

s/community/safety/Highway_Saf

ety_Improvement_Program.pdf

Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT)

Design Manual. M 22 01.12 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publica

tions/manuals/fulltext/M22-

01/321.pdf
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

39

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Additional documents referencing the HSM were discovered in the research for this 

informational report and may provide valuable information for the development of guidance, 

procedure, or policy language for agencies.

Highway Safety Manual User Guides

State Resource Link

Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT)

2015 FDOT Highway Safety 

Manual User Guide

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/

11A-SafetyEngineering/

TransSafEng/strategicplandocs/2

015FDOTHSMUserGuide.pdf

Georgia Department of 

Transportation (GDOT)

Applying the HSM to 

Georgia

http://g92018.eosintl.net/eLibSQL14_G92018_D

ocuments/12-15.pdf

Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT)

American Association of 

State Highway 

Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) Highway Safety 

Manual Illinois User Guide

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/asse

ts/uploads/files/transportationsystem/memos-&-letters/safety/

hsm_il_userguide_11062014.pdf

Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and 

Development (LADOTD)

Highway Safety Manual 

Project Applications

http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside

_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimoda

l/Highway_Safety/Misc%20Docu

ments/Louisiana%20Fact%20She

et%20Project%20Map.pdf

Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NVDOT)

Nevada Project Safety 

Process

http://www.zerofatalitiesnv.com/

wp-content/uploads/2015/10/

Nevada_PSP_HSM_2015.pdf
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

40

Strategic Highway Safety Plans

State Resource Link

Nebraska Department of 

Roads (NDOR)

Nebraska Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan

http://www.transportation.nebr

aska.gov/traffeng/shsp/shspcurrent.pdf

South Dakota Department of 

Transportation (SDDOT)

South Dakota Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan

http://www.sddot.com/transpor

tation/highways/traffic/safety/do

cs/FinalSHSP.pdf

Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT)

Virginia 2012—2016 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/r

esources/va_2012_shsp_final.pdf

Systemic Safety Guidelines

State Resource Link

Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT)

Illinois Systemic Safety 

Improvements Analysis, 

Guidelines and Procedures

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Asse

ts/uploads/files/TransportationSystem/Manuals-Guides-&-

Handbooks/Safety/Systemic%20

Safety%20Improvements%20An

alysis,%20Guidelines%20and%20

Procedures.pdf

Analysis Procedure Manual

State Resource Link

Oregon Department of 

Transportation (ODOT)

Analysis Procedure Manual 

Version 2

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/

TD/TP/APM/APMv2_Ch4.pdf

Design Exception

State Resource Link

South Dakota Depart of 

Transportation (SDDOT)

South Dakota Design 

Process

http://www.sddot.com/business/

design/docs/rd/rdmch02.pdf
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

41

Practical Design

State Resource Link

Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT)

Practical Planning and Design 

Leads to Low-Cost 

Transportation Solutions

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/public

ations/fulltext/LegReports/Pract

icalDesignReport.pdf

Design Manual—Points of Access

State Resource Link

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (PennDOT)

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation Design 

Manual. Publication 10X 

(DM-1X). Appendix Q 

Points of Access

https://www.dot.state.pa.us/publ

ic/PubsForms/publications/pub%

2010/Pub10X_Cover.pdf

Design Manual—Roadside Safety

State Resource Link

Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT)

Design Manual. M 22 01.12 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/public

ations/manuals/fulltext/M22-

01/1600.pdf

Design Manual—Roundabouts

State Resource Link

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WIDOT)

Wisconsin fd-11-26 http://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fd

m/fd-11-26.pdf

Intersection Decision Guide

State Resource Link

Indiana Department of 

Transportation (INDOT)

Indiana Intersection 

Decision Guide

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/ROP

_IntersectionDecisionGuide.pdf
STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON USE OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

42

Local Road Safety Manual

State Resource Link

California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans)

Local Roadway Safety Manual http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/Local

Programs/HSIP/Documents/hsip

/CA_SM4LROv11.pdf

Traffic Operations Manual

State Resource Link

North Dakota Department of 

Transportation (NDDOT)

NDDOT Traffic 

Operations Manual

https://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/

programming/docs/trafficops.pdf
For More Information:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA, Office of Safety

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

FHWA-SA-16-119

September 2016

This material is based upon work supported by the FHWA under contract number DTFH61-10-D-00020.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FHWA.