Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

Meeting Report

August 2013
Notice

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

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. 

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

contained in this document.

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

Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because 

they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality 

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

that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to 

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

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its 

programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Final report

Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

Meeting Report

Fort Worth, TX

February 13 & 14, 2013 

date

August 2013 

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-14-006

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange: Meeting Report

5. Report Date

August 2013

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Audrey Wennink

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00020

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report, June 2011 to August 2013

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

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

16. Abstract

This report documents a peer exchange held in February 2013 with 10 transportation agencies to discuss safety 

target setting methods.

17. Key Words

Safety, target, peer exchange, performance 

measures, goal

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

44

22. Price

N/A

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

Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

i 

Table of Contents

1.0 Overview ................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Safety Targets and Target-Setting Methods ..................................................... 3

3.0 Key Themes............................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Accounting for Variables not Included in Historic Data ......................... 6

3.2 Achieving Consensus/Buy-In ..................................................................... 7

3.3 Toward Zero Deaths...................................................................................... 7

3.4 Target Setting When Future Resources are Unknown ............................. 8

3.5 Organizational Structures/Relationships .................................................. 9

3.6 Institutionalizing Safety Targets .................................................................. 9

3.7 Serious Injury Targets ................................................................................. 10

3.8 Communicating Targets ............................................................................. 11

4.0 Technical Challenges .......................................................................................... 12

4.1 Geographic Boundaries .............................................................................. 12

4.2 Data Quality ................................................................................................. 12

4.3 Data Linkages and Data Sharing ............................................................... 13

4.4 Other Issues .................................................................................................. 13

Competing Priorities ................................................................................... 13

Nominal versus Substantive Safety .......................................................... 14

Technical Analysis ....................................................................................... 14

5.0 Technical Successes ............................................................................................. 15

5.1 Dedicated Safety Analysis Resources ....................................................... 15

5.2 Updated Crash Data .................................................................................... 15

5.3 Data Linkages ............................................................................................... 15

5.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis .................................................................................. 16

5.5 Local/Regional Support ............................................................................. 16

5.6 Emphasis Area Definitions ......................................................................... 17

5.7 Performance Tracking ................................................................................. 17

6.0 Stakeholder Challenges ...................................................................................... 17

6.1 SHSO and DOT Coordination ................................................................... 18

6.2 Focus on Data-Driven Process ................................................................... 18

6.3 Resistance to Adoption of Aggressive Targets ........................................ 18
Table of Contents, continued

ii

6.4 Developing and Maintaining Safety Focus .............................................. 19

6.5 Safety Funding Policies and Practices ...................................................... 19

7.0 Stakeholder Successes ........................................................................................ 20

7.1 Regional Safety Coalitions .......................................................................... 20

7.2 State Advisory and Steering Committees ................................................ 20

7.3 DOT Institutionalization of Safety ............................................................ 21

7.4 Engagement of Non-Traditional Partners ................................................ 21

7.5 Public Endorsement of Targets by Leadership ........................................ 21

8.0 Impact of Safety Target Setting on Planning and Outcomes ...................... 22

8.1 Focused Allocation of Resources ............................................................... 22

8.2 Use of Targets in Communications ........................................................... 23

8.3 Safety Targets Increase Collaboration ...................................................... 23

8.4 Safety Focus in Transportation Planning ................................................. 23

9.0 Future Directions for Safety Target Setting .................................................... 24

9.1 Potential Future Target Setting Methods ................................................. 24

9.2 Future Technical Approaches .................................................................... 24

Predictive Methods ...................................................................................... 24

Improved Consistency Among Plans ....................................................... 25

Local Safety Analysis .................................................................................. 25

Performance Measures ................................................................................ 25

Communications and Outreach ................................................................. 25

Expanded Range of Safety Advocates ...................................................... 25

Communications of Targets ....................................................................... 25

Integration of Safety Earlier in the Transportation Planning 

Process ........................................................................................................... 26

Achieving Future Progress ......................................................................... 26

MAP-21 Federal Guidance ......................................................................... 26

NHTSA .......................................................................................................... 27

10.0 Future Resource Format ...................................................................................... 27

10.1 Guidance Topics .......................................................................................... 27

10.2 Desired Format ............................................................................................. 28

10.3 Guidance Promotion ................................................................................... 28

A. Appendix ............................................................................................................... 29
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

iii

List of Tables

Table A.1 Peer Exchange Participants ...................................................................... 29

Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

1

1.0 Overview

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety hosted a Peer 

Exchange on State and regional safety target setting methods in Fort Worth, 

Texas on February 13 and 14, 2013. The Peer Exchange was one task in a larger

project designed to identify the state of the practice in safety target setting,

methods states and regions are using to set safety targets, and to develop 

guidance on safety target setting. In support of performance-based initiatives, 

FHWA has established a new Office of Transportation Performance Management 

within the Office of Infrastructure. In preparation of and response to the 

legislative requirements in the recently passed surface transportation legislation: 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), FHWA is establishing 

regulation and guidance to comply with and adopt a performance-based, 

quantitative approach to establishing safety performance measures and guidance 

in setting targets in support of those measures. 

Previous tasks in this project included: A brief literature review on target setting 

practices, which included a national and international review of safety target 

setting methods; a Technical Background Report that analyzed target setting 

methods in transportation and non-transportation agencies; research on state and 

regional approaches to safety target setting conducted via an electronic survey 

of State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), State Highway Safety Offices 

(SHSOs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs); and a review of 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP), Highway Safety Plans (HSP) and 

regional safety plans.

The purpose of the Peer Exchange was to gain further insight into current 

methods used by States, MPOs and local jurisdictions in setting safety targets, 

best practices and future needs. This information will be used to help FHWA 

develop guidance and support needed to assist DOTs, SHSOs and MPOs set 

safety targets, which is required under MAP-21. Initially, the research focused

on national safety target setting practices, as FHWA expected it would be 

required to set a national performance target for fatality reductions under MAP21. That requirement was not ultimately included in MAP-21. Therefore, the 

focus of the work has shifted to supporting States and regions in meeting MAP21 requirements. Outcomes of the Peer Exchange will provide information to 

FHWA as it develops the final rule for implementation of MAP-21, which is 

expected to be enacted in early 2015. 

The Peer Exchange identified several “key themes” important for understanding 

current practice in terms of target setting, data analysis, marketing targets, 

challenges, opportunities, etc.

In an earlier phase of this project, DOT, SHSO, and MPO staff were surveyed 

regarding State and regional safety targets and target setting methods as well as 

interest in participating in a peer exchange. For those respondents indicating 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

2 

interest in a Peer Exchange survey responses were reviewed in more detail. 

Participants were selected for invitation to the peer exchange based on the 

following considerations to ensure a representative group: 

• Approach to safety target setting; 

• Geographical distribution; 

• Agency type (DOT, SHSO, and MPO); and

• State/region population growth rates.

The ten participants were then grouped into four panels with similar approaches. 

The panels met via teleconference prior to the peer exchange to develop joint 

presentations to address their agencies’ target setting methods, challenges, 

successes, and future directions. Peer Exchange participants and their roles and 

responsibilities related to safety, as well as the agenda, are in the Appendix. 

The contractor, Cambridge Systematics, presented an overview of initial research 

results. The literature showed in countries where ambitious targets are set, 

safety improvements are achieved. Safety target setting can motivate 

stakeholders, move safety practitioners out of their comfort zones to advance the 

state of the practice, and ensure resources are targeted appropriately to obtain 

the greatest return on investment. 

Many U.S. states have adopted “Halving Fatalities” within two decades and zero 

fatalities as long-range targets. Some countries have ceased establishing national 

fatality targets and measure only progress in reducing fatalities (i.e., UK and 

Canada). Some conduct modeling to develop safety targets, such as in Australia 

and the U.K. although little is published about the modeling mechanics. When 

modeling is used, it is typically only one element in the process. Some agencies 

evaluate the effectiveness of countermeasures by reviewing all countermeasures 

under consideration to develop a forecast of the fatality reduction accomplished 

under various scenarios (i.e. Norway.) Benchmarking is also used by several 

agencies/countries (i.e., New Zealand). 

The Peer Exchange first focused on the methodologies used by states/regional 

agencies in setting their safety targets. States were asked to present information 

about their current target setting practices, including: 

• Current agency target; 

• Method used to set the target; 

• Technical challenges/successes in target setting; 

• Challenges/successes in working with stakeholders; and 

• Planned future directions for safety target setting. 

The presentations were followed by discussion of key themes, opportunities and 

challenges with respect to target setting. The following sections summarize the 

participant presentations and the interactive discussions. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

3

2.0 Safety Targets and TargetSetting Methods

Each state and region presented the current safety target and the method for its 

development. The methods used by states and regions largely fall into the 

following major categories. Often, agencies adopt more than a single approach: 

• Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) as a goal (i.e., UT and WA);

• TZD as an overarching vision with interim goals (i.e. RI, GA, PA, MI); 

• Halving Fatalities by 2030 (i.e. RI, MD, PA);

• Targets based on fatality trends (i.e., DE, Mid-America Regional 

Council); and

• Edict from a leadership committee or consensus (MI, Portland Metro

(OR)). 

The Delaware Highway Safety Office (DE SHSO) has set targets since the early 

2000s. The agency uses the 14 Governors Highway Safety Association 

(GHSA)/NHTSA performance measures, with fatalities as the top performance 

measure. The target is to decrease traffic fatalities six percent from the 2008-2010 

calendar year average of 114 to 107 by December 31, 2013. The DE SHSO relied 

on Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and State crash data to develop 

the target. 

The Agency also uses “a healthy dose of intuition” in target setting. Staff knows 

which levers to push to achieve the target and understands feasibility issues

based on years of experience. An eight-member advisory committee, including 

NHTSA and local and state law enforcement, provides advice and perspective by 

conducting a high level review of previous year activities and results. SHSO 

staff draft the Highway Safety Plan using a detailed problem identification 

process and establish a goal and potential countermeasures. The director meets 

with program managers to ensure buy-in on the goal. In May of each year the 

draft plan is presented to the advisory committee for approval.

The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), a bi-state MPO in Kansas City, 

sets a fatality target. The current target is to halve fatalities by 2040. The agency 

also tracks the fatality rate and the number of disabling injuries as part of the 

regional performance measures in its long range transportation plan but does not 

set targets for these measures. The MPO tracks fatalities and serious injuries 

because the SHSPs of the two States in which the MPO resides (MO and KS)

track them. The target-setting process involved a Long-Range Transportation 

Plan (LRTP) subcommittee that convened regularly during the plan development 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

4 

process and met with stakeholders to establish goals. The performance measures 

for each goal were developed internally by staff. 

MARC is also part of a regional safety coalition (Destination Safe), which 

includes 4E safety representatives from Kansas and Missouri. The coalition 

develops a regional safety plan, e.g., a regional version of an SHSP. In setting a 

target, the coalition chose the more aggressive rate of fatality reduction of the 

two States: Missouri, which set a 15 percent fatality reduction target over four 

years (2008-2012). Four years is a much shorter timeframe than was set in the 

LRTP (30 years). 

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) target is to reduce traffic 

fatalities from 889 in 2011 to 750 in 2016 and to reduce serious traffic injuries 

from 5,706 in 2011 to 4,800 in 2016. The target represents a 3.4 percent reduction

in fatalities per year, compared to the previous four year SHSP, which had a five 

percent annual fatality reduction target. The Michigan philosophy is to set an 

aggressive goal to motivate the State to work hard to make significant progress. 

MDOT also adopted TZD as part of its mission statement. 

Michigan set its SHSP target using five regional focus groups for its third SHSP 

update. In the previous iterations Michigan held a one-day safety summit and 

the Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Commission (GTSAC) selected the target. 

By reaching out to the regions, Michigan obtained significantly increased 

involvement in the safety target setting process. At the regional meetings, the 

SHSP team presented regional crash trend and Emphasis Area data. All of the 

regional focus groups selected essentially the same target. The target was then 

validated by additional data analysis, e.g. economic trends. 

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) established Target Zero with 

an annual two percent reduction in fatalities target. The selection of zero is not 

based on numbers or data but on a consensus that zero is the right goal. Utah 

considered historic trends, but desired a stretch goal. Utah consciously uses a 

fatality number instead of a rate because the population growth in the State 

could result in a reduced rate without reducing fatalities. Additionally, Utah 

wanted a target that is understandable by the public; Utah stresses the 

importance of understanding that public opinion cannot be underestimated. The 

Executive Safety Leadership Team coordinated goal setting among agencies. 

UDOT worked with Emphasis Area (EA) leaders to help develop targets for the 

Highway Safety Plan (HSP). For engineering EAs, the DOT established targets. 

The HSP incorporates targets from other related plans, and the process also 

involved motor carriers and transit agencies. 

In Utah, safety target setting continually evolves. Utah emphasized the ongoing

need to evaluate systems and processes to ensure the target matches the current 

environment. Utah notes it is possible targets may stay the same but the way a 

state arrives at the target may change. 

The Portland Metro (MPO) LRTP has six desired outcomes, including safe and 

reliable transportation. In 2008, Portland Metro underwent a Federal certification 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

5

review and FHWA recommended increased focus on safety. A FHWA-sponsored 

workshop was held in the fall of 2009, and since then Metro has convened a 

Regional Safety Workgroup, which developed the MPO’s 2035 RTP performance 

target, the State of Safety in the Region report, and the Regional Transportation 

Safety Plan. Metro’s target is to reduce by 50 percent the number of pedestrian, 

bicyclist, and motor vehicle fatalities plus serious injuries by 2035, corresponding 

to the “halving fatalities” approach. 

The Maryland SHSO (MD SHSO) has adopted TZD, with emphasis on

“Toward”. The State has also adopted Halving Fatalities by 2030. The safety 

target is to reduce the annual number of traffic-related fatalities by 3.1 percent 

per year, from 592 in 2008 to fewer than 475 by December 31, 2015. From 2007 to 

2011 fatalities dropped 3.2 percent annually even though VMT did not decline 

much during economic recession; therefore the future target is based on similar 

rate of reduction. 

The State also sets injury and serious injury targets. The injury target is 

developed using the annual ratio of fatalities to total and severe injuries and 

applying those ratios to the 2030 fatality goal. For example, the MD SHSO

calculated an annual ratio of fatalities to total injuries of 0.011 (based on 8 years 

of data). The agency then applied the ratio of 0.011 to the 2030 fatality goal 

(reduction from 592 deaths in 2008 to 296 deaths in 2030) to determine expected 

number of injuries. This resulted in a 44 percent decrease in total injuries from 

2008 to 2030, and an annual reduction of 2.6 percent. Annual interim targets are 

set through 2015.

The Rhode Island DOT adopted Toward Zero Deaths with an interim goal to 

halve fatalities and serious injuries by 2030, for an annual reduction of 3.2 

percent annually. Therefore the fatality target setting method is adoption of 

halving fatalities with a long term vision of reaching zero fatalities.

The Washington State DOT adopted Target Zero by 2030 for fatalities and 

serious injuries. The State’s philosophy is: what would be the right number if it 

were not zero? Target Zero has been a long-term goal for Washington, and is

now in its fourth iteration. 

To establish interim targets, Washington used the Holt Method of statistical 

analysis, which is a linear regression to forecast data into the future by weighting 

the near term years heavier than the out-years. Washington has looked at five 

and 10 year trends. The state has also plotted a straight line trend from the 

present number of fatalities to zero. Standard deviation from the trend line is 

used to report a range of what the data should show in the near-term. 

Washington may change the target setting process again to develop upper and 

lower controls in the range.

The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) adopted TZD as its vision, emphasizing 

“Toward.” The target is Halving Fatalities by 2030, using a rolling five year 

average. PennDOT uses a decentralized structure as most statewide targets 

represent the combined efforts of 11 engineering districts. Each district develops 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

6 

its own safety plan, with PennDOT determining the overall safety targets. 

Districts range from having significant support for the target to expressing some 

resistance. Approximately 84 percent of Pennsylvania’s fatalities occur on state 

roads and 16 percent on local roads. While the majority of Pennsylvania’s safety 

programs are dedicated towards addressing state-owned facilities, PennDOT has 

also instituted a number of programs to improve safety on local roads through 

the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). Pennsylvania has established 

goals within Emphasis Areas, which added together exceed the goal because of 

overlap among the Emphasis Areas. 

The Georgia DOT (GDOT) and the SHSO obtained SHSP Leadership approval to 

adopt AASHTO’s goal of reducing the fatality rate to 1.0 per 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled by 2008. Georgia’s share of the goal was calculated at four percent, 

or 40 fatalities per year. Seeking to exceed the goal, Georgia chose a reduction of 

41 fatalities per year as its annual target. Georgia has selected TZD as an 

overarching vision. While Georgia has reduced its fatality level to nearly 1,000 

and seeks to get it below 1,000, the State decided against establishing a target to

“get below 1,000” to reduce confusion since it uses TZD.

Georgia is measuring rural and urban performance separately but not setting 

targets for each. Each SHSP Task Team estimated the impacts of its proposed 

countermeasures using nationally accepted crash reduction factors. 

3.0 Key Themes

The key themes presented below were derived from the presentations and 

discussions at the Peer Exchange. 

3.1 ACCOUNTING FOR VARIABLES NOT INCLUDED IN 

HISTORIC DATA

Many factors may play a role in development of future safety targets. As trends 

and policies change and technology advances, past trends may not accurately 

predict what will occur in the future. For example, emerging trends such as the 

flattening of VMT nationally, reduced driving by the younger population, and 

changes in population growth trends may result in different types and locations 

of crashes. As vehicle technology evolves and more vehicles with advanced 

safety features enter the fleet, both how safety is addressed and the targets set for 

fatalities and other safety measures will necessarily change. 

It is important to be careful about assumptions when relationships between 

datasets are analyzed throughout the processes of setting a target. Non-safety 

trends may not be predictive of safety results. For example: 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

7

• Utah has had a strong economy, growing population, and an increase in 

young drivers, but fatalities have gone down, a condition that violates 

most assumptions we make about safety; 

• In Georgia during the years (2008-2009) when the State had large drops in 

crashes (9-14 percent per year) the VMT was stable or increased slightly. 

Again, we tend to assume an increase in VMT results in an increase in 

crashes, i.e. increased exposure. 

3.2 ACHIEVING CONSENSUS/BUY-IN

Key themes regarding obtaining buy-in on targets include: highlighting the 

feasibility of low-cost safety strategies, considering external audiences, 

collaboration among key safety agencies, and using existing safety organizational 

structures. 

Participants noted the importance of not presenting to stakeholders the concept 

that to achieve a target will take a massive amount of resources, as this can create 

resistance to setting or adopting an ambitious target. It is important to emphasize 

that many low-cost approaches can improve safety. Engineering alone will not 

reduce fatalities to zero. It is necessary to get the public’s buy-in to change 

behavior. To emphasize the daily relevance and importance of safety to the 

public, it is useful to communicate impactful safety messages on an ongoing 

basis. For example promotion of the daily traffic death tally – “zero deaths 

today” on dynamic message signs has been effective in several states. Another 

option is to promote the number of days into the year without a fatality or to 

publicize counties without fatalities. 

The DOT and SHSO in a State should collaborate closely on setting the target and 

developing and implementing strategies to achieve the target. SHSOs have an 

ability to engage partners to which they provide funding for behavioral safety 

programs, while DOTs typically focus on working with engineering partners. 

Both agencies should play an active role. 

Existing structures for safety collaboration at the state level have been effective at 

bringing together diverse stakeholders and supporting collaborative progress 

toward a safety target. The traffic records coordinating committees (TRCC) 

required in each state have helped engage many safety stakeholders in ongoing 

efforts to improve the quality of data needed for problem identification; 

selecting, evaluating, and prioritizing effective solutions; and progress tracking. 

One area for improvement, however, is to ensure outputs of the TRCC strategic 

plan are aligned with the SHSP needs. 

3.3 TOWARD ZERO DEATHS

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) has been adopted by the FHWA Office of Safety. 

Many states have selected TZD or a variation, such as Zero Deaths or Zero 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

8 

Fatalities. For example, Utah and Washington selected zero as an actual goal, 

while most other states have adopted it as a vision statement without a specific 

date for achievement. It is easier to get support for zero as an overarching vision 

statement than as a specific target with a date. States that have adopted TZD as a 

goal tend to do so because they believe if they do not set a zero fatalities target 

they will never achieve zero fatalities. Additionally, some believe no other choice 

is appropriate; any number other than zero implies tolerance of a certain number 

of deaths.

An example of adoption of a zero fatalities target by the private sector is Volvo’s 

recent claim that by 2020 no person will die in one of their cars. It may be 

instructive for the transportation safety community to see what lessons can be 

learned from Volvo’s approach. 

To encourage States and regions to set zero fatalities as a goal and to motivate 

agencies to believe they can make dramatic improvements in safety, the 

Governor’s Highway Safety Association developed a compelling presentation 

about human advances and the possibility for bold change1. The GHSA

information played a role in Georgia’s executive committee adopting TZD as a 

vision. However, setting interim targets may meet with resistance without 

supporting data. 

3.4 TARGET SETTING WHEN FUTURE RESOURCES ARE 

UNKNOWN

Many states struggle with the balance between setting aggressive targets, which 

demonstrate commitment to saving lives but may not be achievable, and setting 

less ambitious but more achievable targets that tolerate higher numbers of lost 

lives. In some areas of transportation, ambitious targets are set without 

knowledge of future resources, such as mode share shifts and transit ridership 

increases. If the U.S. adopts the more ambitious target at the national level, other 

stakeholders, such as auto manufacturers, may be more likely to step up with 

additional resources. Incentives could be offered to industries to increase 

attention to safety. 

On the flip side, if states set very aggressive targets and do not reach them, it 

could demoralize stakeholders. Failure to meet targets could result in a lack of 

confidence in agencies’ ability to deliver on their promises.

 

1 http://www.ghsa.org/html/issues/files/pdf/reauth/2011.03.26.lifesavers.pdf. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

9

3.5 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES/RELATIONSHIPS

Formalized safety roles and responsibilities of DOTs, SHSOs and MPOs and 

information for leadership are needed so each agency’s contribution to achieving 

a safety target is clearly defined. Formalizing agency safety roles communicates 

the responsibilities to partner agencies, and establishes strong working 

relationships so effective programs last through administration changes. 

Stakeholders must ensure safety is a priority at multiple levels within 

organizations and among external audiences. The location of safety staff on 

agency organizational charts is a reflection safety’s priority within an agency. 

Safety is more likely to be given a high priority, despite many competing 

imperatives, when safety practitioners have access to high level agency decision 

makers. Key safety stakeholders include DOT executives, elected officials who 

form MPO leadership, staff who execute programs, and the public, which elects 

the public officials.

3.6 INSTITUTIONALIZING SAFETY TARGETS

To ensure safety targets remain in place over the long term, they must be 

adopted by multiple individuals and departments and integrated throughout 

agency programs. This can be achieved by integration of safety into agency 

processes and staff performance evaluations, developing ongoing collaborative 

structures, and integrating proven safety practices into design guidance. 

Institutionalization of a commitment to safety processes ensures that when 

leadership moves on, and institutional knowledge and experience leave an 

agency, a mechanism is in place to ensure the mission lives on. Legacy processes 

must be developed to ensure knowledge transfer, especially given the general 

lack of workforce development programs for safety management.

One institutionalization approach is to develop a safety training curriculum for 

key stakeholders at various levels within the organization or individuals who 

interact with the agency on safety issues. For example, Washington State 

identified and is developing safety training by function and division and 

identified the appropriate training for various staff levels. The American 

Association for State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has also 

identified this need and established a workforce development effort within Goal 

5 of the Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety’s Strategic Plan, to assist 

agencies with leadership and performance.

Another approach to institutionalize safety is through staff performance 

expectations. For example, safety outcomes are a component of Utah DOT staff 

leader performance evaluations. This ensures a culture shift from focusing not 

only on pavement condition and structure ratings, but also on fatality reduction. 

By incorporating this performance measure into the staff leadership reviews, 

managers ensure staff is contributing to safety. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

10 

The larger the number of agencies and individuals that own the safety target, the

greater likelihood of continuity and success. It is important to look outside the 

champion agency and have partners take ownership of the process, so they

expand the realm of influence. To ensure ongoing engagement by members of a 

coalition, all agencies must commit to helping each other. 

Succession planning must be conducted not only for staff but also for programs, 

to ensure ongoing commitment to safety. The incorporation of safety into longrange plan targets will ensure some level of ongoing safety engagement, but 

safety also needs to be integrated into planning scopes of work and design 

guidelines/standards to become part of routine practice. 

Institutionalization of safety efforts can be ensured by establishing 

communications structures that will live on if individuals change. In one State 

the safety engineer established a regular meeting of all engineers, which is also 

attended by a communications representative. Some states have a Strategic 

Communications Alliance involving all key public information officers who 

manage ongoing coordinated safety communication efforts. To ensure long-term 

participation by regional stakeholders, it may be necessary to provide logistical 

or administrative support so regional champions do not burn out. For example, 

the Maryland SHSO uses contractors to address logistical burdens for regional 

safety coalitions. 

MPOs are driven by Federal requirements, and some believe safety 

institutionalization can only be achieved by making it a requirement. While 

performance measures are required and safety targets will be required, MPOs 

may not address safety beyond these requirements. Significant resources are 

required for an MPO to conduct ongoing data collection, sustain the 4Es of safety 

(Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency response), and fund staffing 

and marketing. Transportation operations is one example of a Federal 

requirement2 resulting in institutional structures for ongoing commitment. Once 

the Federal regulation was instituted, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

architecture became institutionalized, although it took a 15-year process.

3.7 SERIOUS INJURY TARGETS

MAP-21 requires states and regions to set serious injury targets, which some 

agencies have not addressed previously. Data quality is a significant issue as 

standardization of serious injury data is more challenging than fatality data 

because a high quality national database exists (the Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System or FARS). Significant variation in serious injury scales exists among 

 

2 A Federal Rule issued January 8, 2001 defined Intelligent Transporatation System 

Architecture and Standards: 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/its_arch_imp/docs/20010108.pdf. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

11

States so national level data is highly inconsistent. A common national approach 

is needed for producing data with an injury severity rating scale. To improve 

serious injury data, linkages will need to be strengthened between serious injury 

crash data and medical records and privacy issues will need to be overcome. 

Research efforts are currently underway, which will contribute to improvement 

in this area. 

An ultimate goal is for all hospitals to produce serious injury data that adhere to 

a national format. Participants noted that while the end product should be 

defined, States should be able to collect and clean the data in their own way. 

Some states still use the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) to link 

crash, hospital and EMS data; however, others depend only on crash reports. 

When 33 states were participating in CODES, a well-documented national 

process for preparing the data existed. Software exists to relate injury severity 

ratings (KABCO) to the World Health Organization’s Abbreviated Injury Score 

(AIS). NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) has a 

procedure for converting every State’s data into the KABCO scale. Long-term, 

crash reports might not include injury reporting because hospitals would 

provide the data. Once all States have electronic crash reporting, injury data 

could go directly into a State’s trauma registry. 

Privacy challenges exist for managing injury data given the Health Insurance 

Portability and Privacy Act (HIPPA), which results in limitations on use of 

certain data. Addressing these issues will require collaboration between State 

departments of health and DOTs, as is the case in Washington State. 

Research underway on serious injury data collection and management will 

contribute to improvements in quality and standardization. The NCHRP 20-24 

(37)K research effort involves surveying how States are collecting serious injury 

data. NCHRP 17-57 will develop a proposed method for reporting data and a 

process for moving States forward. The National EMS Advisory Council 

(NEMSAC) was established by law as a statutory advisory council under MAP21 and is continually working to improve the National Emergency Medical 

Services Information System (NEMSIS), which seeks to standardize data 

collected by EMS providers and to aggregate the data at a national level. 

3.8 COMMUNICATING TARGETS

While setting safety targets is important to reducing loss of life on the roadways, 

communicating targets is equally critical. If targets are not communicated, they 

will not be effective. The first step is to use consistent branding to successfully 

communicate targets internally throughout all affected disciplines at key 

stakeholder agencies. Once internal buy-in is achieved, the next step is to 

communicate to external audiences, such as elected officials and the public. 

Consistent branding of all communications about safety is important. Maryland 

promotes TZD with a five-minute video focusing on speeding, impaired driving, 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

12 

and safety belt use, which is used as an internal public service announcement on 

the meaning of TZD. The video is shown at all levels of internal agency meetings, 

with the governor, and with other partners, such as at law enforcement roll-call 

presentations. 

Recognizing stakeholder communications strengths and taking advantage of 

marketing and communications resources is important because not all are 

naturally strong communicators. The engineering community presents a 

communications challenge for safety stakeholders. Many are not aware most 

engineering standards have not been evaluated for safety performance, and they 

need access to this information as well as the benefits of non-engineering 

countermeasures such as enforcement and education. The flexible Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds must be invested in programs to 

achieve the greatest safety benefit with limited resources. 

4.0 Technical Challenges

Several technical challenges are associated with setting safety targets and 

methods for achieving them: shifting geographic boundaries for MPOs affecting 

baseline data, crash data quality, linking crash data with other data sets, 

competing priorities for project prioritization, nominal versus substantive safety, 

and technical analysis challenges. 

4.1 GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES

Shifting boundaries and the impact on setting goals and tracking progress is an 

issue that affects MPOs but not States. MARC is part of a regional safety 

coalition (Destination Safe) encompassing the MPO boundary plus additional 

counties for a total of 13 counties. MPO boundaries routinely change, due to 

urbanization. Therefore, changing geographies for both the MARC MPO 

boundary and the Destination Safe Coalition service area will require 

adjustments to the base year fatality levels used in setting the safety target. 

4.2 DATA QUALITY

Crash data quality is a known issue and each State’s required Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committee works to continuously improve data. Challenges vary 

by State may include unreliable data for specific crash types, incomplete location 

data, and delays in obtaining crash data, etc. 

Oregon uses self-reported crash data, which means people involved in crashes

must submit a report unless the crash involves a fatality or serious injury, in 

which case a police crash report is completed. Therefore, safety analysis can 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

13

focus only on fatal and incapacitating injury crashes because data on less severe 

crashes are unreliable.

Data completeness and timeliness can be a significant issue. In some States 

electronic crash reporting is fully implemented; however in States still manually 

entering data from paper crash reports backlogs and increased risk of error can 

occur. When crash definitions or crash report forms change, year-to-year data 

consistency is impacted. Ensuring location data is accurate can be a challenge

and different systems for determining crash locations must be reconciled. For 

example, Georgia is working to reconcile data coded in both latitude/longitude 

and milepost formats. 

4.3 DATA LINKAGES AND DATA SHARING

Few States can connect roadway infrastructure with crash data, although making 

these linkages is necessary to enable increasingly targeted safety analysis. In 

some cases, States seek to develop systems for managing all databases in a 

centralized manner, which some have found can be overly formulaic and a 

barrier to actually linking data, as has been the case in Utah. FHWA recently 

conducted a Roadway Safety Data Capabilities Assessment3 on the collection, 

management, and use of roadway safety data, which provides insight into data 

linkage improvement opportunities. 

Privacy issues can be a barrier to accessing data because of HIPPA rules, 

especially when linking crash and hospital data. Also, data owners may be 

protected only when using the data they own, as is the case in Maryland. Data 

shared with other agencies may not be legally protected.

Implementation of low cost safety and systemic improvements has substantially 

reduced fatalities in some locations and some States and regions are moving 

closer to achieving safety targets. As targets get more challenging to achieve, 

improvement will require increasingly detailed analyses to identify new effective 

improvements, which will create a demand to connect multiple data sets to 

examine precise locations of behaviors (e.g. corridors between bars where 

impaired driving is most likely).

4.4 OTHER ISSUES

Competing Priorities 

To make continued progress toward safety targets, planned transportation 

improvements must prioritize safety. Transportation projects are selected based 

on considering a number of priorities, which may include mobility, multimodal 

 

3 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/rsdp_usrsdca_final.pdf. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

14 

access, congestion reduction, economic development, and safety. While agencies 

typically claim safety is a top priority, when actually selecting projects often 

other priorities take precedence. For example, Portland Metro noted its projects 

are generally selected for other reasons than safety despite a stated commitment 

to safety. 

When safety issues are known but the fixes are costly and difficult, regions may 

avoid making improvements because safety funds alone are not sufficient to 

cover larger improvements. Participants noted there is a need to leverage other 

resources beyond safety funding to improve certain safety hot spots.

The challenge of balancing priorities also is reflected in tradeoffs during project 

design. Often reduction in congestion takes priority over multimodal safety 

considerations. Context sensitive design is resulting in some improvements as 

engineers use new design guidance, and traffic engineers are getting more used 

to making tradeoffs.

Nominal versus Substantive Safety

The issue of nominal safety (designing to current engineering standards that 

often were not based on actual safety outcomes) and substantive safety 

(designing based on known safety outcomes using tools such as the Highway 

Safety Manual) is important to making progress toward targets but continues to 

be a challenge. Most agencies continue to build only to current engineering 

standards, which is not substantially improving safety. It is critical that facilities 

be designed incorporating proven effective countermeasures, for which crash 

modification factors (CMFs) exist. The challenge is partners are often resistant to 

using methods that they perceive as varying from standard engineering practice 

due to risk management issues. 

Technical Analysis

States identified the need for assistance in developing formulas to apply to safety 

projections related to population growth, VMT changes, economic trends, and 

legislative improvements. These analyses are essential to target setting. 

States struggle to forecast outcomes for behavioral countermeasures given 

limited research in this area, which hampers target setting in behavioral areas. 

Participants note it is difficult to evaluate isolated components of public 

information and education programs and to determine what each component 

contributes individually. They suggest evaluation of packages of improvements 

such as education and enforcement activities. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

15

5.0 Technical Successes

Many States have made advances in safety data management and analysis, 

including dedicating resources to safety analysis, developing processes for more 

current crash data, linking data, conducting benefit-cost analysis, supporting 

local jurisdictions, improving Emphasis Area definitions, and tracking 

performance.

5.1 DEDICATED SAFETY ANALYSIS RESOURCES

The provision of dedicated and trained staff to conduct detailed safety analysis 

enables improved problem definition, better solution identification, and

improved target setting. For example, the DE SHSO has its own data analyst, 

and Georgia has an epidemiologist on staff in the SHSO. 

Improved processes for obtaining updated safety data contribute to safety target 

setting and tracking of progress. MARC developed a safety data task team 

including staff from Missouri and Kansas with established protocols for safety 

data requests from partner agencies. MARC shares information quarterly with 

the policy committee to track trends and change programming as needed.

5.2 UPDATED CRASH DATA

Every State and region is working toward obtaining more complete and updated 

crash data. Some States have developed their own tools to enable improved 

crash data management. For example, the DE SHSO developed a Crash Analysis 

Reporting System (CARS), which provides data in real time and more analytical 

capacity than the State Police’s reporting tool. While the state police conduct 

FARS analysis, it was limited for certain factors such as aggressive driving 

reporting and impaired driving (did not include drugged driving).

5.3 DATA LINKAGES

States are able to conduct more sophisticated problem identification and develop 

tailored solutions by linking crash data to other data systems. This becomes 

increasingly important as States get closer to achieving fatality targets and seek 

to further reduce the most challenging crashes. For example, Utah’s Traffic 

Records Coordinating Committee is actively working to provide linkages to 

citations, court records, and other datasets. Utah’s success in reducing fatalities 

is generating more interest in improved data linkages. 

Utah is using mobile Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) for roadside 

data collection and to calibrate asset data. It is possible to develop engineering 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

16 

drawings from these data and to link road inventory, geometry, and weather 

conditions with crash data; Utah also plans to add skid information (skid testing 

performed by UDOT). The maintenance and asset management groups funded 

this data collection.

5.4 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

Benefit-cost analysis provides information on which countermeasures are most 

effective at reducing fatalities and will be most beneficial in achieving a safety 

target. Utah conducts benefit-cost analysis for infrastructure projects, and 

requires linkages to the SHSP to fund projects. Utah flexes HSIP funds every 

year to fund enforcement and education programs as it has calculated a high 

return on investment (ROI) for non-engineering programs.

WSDOT evaluates each countermeasure for return on investment, and stops 

using those that are ineffective. Washington weights fatalities and injuries 

equally in calculating ROI, which is a philosophical decision to not chase 

fatalities and weight them higher. 

Target-based safety requires starting at the planning stage. WSDOT safety 

leadership is helping to evaluate tradeoffs that exist with every project decision. 

For example, in Washington stakeholders are trying to reconcile that if the State 

chooses to make a large investment, such as building a highway interchange, it is 

choosing not to use those funds somewhere else, potentially on low-cost systemic 

safety improvements on a large portion of system. Another consideration is any 

safety project implemented must be maintained over time, which is essentially 

asset management. 

PennDOT conducts significant evaluation of countermeasure effectiveness, 

calculating benefit-cost ratios for most countermeasures for which this is 

possible. As part of this analysis, PennDOT calculates the cost to save one life. 

Another way to look at ROI is to calculate what state agencies are spending due 

to costs for crashes paid by Medicare/Medicaid. Those costs can be presented to 

the public to emphasize the need for safety investment. In addition, a Crash Cost 

Calculator is available on the AASHTO website. 

5.5 LOCAL/REGIONAL SUPPORT

Given the large numbers of crashes on non-state roadways, many States are 

realizing that to achieve additional progress toward a fatality target they need to 

increase safety support of local and regional agencies. Utah is helping its MPOs 

develop crash data analysis similar to the HSIP process so they can help develop 

projects for consideration for HSIP funding.

Utah has found mapping of crash data effective in publicizing safety issues and 

helping jurisdictions better understand safety issues. UDOT has developed 

United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP) risk maps with five years of 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

17

data for State roads, which are posted on a public site. The goal is to include all 

roadways in mapping efforts soon.

While MPOs do not own or operate roadway facilities, many regional agencies 

find that their strongest role is to serve as a clearinghouse for crash data and 

analysis to support the region and local jurisdictions. A core MPO strength is the

ability to bring together key stakeholders and facilitate regional discussion of 

safety issues. 

5.6 EMPHASIS AREA DEFINITIONS

States are trying new methods of defining Emphasis Areas to ensure improved 

focus on the most serious problems and better facilitate development of targeted 

countermeasures. Compared to its previous SHSP, which had 14 Emphasis 

Areas, Maryland is now taking a different approach to streamline the number of 

Emphasis Areas. Characteristics such as vehicle type and demographic groups 

filter through each Emphasis Area (i.e. motorcycles, younger, older, etc.) but are 

not Emphasis Areas in and of themselves. 

In addition, Maryland has streamlined safety priority development. Previously 

the State established separate performance areas in its HSP, SHSP, and business 

plan. Now the SHSP is the guiding document and all related plans flow out of it.

5.7 PERFORMANCE TRACKING

Use of creative methods for tracking performance and communicating results to 

stakeholders ensures ongoing knowledge of progress and can motivate 

continued action. For example, PennDOT uses tracking dials to track 

performance quarterly. Each year the dials start off in the red, which motivates 

partners to achieve the annual goal, which is reflected by getting the dial into the 

green.

6.0 Stakeholder Challenges

Involvement by a diverse set of stakeholders is critical to advancing safety 

efforts; however coordinating with a large number of agencies and staff at 

various levels in those agencies can present challenges. Issues raised by Peer 

Exchange participants include: coordination between DOTs and SHSOs, 

maintaining focus on a data-driven process, resistance to aggressive safety 

targets, developing and maintaining a focus on safety, and funding policies and 

practices. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

18 

6.1 SHSO AND DOT COORDINATION

In many States the target setting process is not coordinated between SHSOs and 

DOTs. Research for this project showed that in about half of States, the DOT and 

SHSO have different targets, which can create confusion and negatively impact 

stakeholders’ buy-in on the safety goal. 

In most States the DOT takes responsibility for the SHSP and coordinates with 

the SHSO. However, the level of actual coordination between the DOT safety 

function, which generally takes the lead on infrastructure, and the SHSO, which 

leads behavioral aspects of safety, ranges from extremely close to having limited 

contact, particularly during the SHSP implementation phase. One factor that may 

play a role in the level of coordination is the location where SHSO is physically 

housed. In a number of States the SHSO is located in a completely separate office

from the DOT, sometimes within the law enforcement function or department of 

motor vehicle administration, while in other States the SHSO is a department 

within the DOT.

6.2 FOCUS ON DATA-DRIVEN PROCESS

While established good practice in safety is to undertake a data-driven process, 

safety stakeholders are often highly influenced by media coverage of safety 

issues, political agendas and personal perceptions about the safety problem. This 

can result in lack of focus on safety problems and solutions that will continue 

progress toward the safety target. MARC noted it finds maintaining a focus on a 

data driven versus politically driven process an ongoing challenge as often

stakeholders have perceptions of traffic safety issues not based on reliable 

research. Agencies must continually educate stakeholders on the need to use 

data to define safety problems and identify solutions. 

6.3 RESISTANCE TO ADOPTION OF AGGRESSIVE 

TARGETS

In most cases approval of the safety target occurs within a senior level steering 

committee often comprised of partner agency leadership. However, variation in 

levels of support among leadership and staff within agencies can be a challenge. 

For example, in Utah, while executive leadership bought into Target Zero, UDOT 

staff level stakeholders were resistant to choosing zero as the target, given 

feasibility concerns. Within DOT organizations, middle management is focused 

on doing; therefore, zero is a harder sell because engineers usually do not feel 

zero fatalities are possible on roads they design. Achieving culture change 

requires constant public information and pressure.

In Rhode Island, which adopted a vision of Target Zero, stakeholders initially 

expressed concern zero was not a realistic goal. RIDOT leadership was 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

19

concerned the DOT would be responsible for a majority of the actions to work 

toward achieving the target. Therefore extensive communications were required 

emphasizing that a range of agencies had responsibility for implementing the 

SHSP.

6.4 DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING SAFETY FOCUS

For some stakeholders safety is a central part of their job function but for others it 

may be an aspect they deal with on a less regular basis. Therefore, it can require 

effort to maintain a safety focus by certain departments and agencies and sustain 

continued progress toward achieving targets. For example in Michigan, the 

traffic safety office is housed within the MDOT design division. State traffic 

engineers – the middle layers of management -- mainly want to design and build 

roads, and have less interest in safety. As a result, the safety team must 

continually work to keep them engaged in safety, particularly in implementing 

substantive safety using proven safety countermeasures to work toward 

achievement of the target. 

In Rhode Island participants noted that not only is new safety-related legislation 

needed, the need to work with legislators to ensure existing laws stay in place is 

also important. For example, the primary safety belt law in Rhode Island has a 

sunset clause after three years and must be renewed. Constant vigilance is 

required to ensure this and other laws remain in effect. 

Another challenge is maintaining stakeholder and Emphasis Area team 

involvement given individuals’ multiple responsibilities.

6.5 SAFETY FUNDING POLICIES AND PRACTICES

In some States the DOT establishes policies restricting access to HSIP funds. For 

example, the Oregon State policy is to not spend HSIP funds on non-State 

roadways, which reduces the ability for urban areas to obtain safety funds. The 

only available safety funding sources in the Portland region, therefore, are

surface transportation planning (STP) and congestion mitigation and air quality 

(CMAQ) funds. 

In a few regions, efforts have been made to establish safety funding set-asides, 

but some of these have not been successful. For example, the Portland Metro 

MPO sought to take a portion of Federal STP and CMAQ funds to dedicate to 

safety but was unsuccessful as projects with economic development focus won 

out over safety. Portland has faced challenges getting policymaker buy-in to 

prioritize and fund safety.

Projects for which the Portland Metro MPO allocates dollars, including access 

management, are governed by design best practices. However, Metro has less 

influence over the extent to which local road designs account for safety when a 

local jurisdiction pays for the full cost. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

20 

7.0 Stakeholder Successes

Now that all States have developed SHSPs and stakeholders have been 

implementing a 4E process for several years, States and regions have had some 

successes in engaging a broadening range of agencies and organizations. 

7.1 REGIONAL SAFETY COALITIONS

A few MPOs have successfully developed regional safety coalitions that conduct 

safety analysis, set targets and lead implementation of safety countermeasures. 

For example, the MARC Destination Safe Coalition includes 4E stakeholders 

from Kansas and Missouri, and has successfully engaged many safety 

champions. The coalition has a dedicated budget with which it funds behavioral 

safety countermeasures. Portland Metro established a Regional Safety Work 

Group, comprised of three counties, larger cities, the State highway safety office, 

and consultants, which focuses on engineering-oriented safety efforts. 

7.2 STATE ADVISORY AND STEERING COMMITTEES

At the state level, various advisory and steering committees have been 

developed to guide SHSP development and implementation. For example, the 

DE SHSO Grant Advisory Committee is very successful in developing annual 

targets and identifying safety programming. The MD SHSO reports quarterly on 

safety progress to the Executive Council, which includes: the Motor Vehicle 

Administration (MVA), State Highway Administration (SHA), MD 

Transportation Authority; State Police (MSP), and the Maryland Institute for 

EMS Systems. Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are under development

between the MSP, SHA, and MVA to institutionalize data sharing and 

distribution. The target statements and TZD vision are being incorporated into 

each organization’s Business Plan to ensure uniformity of targets. 

Prior to development of the SHSP, Utah established an Executive Safety 

Leadership Team, which developed its own safety plan based on AASHTO’s 

1997 safety plan. Stakeholders at the leadership level were very much in 

agreement from the start on adopting TZD as a goal and a big-picture idea. 

Georgia has established a Multiagency Safety Team (MAST) comprised of the 

highest level partners including FHWA, Department of Education (DOE), 

NHTSA, the Department of Health (DOH), the liquor control board, and the

State Police. While there are too many other safety stakeholders for all of them to 

meet regularly, MAST meets quarterly in person. 

Washington State has achieved a high level of acceptance of the target and 

prioritization of safety at senior levels in many partner agencies and agency 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

21

leaders support each other’s programs. The State only implements what is in the 

SHSP and has good buy-in from stakeholders on this process.

7.3 DOT INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SAFETY

Safety is typically included as an overarching DOT goal. However, safety is often 

not fully integrated as an organizational imperative. The key is getting from 

safety expressed as a lone goal statement to full integration of safety throughout 

the culture of an agency, which has a more substantial impact on reducing 

fatalities and achieving targets. UDOT is a good example of successfully 

achieving this evolution. Historically, UDOT had identified safety as one of 

several strategic directions for the agency. However, the concept of 

transportation safety has now been rebranded more specifically as the safety 

target, Toward Zero Deaths. The strategic direction is no longer “safety” but 

“zero fatalities”, which represents a significant cultural evolution and a more 

concrete understanding of the role and impact of safety. As the fatality numbers 

have continued to decrease, UDOT staff are increasingly supportive and 

convinced that zero is achievable.

7.4 ENGAGEMENT OF NON-TRADITIONAL PARTNERS

As safety practice evolves and more stakeholders are brought to the table, some 

agencies are becoming increasingly creative in their partnership activities. For 

example, while SHSOs have always incorporated media as part of their outreach 

activities, often in the form of purchasing advertising time for public service 

announcements (PSAs), some agencies are realizing the potential of partnering 

with the media in a more proactive manner. In 2012, the largest Utah TV station 

approached UDOT seeking to become a full partner in TZD. The station has

committed to producing at least 50 stories on traffic safety over the course of 

2013 and highlighting crash impacts, as part of a campaign called, “The Road to 

Zero Fatalities”. 

Reaching out to SHSP stakeholders via regional meetings to set a safety target for 

the most recent Michigan SHSP was very effective. Through this process 

Michigan was able to engage stakeholders in very different contexts, such as

southern urban vs. northern rural, and this approach far surpassed involvement 

in previous SHSPs. 

7.5 PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT OF TARGETS BY 

LEADERSHIP

When SHSPs are adopted or safety targets set, it can be effective to use these 

benchmarks as opportunities for senior leadership to publicly express their 

support for safety. For example, the Maryland governor and chiefs of police 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

22 

signed proclamations supporting TZD. In Rhode Island the governor signed the 

SHSP in a formal ceremony that received significant media coverage. 

8.0 Impact of Safety Target 

Setting on Planning and 

Outcomes

Peer Exchange participants stated that establishment and promotion of safety 

targets does have an impact on safety outcomes. The positive results include: 

more focused allocation of resources where the greatest benefit can be achieved, 

use of targets in communications efforts, increased collaboration and increased 

focus on safety in transportation planning.

8.1 FOCUSED ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

A number of States have found the safety target provides focus for decision 

making and resource allocation. Agencies know they must invest funds in areas 

where the greatest gains will be made, despite public and political pressures. 

Agencies have increasingly shaped their processes to ensure resources go only to 

the areas of highest need. For example, the DE SHSO now conducts outreach to 

agencies where action is needed based on problem identification and no longer 

accepts unsolicited grant applications. When selecting countermeasures the DE 

SHSO finds it easier to say “no” when relying on the data. 

In 2012, MARC revised its scoring criteria for the Surface Transportation 

Program and Transportation Enhancement Program applications to raise 

awareness and elevate the importance of safety. MARC also incorporated 

additional safety components, requirements, and questions in the applications to 

encourage applicants to develop proactive approaches for safety at project 

locations. The revised criteria provide better context and connections between 

proven countermeasures referenced in the Kansas City Regional Transportation 

Safety Blueprint. 

The MARC regional safety coalition receives annual funding from two States and 

accepts grant applications for behavioral programs. The coalition uses data to 

define the greatest needs and make strategic decisions on projects to fund. In 

addition, MARC now has a program to conduct Road Safety Audits (RSAs) 

annually.
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

23

A result of safety target setting is that many States now select only proven 

countermeasures and are relying more on crash modification factors (CMFs)4. 

Safety targets influence selection of projects for many States: if a strategy is not 

in the SHSP it does not get funded. 

8.2 USE OF TARGETS IN COMMUNICATIONS

Agencies are finding that broad communication about safety targets is an 

effective way to raise the profile of safety. For example, MARC documents

progress toward safety targets in quarterly reports, which is spurring increased 

interest in safety. 

8.3 SAFETY TARGETS INCREASE COLLABORATION

With the establishment of targets, agencies are working together on program and 

project-related issues given a common vision and understanding, and they look 

for data sharing and analysis opportunities. Interactions among Engineering, 

Enforcement, Education and Emergency Medical Services are improved. 

Washington is moving toward establishing a fifth E for Evaluation, Analysis and 

Diagnosis, which the State believes will lead to better countermeasure selection 

since crash contributing factors will be better understood.

States can leverage other transportation planning activities in the State to gain 

safety benefits. For example, GDOT is using regional council contracts to 

enhance safety by requesting that regional agencies collect pedestrian counts as 

part of their regional planning work.

8.4 SAFETY FOCUS IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

When targets are always in mind, the focus on safety can be increased in general 

transportation planning processes. The change in Georgia’s safety culture is 

resulting in changes to infrastructure design. Georgia is undertaking context 

sensitive solutions, such as making pedestrian accommodations at every 

signalized intersection. The State has learned it pays off to make these changes 

early, even as areas are in the early development stages, so conflicts are 

prevented as traffic volumes grow. 

 

4 CMFs are available at the CMF Clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.com) 

and in the Highway Safety Manual.
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

24 

9.0 Future Directions for Safety 

Target Setting

The future for safety target setting will depend to some extent on how current 

practices are working. Some States have set the most ambitious target possible – 

zero – while others are more cautious. The zero fatalities target States have 

found targets motivate practices resulting in improved safety outcomes. 

However, as States get closer to zero fatalities, progress does get more difficult. 

Safety targets are to some extent different from other types of transportation 

targets, because aggressive targets are sometimes established as a way to 

motivate action and are not only a reflection of what is possible given current 

trends. 

9.1 POTENTIAL FUTURE TARGET SETTING METHODS

At the Peer Exchange safety stakeholders stated they believe linear trendsetting 

is most likely to be used in future safety target setting because that is most 

understandable. However, it may be useful to show a target range (such as a 

standard deviation) around a trend line. Federal regulation related to safety 

targets must account for the inevitable fluctuations in data. It is likely the fatality 

trend line will likely be used to set annual targets, which will maintain focus on 

the end goal. If States develop a range, most will report the high end of the target 

range to FHWA to avoid penalties for not achieving their target. The threat of a 

penalty for not achieving safety targets could force decision makers to be 

reluctant to set more aggressive goals.

Clarity is needed on whether MPO targets are expected to contribute to a State 

target. MPOs may set a target based on State targets. MPOs will likely need to 

understand regional crash trends and how they relate to the State before they set

targets. 

9.2 FUTURE TECHNICAL APPROACHES

Agencies have identified a number of approaches to improve target setting and 

transportation safety practices. 

Predictive Methods 

RIDOT seeks to use the Highway Safety Manual and the Interactive Highway 

Design Manual to conduct more predictive analysis. PennDOT is beginning to 

implement SafetyAnalyst. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

25

Improved Consistency Among Plans 

MARC seeks to better incorporate safety countermeasures identified in the 

Missouri and Kansas SHSPs into its programming process. 

Local Safety Analysis 

MARC seeks to facilitate the initiation of similar levels of safety analysis by local 

jurisdictions. Systemic safety improvements are preferred throughout the region

but local jurisdictions must follow through with implementation. 

MARC plans to conduct more GIS mapping of safety data. The MPO also plans 

to develop a pedestrian safety report and to try to normalize pedestrian crash 

data by exposure. 

Performance Measures 

MPOs and DOTs can partner better on safety, especially since MPOs are logical 

partners for development of performance measures.

As the result of a recent NCHRP pilot study in the Kansas City region focusing

on incorporating safety performance in the transportation planning and 

programming process, MARC recognized it tracks many “behavioral” categories 

but no “infrastructure” categories. MARC will include a more robust analysis of 

infrastructure-related crash types and recommended countermeasures in the 

update of its long-range transportation Plan (LRTP) Safety Chapter later this 

year. 

Communications and Outreach 

Stakeholders noted marketing and communications resources must be used to

complement safety stakeholder skill sets. Certain groups may not be as 

comfortable communicating about safety as they are practicing safety and is 

acceptable to hire marketing professionals to strengthen safety efforts.

Safety outreach to youth in Portland could be integrated with Metro’s current 

ongoing youth education program.

Expanded Range of Safety Advocates 

Participants noted an opportunity exists to leverage elected officials’ public role 

in preserving and improving quality of life in their communities. Elected

officials should take more responsibility for traffic safety as part of the obligation

to the communities they serve. Engaging new advocates is part of the safety 

marketing effort.

Communications of Targets

The choices made in use of language can play a major role in effectively 

communicating safety concepts. For example, MARC consciously uses 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

26 

“disabling” injuries versus serious injuries for greater communications impact. 

Similarly, targets using absolute numbers are more easily communicated to the 

public than fatality rates. 

Participants emphasized that culture change is critical and influencing the public 

is a critical part of the equation. The media can be used more effectively by being

proactive versus reactive. 

Integration of Safety Earlier in the Transportation Planning 

Process 

Many problems impacting safety occur at a planning level. Promises regarding 

future projects are often made that cannot be kept. If problems are caught early, 

solutions with better results can be developed.

Achieving Future Progress 

Although the State of Washington has made much progress toward zero 

fatalities, difficult issues still remain: for example, it will be a challenge to reach

the three percent who do not wear seatbelts, which account for 40 percent of fatal 

crashes, and the 40 percent of fatal crashes involving driving under the influence 

(DUI). Highly targeted efforts will be needed to effect additional improvements. 

Urban and rural safety problems and solutions are different. Sometimes 

different funding sources are used for urban and rural safety improvements. 

Participants noted there is a need for a more efficient way to track progress, such 

as an automated web-based system. 

MAP-21 Federal Guidance 

The group recapped some of the key MAP-21 safety provisions and their 

expected impacts on safety practice. MAP-21 requires U.S. DOT to establish 

performance measures. Known measures that will be required are: 

• Fatality and serious injury rates; and 

• Number of fatalities and serious injuries. 

States will be required to set targets within one year of the final guidance, and 

MPOs will need to set targets six months after States. 

According to the NHTSA Interim Final Rule released on January 23, 2013, for FY 

2014 and thereafter, HSP and HSIP reports need to have the same targets, and 

they feed into SHSP targets. The rule notes, “NHTSA intends to collaborate with 

other DOT agencies to ensure there are not multiple measures and targets for the 

performance measures common across the various Federal safety programs.” 

Ultimately, it is likely – and would be desirable – for all three plans to have the

same targets. 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

27

The NHTSA Interim Final Rule requires that annual targets be set and that in the 

HSP States report progress toward achieving targets. Currently, most States have 

long-range targets established via their SHSPs. All SHSOs already set annual 

targets in their HSPs. The FHWA regulation has not yet been released.

MAP-21 establishes new provisions in the event safety deteriorates on High Risk 

Rural Roads (HRRR) or among older drivers in a State. If the fatality rate on 

rural roads increases over a two-year period, a State must obligate funds for 

projects on HRRRs at least 200 percent of the FY09 HRRR program. If fatalities 

and serious injuries per capita for road users over 65 increase during a 2-year 

period, a State must include strategies in its subsequent SHSP, considering Older 

Driver Handbook recommendations. 

The law requires that U.S. DOT determine if States have met or made “significant 

progress” toward achieving their safety targets. If States do not meet or make 

significant progress they will be required to take the following actions:

• Obligation authority equal to prior the year HSIP apportionment will be 

permitted for use only for HSIP projects; and

• An annual safety implementation plan will be required describing actions 

the State will take to meet targets. 

State Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans now will have to set a target. The Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) is establishing a new safety office and every transit 

agency is now required to develop a safety plan. 

NHTSA 

Discussion touched on a few aspects of NHTSA safety recommendations. 

NHTSA requires safety targets to be evidence based. NHTSA’s recommendation 

is to develop performance measure calculations using three and/or five-year 

moving averages. If three-year averages are used it is possible to see emerging 

areas faster, but it is a good idea to perform calculations for multiple time 

periods. States are encouraged to use more measures than core required

NHTSA/GHSA measures. Many States track other EAs for which core measures 

do not exist. 

10.0 Future Resource Format

Participants contributed perspectives on what formats for resource materials or 

training they have found to be most useful. 

10.1 GUIDANCE TOPICS

The overarching message on communications about safety target setting should 

be a precise definition of the specific requirements and some methods for 
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

28 

achieving success. States would like guidance on how to account for the 

overlaps between crash types/Emphasis Areas. States need information on how 

to account for changes in population, VMT and economic conditions in safety 

forecasts. Support is needed for developing successful methods to communicate

targets to effect culture change.

10.2 DESIRED FORMAT

Peer Exchanges are beneficial when designed with individual breakouts and 

targeted topics so participants can attend the sessions most relevant to them, 

such as at the Chicago SHSP event. However, Peer Exchanges have limitations 

because few people from each State have access and they are costly.

Participants said a suite of tools is most useful so each agency/individual can 

select what works to meet their needs. The range of formats could include:

• Written guidance;

• Peer exchanges;

• PowerPoint deck templates;

• Videos including interviews documenting best practices; and

• Webinars;

o Co-sponsorship by the Governors Highway Safety Association 

(GHSA) and AASHTO is desirable.

10.3 GUIDANCE PROMOTION

Key forums for promoting the guidance include:

• MPO consortia in each State. It may be useful to focus on larger MPOs 

with greater capacity.

• GHSA annual meeting. Potentially FHWA could keynote the event. The 

joint GHSA/ SCOHTS SMS luncheon could address common safety 

issues.
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

29

A. Appendix

Table A.1 Peer Exchange Participants

Participant Agency Safety Role/Responsibilities

State/Region Jeff Roecker Pennsylvania DOT Highway safety and traffic operations, manages 

SHSP, tracks HSIP funds. 

State/Region Joshua 

Naramore

Portland Metro (MPO) Leads safety program and Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality (CMAQ) program. 

State/Region Kim Lariviere MI DOT Implements SHSP within DOT. 

State/Region Jana Simpler DE SHSO Director of SHSO (housed separately from DOT); 

team member for SHSP implementation. 

State/Region Tom Gianni MD SHSO Director of SHSO (housed separately from DOT); 

SHSP is managed by SHSO. 

State/Region Kathy Zahul GA DOT State traffic safety engineer, leads SHSP.

State/Region Stephen 

Lachky

Mid America Regional 

Council (MPO)

Transportation planner, bicycle/pedestrian, safety 

programming, manages LRTP performance 

measures. 

State/Region Sean 

Raymond

RI DOT Traffic management and highway safety, HSIP, 

SHSP engineering. 

State/Region John Milton WA DOT Director of enterprise risk and safety management 

(there is no traffic safety office). Reports safety 

performance measures quarterly to Governor and 

cabinet. Chairs TRB highway safety performance 

committee.

State/Region Robert Hull UT DOT Director of traffic and safety for UT DOT. Oversees 

Zero Fatalities effort and SHSP, administers HSIP 

funds. 

FHWA Heather 

Rothenberg

FHWA Office of Safety, 

Office of Integration

FHWA Shira 

Bergstein

USDOT Office of the 

Secretary Office of Policy

FHWA Chris Chang FHWA Office of 

Performance Management

FHWA Georgia 

Chakris

NHTSA Region 8 

Administrator

FHWA Frank Marrero NHTSA Regional Program 

Manager for TX

Consultant 

Team

Susan Herbel Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Consultant 

Team

Audrey 

Wennink

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

30 

Safety Target Setting

Peer Exchange Agenda

February 13-14, 2013

Fort Worth, TX

Day 1 – February 13, 2013 

Time Topic Presenters 

9-9:15 a.m. Welcome and Federal Perspective Keith Williams, FHWA

9:15-9:45 Project Overview

Initial Research Results 

Objectives of Peer Exchange

Susan Herbel, Audrey Wennink 

Cambridge Systematics

9:45-10:45 Panel 1

Linear trends for safety target setting 

Jana Simpler, DE SHSO

Stephen Lachky, Mid America 

Regional Council (MPO)

10:45-11:00 Break

11:00-12:00 Panel 2

Target setting by leadership group, 

committee or consensus

Joshua Naramore, Portland Metro 

(MPO)

Robert Hull, UT DOT

Kim Lariviere, MI DOT 

12:00-1:30 Lunch

1:30-2:30 Panel 3

Adoption of Halving Fatalities or Zero 

Fatalities

Tom Gianni, MD SHSO

John Milton WA DOT

Sean Raymond, RI DOT 

2:30-3:30 Panel 4

Alternative Approaches to Target Setting

Jeff Roecker, PA DOT

Kathy Zahul, GA DOT 

3:30-3:45 Break

3:45-4:45 Discussion All

4:45–5:00 Wrap Up Cambridge Systematics
Safety Target Setting Peer Exchange

31

Day 2 – February 14, 2013

Time Topic Presenter 

8:30-9 a.m. Review of Key Themes from Day 1 Cambridge Systematics

9:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m. Potential Target Setting Approaches Cambridge Systematics

9:30-10:30 a.m. Discussion All

10:30–10:45 a.m. Break

10:45-11:45 a.m. Discussion All

11:45 a.m. Wrap Up and Next Steps Keith Williams

Noon Adjourn


U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590 

www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov 

August 2013 

FHWA-SA-14-006