Table of Contents

Case Study 1 – Strategic Highway Safety Plan Involvement...... 3

Case Study 2 – Crash Mapping Analysis Tool ............................ 7

Case Study 3 – HSIP Application Guidance Document ........... 11

Case Study 4 – HSIP Application Preparation Assistance........ 15

SECTION I: 

Resources and Information

Source: FHWA
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 3

CASE STUDY 1 – 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan Involvement

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL

Problem

A local agency has not participated in statewide safety planning efforts. The 

agency would like to participate but is unsure how to begin.

Noteworthy Solution 

A state DOT’s collaboration with local agencies who have successfully implemented safety measures 

is critical to planning efforts. Frequently, local agencies are not sufficiently engaged during project 

identification and development to effectively implement the recommended measures. This case study 

shows how North Dakota DOT (NDDOT) and New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) are addressing this issue by 

including commitments in their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to:

» Encourage local agencies to develop safety practices.

» Increase the level of engagement of local agencies in statewide planning.

» Increase available resources for safety on local roads. 

The first step is to identify existing commitments related to local agency participation. These are often 

listed in the state’s SHSP. When reviewing the SHSP, a few questions to ask are: 

» Does the state SHSP have data documenting the distribution of crashes across the state and 

local system? 

» Is there a discussion of how local road safety fits into the total statewide effort? 

» Is there a commitment to engage local agencies in statewide safety planning? 

If this information is provided in the state SHSP, the local agency can contact the SHSP program 

coordinator to ask for information about how to participate in the safety planning process and develop 

safety practices. If not, the local agency can contact the state’s SHSP program coordinator and advocate 

for local agency input to the next SHSP. An agency may offer to participate as either a member of 

an Advisory Committee and/or a representative of a statewide association of counties, cities, or 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

To increase the level of involvement, local agencies should collect updated data, participate in training 

and development, and request technical assistance and implementation support. A state DOT’s 

commitment to increasing available resources for local road safety may include providing:

» Funding to support implementation of projects along local road systems (including, but not limited 

to, HSIP funds).

» Training and technical support for local agency staff.

» Accountability and performance measures to ensure funding and projects are correctly allocated 

and managed.

» Information about roadway safety issues to local practitioners. 
4

NJDOT has provided training on using the Highway Safety Manual and preparing 

contract documents. Between 2013 and 2014 NJDOT funding for local roads increased 

from less than $4 million (2013) annually to an average of $25 million (based on 

a comparison of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 HSIP reports [FHWA, 2013; 2014; 

2015;  2016]).

NDDOT provided technical assistance and funding to prepare safety plans for 

53 counties and 12 cities in the state of North Dakota. In Fiscal Year 2017, the 

state allocated approximately 35% of its HSIP funding to support safety project 

implementation on local roads. In previous years, the allocation was only 2%.

CASE STUDY #1: STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN INVOLVEMENT

The following examples show NDDOT’s and NJDOT’s commitment to local road safety. 

NDDOT SHSP 

As stated in the North Dakota SHSP, NDDOT successfully implemented and documented safety practices. 

“The statewide Highway Safety Improvement Program will include all roads by increasing the level of 

engagement of local highway agencies in the HSIP. The specific steps that NDDOT will take to increase the 

level of participation by local agencies includes the following:

» Prepare safety plans for local systems around the state.

» Dedicate significantly more HSIP funds to improvements on local systems where the majority of fatal 

and injury crashes occur.

» Investigate and identify future data needs to support on‐going participation by local agencies in the 

HSIP (for example, traffic volumes, traffic‐control device inventories, video logs, etc.).

» Identify and then remove the barriers for local participation in the statewide HSIP, such as the current 

practice of deducting any HSIP award from the current formula driven distribution of federal aid.

» Identify needs and then provide safety training to local agency staff” (NDDOT, 2013). 

NJDOT SHSP

NJDOT has increased available resources by committing funding and training/technical support to local 

agencies. The SHSP states, “(NJDOT)...supports safety on local systems through the dedication of HSIP 

funds and by providing technical assistance” (NJDOT, 2015).

NJDOT has also incorporated a system for accountability and performance measures to ensure projects 

are correctly approved and managed. For example, local safety projects must be approved by a 

Technical Review Committee, made up of representatives from MPOs and staff from NJDOT’s Local Aid, 

Environmental Services, and Safety Programs. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also 

sits on the Committee as a non-voting member. Once the project is approved, NJDOT holds recurring 

meetings to track the project’s progress and outcome.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 5

References

1. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013. New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement 

Program 2013 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2013/nj.pdf.

Accessed November 6, 2018. 

2. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement 

Program 2014 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2014/nj.pdf.

Accessed November 6, 2018.

3. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement 

Program 2015 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2015/nj.pdf.

Accessed November 6, 2018.

4. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement 

Program 2016 Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2016/nj.pdf.

Accessed November 6, 2018. 

5. New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). 2015. New Jersey Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/pdf/2015strategichighwaysafetyplan.pdf. 

Accessed July 27, 2017. 

6. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2013. North Dakota’s Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. September. 

Local Agency Action Items

NDDOT and NJDOT have successfully increased local agency participation 

in safety planning through close collaboration and engagement. To become 

engaged, a local agency could: 

» Review the current SHSP to identify existing commitments applicable to 

local roadways and agencies. 

» Participate in the respective state’s 

SHSP update process. A first step 

could be to contact the state’s 

SHSP coordinator to request 

more information and 

discuss opportunities for 

participation.

» Collaborate with or become a 

member of organizations such 

as NACE, the MPO, state and 

county engineer organizations, 

professional societies, and Advisory 

Committees to champion safety 

planning efforts. 

Relevant Contacts

North Dakota

Shawn Kuntz

North Dakota Department

of Transportation

(701) 328-2673

New Jersey

Daniel Lisanti

New Jersey Department

of Transportation

(609) 530-5742
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 7

CASE STUDY 2 – 

Crash Mapping Analysis Tool

Problem

A lack of accessible/user-friendly data prevents local agencies from 

participating in statewide safety planning efforts. 

Noteworthy Solution 

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) developed the Minnesota Crash Mapping 

Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) to increase the accessibility and user-friendly features of its crash 

data. MnDOT’s Division of State Aid for Local Transportation partnered with the Minnesota 

Local Road Research Board and the Minnesota County Engineers Association to develop the 

analysis tool. MnCMAT is a web-based application that provides 10 years of crash data for 

public roads in Minnesota. Individual crashes are spatially located along public roadways and 

up to 67 pieces of information are provided for each crash. 

MnDOT’s original computer-based crash record system was used for more than 40 years and 

used reference points to locate features along a linear element. In addition to providing a 

location for each crash in the state, more than 15 data elements were documented from the 

investigating officers’ crash reports, including: 

» Highway system (state, county, city, and township).

» Route. � Crash causation.

» Reference point. � Weather.

» Date, day, and time. � Road characteristics.

» Severity. � Driver conditions.

The data output was provided to local agencies in response to requests for crash data. 

However, few local agencies used the data regularly because the output was not considered 

user friendly.

The concept of a crash mapping analysis tool was first developed in the 1990s by the Iowa 

DOT and Iowa State University’s Center for Transportation Research and Education. Following 

a demonstration of the desktop-based mapping tool at a county engineer’s peer exchange 

in 2006, MnDOT (with funding support from county engineers) and the Local Road Research 

Board modified the mapping tool to a web-based application meeting the crash data needs 

of Minnesota. 

MnCMAT is currently used by Minnesota’s city and county engineers, law enforcement, and 

other traffic safety experts to conduct analyses across state and local roadways. Users have 

access to crash data in multiple formats in addition to macroscopic (large scale coverage plus 

trends and statistics) and microscopic (small scale coverage showing crash details) analyses.
Figure 2-1. Examples of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool Filters

8 CASE STUDY #2: CRASH MAPPING ANALYSIS TOOL

Key features include:

» Filters that allow analysts to select specific crash data elements—such 

as severity, type, roadway condition, driver conditions, and contributing 

factors (Figure 2-1).

» A multi-dimensional stacking function that shows locations with multiple 

crashes and uses colors to differentiate crashes by level of severity 

(Figure 2-2).

» Visual analysis tools including (Figure 2-3):

– Charts.

– Maps.

– Reports.

– Data files.

Local Agency Action Items

MnDOT has successfully developed a web-based system that improves crash 

data accessibility and analysis capabilities. To expedite the development of 

similar platforms, a local agency could:

» Check with state DOT and university research centers about the 

availability of similar tools.

» Identify data needs (agencies need support with data retrieval, 

management, or analysis) to understand what is essential for using webbased crash data.

» Partner with other local agencies and collectively request that the state 

DOT create web-based systems to access and analyze crash data.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Mark Vizecky

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation

(651) 366-3839

General

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation – State Aid for 

Local Transportation

(651) 296-3000
Figure 2-3. Examples of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool Reporting Capabilities

Figure 2-2. Stacking Function of the Crash Mapping Analysis Tool

References

1. Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). Crash Mapping Analysis Tool.

https://iowadot.gov/crashanalysis/cmatmain.aspx. Accessed April 2015.

2. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/crashmapping.html. Accessed April 2015.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 9
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 11

CASE STUDY 3 – 

HSIP Application Guidance Document 

Problem

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding application 

process is a barrier for local agency staff due to the information 

required, a lack of prior experience with the process, limited 

resources, and competition for limited funds.

Noteworthy Solution 

A funding process that considers the constrained resources of local public agencies and 

simplifies the funding applications is critical to enabling local agencies access to HSIP funds. 

One solution is to provide guidance to local agencies to help them successfully complete 

the application. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation’s (NHDOT) HSIP 

Manual and Guidance (2013) document is a good example of this approach.

The purpose of the Manual is, “to provide documentation and guidance to NHDOT staff 

and other safety stakeholders involved with implementing the HSIP in New Hampshire.”

The Manual was developed by an HSIP Committee directed by NHDOT staff and includes 

representatives from NHDOT, U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), local state 

agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and regional development 

commissions.

The HSIP Manual and Guidance document includes an overview of key principles of New 

Hampshire’s HSIP, including (NHDOT, 2013):

» The HSIP funding process directs resources to projects that are most likely to achieve 

results (crash reductions).

» The HSIP is data driven and directs safety funds to the most effective treatments at 

the locations with the greatest needs.

» Funding decisions are based on prioritization and identify projects with the greatest 

return.

» Safety funding is provided to projects that address Critical Emphasis Areas (CEAs) 

identified in New Hampshire’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) (NHDOT, 2012). 

For example, crashes involving animals is an eligible CEA activity in MAP-21, but not 

in New Hampshire’s current SHSP. As a result, HSIP funds would not be allocated for 

that purpose.

» HSIP funds are reserved for standalone projects targeting specific, high-priority safety 

needs whereas other federal funds are eligible to support and leverage the program 

for routine safety features and design elements. For example, providing safety 

features—such as guard rails, paved shoulders, and auxiliary turning lanes—that are 

generally included as part of a larger federal-aid project should be included in funding 

for the larger project, not HSIP. 
12 CASE STUDY #3: HSIP APPLICATION GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

The Manual also describes NHDOT’s three-step HSIP selection process 

(NHDOT, 2013).

1. Eligibility

» Targets CEAs identified in the SHSP.

» Specifies a need for data-driven solutions with benefit/cost ratios greater 

than 1.

» Identifies candidate locations through network screening for high crash 

(fatal and serious injury crashes) or high risk (systemic assessment) and 

presents the results of road safety audits.

2. Prioritization 

» Results of an incremental Benefit/Cost Analysis consider:

– Value of expected safety benefits.

– Countermeasure effectiveness.

– Construction. 

– Maintenance costs and service life.

3. Optimization

» Optimizes available funding to implement the most effective projects. 

» Allows program managers to adjust a prioritized list of projects based on 

project risk, completion date, and level of reduction for serious crashes. 

NHDOT considers projects that are quick, low-cost, have minimal 

environmental and right-of-way impacts, and are expected to make significant 

improvements in safety to be the most effective. Even though systemic and 

non-infrastructure projects may not have all the data required, the HSIP 

Committee uses best judgment in fairly and equally evaluating them alongside 

projects with the necessary data. To help with this evaluation, the Manual 

includes the one-page Application Spreadsheet (Appendix B) that local 

agencies can use to provide the required information, including:

» Requesting agency and contact. 

» Site description.

» Crash data. 

» Traffic data. 

» Improvement description. 

» Economic evaluation (cost/benefit ratio, net benefits, and estimated 

annual fatal and severe injury crash reduction).

In addition, the NHDOT created a Highway Safety Improvement webpage 

(https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/

hwysafetyimprovements). Local communities and local agency staff can use 

this site to obtain additional information and guidance on the HSIP process 
Relevant Contacts

New Hampshire

Michael Dugas

New Hampshire Department

of Transporation

(603) 271-2604

michael.dugas@dot.nh.gov

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 13

in New Hampshire (request forms, links to FHWA requirements, and the 

HSIP Manual). 

Results

The availability of the HSIP Manual has increased the local agency level of 

engagement in New Hampshire’s statewide safety planning. Currently, 10% of 

HSIP projects are implemented on the local system. 

Local Agency Action Items

NHDOT has successfully resolved the funding application process barrier. To 

streamline its HSIP application process, a local agency could:

» Identify state DOT resources through the HSIP application process. 

Agencies can coordinate with the state’s HSIP manager to identify 

available resources.

» Collaborate with or become a member of such organizations as 

DOT, FHWA, local agencies around the state, MPOs, state and county 

engineer associations, advisory committees, and regional development 

commissions to share resources and best practices.

References

1. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2012. Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan.https://www.nh.gov/dot/projects/documents/2012_2016_strategic_highway_safety_

plan_single_pages_suitable_for_printing.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018. 

2. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2013. Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Manual and Guidance. https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/

projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements/documents/hsip_

nhguidance_122013.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018. 

3. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). 2017. Highway Safety 

Improvement webpage. https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/

highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements. Accessed August 17, 2017. 
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL 15

CASE STUDY 4 – 

HSIP Application Preparation Assistance

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES MANUAL

Problem

Local agencies implement few Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP)-funded safety projects because project funding applications are seen 

as too complex and difficult.

Noteworthy Solution

To increase local participation in the HSIP process, the Minnesota and North Dakota DOTs developed 

Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs) for each of the state counties (Refer to Case Study 10 for detailed 

information). To expedite project development, they provided local agencies with the HSIP project forms 

and required data for projects identified in the two state safety plans (approximately 14,000 specific 

actions at individual locations in Minnesota [Leuer, 2016, pers. comm.] and 3,000 actions in North 

Dakota [Kuntz, 2016, pers. comm.]). The project forms included the required information to describe the 

safety program for the funding application (Figure 4-1):

» Name of the submitting agency.

» Project description.

» Location information.

» Overview of crash data.

» Risk factors.

» List of safety strategies considered.

» Selected strategy and estimated implementation cost. 

Local agency staff and DOT HSIP manager feedback on this successful program indicated:

» The application process is simple and encourages local agency participation.

» State DOT effort is reduced because returned applications are more consistent and complete. 

Local participation in the North Dakota HSIPs increased after agencies received additional assistance 

(Kuntz, 2016, pers. comm.). In Minnesota 85% of the counties have secured HSIP funding for at least one 

project directly through the assisted applications (Leuer, 2016, pers. comm.).

Local Agency Action Items

Minnesota and North Dakota DOTs have successfully provided local agencies with HSIP project forms 

and relevant data. Local agencies facing complex HSIP funding applications could:

» Contact the state DOT to identify available HSIP application resources.

» Collaborate with other local agencies to standardize and streamline application instructions. 

» Identify opportunities to modify application requirements. 
Image Source: NDDOT, 2017

16 CASE STUDY #4: HSIP APPLICATION PREPARATION ASSISTANCE

Figure 4-1. HSIP Project Form Example

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PROGRAM JUNE 2015

CHAPTER 5: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

TR0414151003SEA 5-5

23 USC 409: NDDOT Reserves All Objections

Figure 5-4

Title: HSIP Segment Project Form

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) PROJECT APPLICATION

North Dakota Department of Transportation Programming

SFN 59959 (06-2011)

Agency Name: Bottineau County 4

Contact Name: Ritchie Gimbel 701-228-3698

Email Address: ritch.gimbel@co.bottineau.nd.us

Please attach a location map(s). You may use additional sheets to further describe your project.

Location Description

Start: Intersection with 98th St NE Lane Width: 12'

End: Intersection with ND 43 Speed Limit: High

Facility Type: 2-Lane Shoulder Width: 0'

ADT: 606 Shoulder Type: None

Road Type Rural Paved Rumble Installed: No

Length (miles): 10.4 Oil Project: No

County Road: No Designation

Local Name:

Describe Current Safety Issues & Systemic Ranking Review

North Dakota Crashes, 2009 - 2013 5 years

Total Road Dept K+A

Crashes 31 19 2

Density (per mile per year) 0.60 0.37 0.04

Rate (per MVM) 2.70 1.65 0.17

Value Critical Road 

ADT Range 606 450≤ADT≤1000000 

RD Density 0.365 0.054 

Access Density 10.7 8.0 

Curve Critical Radius Density 1.536 0.130 

Edge Risk 2 2 or 3 



Describe Proposed Safety Improvements

Description Type Cost per mi Mileage Cost

4" Edge Lines Proactive $1,320 0.0 $0

6" Edge Lines Proactive $1,980 0.5 $1,030

Edge Rumble Strip Proactive $5,850 9.9 $57,798

Ground In Wet-Reflective Markings Proactive $36,000 0.0 $0

Center Line Rumble Strip Proactive $3,600 0.0 $0

6" Center Line Proactive $1,020 0.0 $0

Project Cost Estimate (attach detailed copy) Proposed Year of Construction

Federal Funds $52,945 

Local Match (10% of Total project cost) $5,883

Total Project Cost $58,828

NDDOT Central Office Only

Project Accepted? Reference Number ID Number

Notes

Page: 2

23 USC 409 Segment ID: 503.01

NDDOT Reserves All Objections Date: 3/18/2015

Notes - 

13th Ave NE from Intersection with 98th St NE to Intersection with ND 43

ND DOT District:

Telephone Number:

SHSP Emphasis Area (check all that apply)

Reduce Alcohol Impaired Driving

Increase the Use of Safety Restraints for all Occupants

Younger Driver/Older Driver Safety

Curb Aggressive Driving

Improvements to Address Lane Departure Crashes

Enhancing EMS Capabilities to Increase Survivability

Improve Intersection Safety

13th Ave NE

Yes No

References

1. Kuntz, Shawn, North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2016. 

Personal communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

2. Leuer, Derek, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2016. Personal 

communication with Howard Preston/CH2M HILL.

3. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). 2017. Local Road 

Safety Program. https://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/safety/docs/LSRP/VIEW_

CentralRegion_Agency_BottineauCounty.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018.

Relevant Contacts

Minnesota

Derek Leuer 

Minnesota Department 

of Transportation

(651) 234-7372

North Dakota 

Shawn Kuntz

North Dakota Department 

of Transportation

(701) 328-2673