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

A Compendium of State and 

Regional Safety Target Setting 

Practices

date

July 2013 

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-14-008

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

4. Title and Subtitle

A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

5. Report Date

July 2013

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Audrey Wennink, Elaine McKenzie

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 July 2013

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

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

16. Abstract

This report documents state and regional safety targets, methods, data used, and target consistency. The 

document includes a fact sheet on each state and region’s target setting practices.

17. Key Words

Safety, target, performance measures, goals, 

transportation

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

174

22. Price

N/A

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

A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

i 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Results ...................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Existence of a target ....................................................................................... 5

3.2 Type of Target ................................................................................................ 6

3.3 Methodologies for Target Development .................................................... 6

3.4 Safety Targets Degree of Ambition ........................................................... 20

3.5 Achievement of Safety Targets .................................................................. 22

3.6 U.S. DOT Resources Used or Planned for Setting Targets ..................... 28

3.7 Support Desired for Safety Target Setting ............................................... 28

4.0 Compendium Fact Sheets ................................................................................... 31

4.1 Fact Sheet Organization and Methodology ............................................. 31

A. Survey .................................................................................................................. A-1

A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

iii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 State Safety Targets ................................................................................... 11

Table 3.2 MPO Safety Targets .................................................................................. 19

Table 3.3 State Target Annual Percentage Reduction in Fatalities ..................... 20

Table 3.4 Regional Target Annual Percentage Reduction in Fatalities .............. 22

Table 3.5 Rates of Fatality Target Achievement Using the Actual Fatality 

Comparison and Projected Fatalities Method ....................................... 25

A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

v 

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Existence of Statewide Safety Targets ...................................................... 5

Figure 3.2 Types of State/Regional Targets ............................................................... 6

Figure 3.3 Number of Methodologies Used in Developing State/MPO 

Target ............................................................................................................ 7

Figure 3.4 Types of Methodologies Used to Set State/MPO Safety Target .......... 8

Figure 3.5 Target Feasibility Testing by Jurisdictions (States and MPOs) ............. 9

Figure 3.6 Consistency between DOT and SHSO Targets ..................................... 19

Figure 3.7 Target Achievement as Compared to Actual Fatality Data from 

2011 and Prior Years ................................................................................. 23

Figure 3.8 Projected Target Achievement Using Fatality Projections in the 

Target Year ................................................................................................. 24

Figure 3.9 U.S. DOT Safety Resources Used or Planned ........................................ 28

Figure 3.10 FHWA Support Desired ........................................................................... 29

Figure 4.1 Example Fatality Trend Figure Single Year Fatality Trend; 2013 

Target Year .................................................................................................. 33

Figure 4.2 Example Fatality Trend Figure 2 Five-Year Average Fatality 

Trend; 2030 Target Year .............................................................................. 33

A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

1

1.0 Introduction

A primary objective of this Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety

(FHWA) study to develop a Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target 

Setting Practices is to document the state of the practice in setting safety targets. 

The study identifies and documents the targets set, as well as the data, resources, 

and methods used by agencies to set safety targets. The documentation sources 

include a survey and review of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) and 

Highway Safety Plans (HSP). The research also provides insight about the consistency of safety targets among State agencies, the level of ambition in target 

setting, success in reaching safety targets, and resources needed to improve 

methods. 

Over the years, various safety targets have been encouraged at the national level. 

To some extent the target a State is using may be a reflection of the year it set the 

target and which approach was being promoted at the time. Most recently, in 

2009, Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety was 

established, based on input at a national strategic highway safety planning 

workshop. The previous target set in May of 2007 by the American Association 

of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Board of Directors was 

halving fatalities in two decades. This replaced the AASHTO target set in 2003 to 

reduce the national fatality rate to no more than 1.0 fatalities per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). The Governors Highway Safety Association 

(GHSA) supports a goal of zero deaths. 

Section 4.0 contains fact sheets documenting safety target setting practices by

each State and region for which data were available. 

A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

3

2.0 Methodology

On October 1, 2012, a survey about safety target setting methods was distributed 

on behalf of FHWA to representatives of the State Highway Safety Offices

(SHSO) and Departments of Transportation (DOT) for all 50 States, Puerto Rico, 

and the District of Columbia. Each State maintains a safety function within its 

DOT, which oversees management of the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP). In addition, each State has an SHSO, which may be housed 

within the DOT or as a separate office, to implement programs addressing 

behavioral highway safety issues. In addition, the survey was distributed to 20 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and three counties to seek information on regional safety target setting practices. At least one response was 

received from either the SHSO or DOT representative from 49 states, Puerto Rico, 

and the District of Columbia. Sixteen MPOs responded to the survey, but in 

some cases the responses identified the target for the State rather than the region. 

Three MPOs provided MPO-specific targets and other information.

To supplement understanding of DOT and SHSO safety targets and targetsetting methods, Cambridge Systematics reviewed all current State SHSPs, which 

are developed by DOTs, and all current Highway Safety Plans, developed by 

SHSOs. The information from the survey results was compared with information from the plans to determine the most current safety target for the DOTs 

and SHSOs. Published documentation was considered the primary data source 

for the existence and type of safety targets; the survey results were used in cases 

where they appeared more current than published documentation. The survey 

was the primary source of information for target setting methodologies, 

feasibility testing, resources used or planned, and support desired. Available 

MPO regional safety plans were reviewed for comparison with the survey data. 

A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

5

3.0 Results

3.1 EXISTENCE OF A TARGET

The majority of states set a statewide safety target, with a larger proportion of 

SHSOs reporting a target than DOTs. Forty-eight of 52 DOTs (50 States plus 

Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) have a statewide target, while four do 

not (Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey and Puerto Rico). All SHSOs except Puerto 

Rico set a statewide target. Only three of the MPOs surveyed indicated they set a 

regional target. Information on the existence of statewide targets was gathered 

via existing SHSPs and HSPs and supplemented with survey results when they 

were more current. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of DOTs and SHSOs with 

defined statewide targets. These responses also are included in Table 3.1. 

Figure 3.1 Existence of Statewide Safety Targets

 

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

6 

3.2 TYPE OF TARGET

States set targets in terms of the number of fatalities and/or fatality rates. 

Figure 3.2 displays the frequency of the target types used. Among the 48 DOTs 

with a stated target, 34 set only a fatality number target, four set only a fatality 

rate target, and 10 set both a number and rate target. Among the three MPOs, all 

set a number-only target. Among the 51 SHSOs with a target, 48 set a number 

and rate target and three set a number only target. Puerto Rico was the only 

SHSO with no overall target, although it sets targets by emphasis area. 

Figure 3.2 Types of State/Regional Targets

37

3 4 

0 

10

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

DOT/MPO (N = 52) SHSO (N = 51)

Number Only Target Rate Only Target Both Number and Rate Targets

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

3.3 METHODOLOGIES FOR TARGET DEVELOPMENT

A variety of methodologies were used by States and regions to develop fatality 

targets. Methodologies from which survey respondents could choose are as 

follows:

• Linear reduction (Linear);

• Forecast output (Forecast); 

• Mandated by policy-makers (Mandate); 

• Committee, consensus, or leadership group (Committee); 

• AASHTO target to halve fatalities (one-half);

• Toward Zero Deaths (TZD); and 

• Other (Other). 

DOT/MPO (N = 51)
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

7

Figure 3.3 shows survey responses by number of target setting methodologies

used, for the 47 states/MPOs where a target was set and for which survey 

respondent(s) knew the methodology used. The survey asked respondents to 

choose from a number of methodologies to identify the approach they used to 

determine their State safety targets. Multiple responses per State or region were 

aggregated into a single response. Most respondents said more than one methodology was used to develop the safety target, with 18 using three or more 

methodologies. Figure 3.3 shows the number of methods used by the States and 

MPOs. 

Figure 3.3 Number of Methodologies Used in Developing State/MPO Target

15

14

18

0

5

10

15

20

One Two Three or More

Number of Jurisdictions

Number of Methodologies

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

For the States or regions where more than one response was received, all 

responses were combined for that State or region. The most common 

methodology used by 33 of the 47 jurisdictions responding to the survey (44 

states and 3 MPOs) was target setting by committee, consensus, or leadership 

group. The second most common approaches were setting a target based on a 

linear fatality reduction trend line (24) and adoption of Toward Zero Deaths (23). 

Six jurisdictions indicated they used other methods to determine targets, 

including using a share of national fatalities, stakeholder focus groups, and 

creating aggressive targets to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. For those 

where no methodology was indicated, this was due to lack of a response, lack of 

a target, or lack of knowledge by the survey respondent as to the approach used. 

Among the three MPOs that set a regional target, two responded they set a target 

by committee, consensus, or leadership group and one used a linear fatality 

reduction trend line. The methodologies used by States or regions to create 

fatality targets, as indicated by survey responses, are shown in Figure 3.4. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

8 

Figure 3.4 Types of Methodologies Used to Set State/MPO Safety Target

33

24

23

15

6 

3 

1 

0 10 20 30 40

Target was set by a committee, consensus, or a

leadership group through deliberation and discussion

Target based on a linear fatality reduction trend line

over a specified time frame

Adopted the Toward Zero Deaths target

Adopted the AASHTO target to halve fatalities by 2030

Other

Target based on the output of a forecasting or analysis

tool

Target was mandated by the policy makers

Number of Jurisdictions

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Note: More than one methodology may be used per jurisdiction. 

The survey asked whether the feasibility of meeting the fatality target was tested 

through analysis. In many cases the survey responses different among 

respondents in the same State; therefore, to tabulate results the most definitive 

answer for the jurisdiction was used. According to the survey responses, as 

shown in Figure 3.5, more States and MPOs did not test the feasibility of the targets (18) than did test feasibility of targets (14). Ten jurisdictions reported testing 

was in progress, while 13 jurisdictions either did not know, gave no response, or 

had no target to test. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

9

Figure 3.5 Target Feasibility Testing by Jurisdictions (States and MPOs)

14, 25%

18, 33%

10, 18%

13, 24%

Yes

No

In Progress

No Response or Unknown

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 display the statewide fatality reduction targets for the 52 DOTs

and SHSOs and three MPOs. The tables show targets by type – number and 

rate – for each agency. The starting point for establishing the targets was published documentation – SHSPs, HSPs, and regional safety plans. The research 

team then compared the results with data from the surveys. In those cases where 

the survey results appear more current than in the published documents, the 

survey data were used instead and are indicated as such in the table. 

A primary question this research sought to answer is the extent to which fatality 

targets are consistent among DOTs and SHSOs in the same State. However, 

determining target consistency is not always straightforward, as different 

methods, base years, and target years are often used by DOTs and SHSOs in the 

same State. Typically SHSO target timeframes are quite short, often one to three 

years, while DOT timeframes are often several to 20 or more years. The research 

team evaluated target consistency by considering several aspects, depending on 

the information available: the types of targets used (e.g., fatality number versus 

rate), the base measure (e.g., rolling average or single year), the base and target 

years, and the target annual rate of fatality reduction. Target consistency is 

shown in Table 3.1 as “Yes,” indicating the targets are exactly the same; “Similar”

in cases where the targets are close but not the same (i.e., the same method is 

used and the target looks on track with the peer agency but different target years 

are used), or “No” when the targets are clearly different. Table 3.2 presents the

MPO targets, all of which are number targets. Figure 3.6 summarizes the extent 

to which DOT and SHSO targets are similar. The data presented in this report 

are based on the targets in published reports or as reported in the survey. The 

research did not involve querying states about the extent to which the DOT or 

SHSO in a given State set targets through a collaborative process. For States with 

the exact same target for both agencies it may be possible to infer that there was 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

10

collaboration, or at least agreement on the target; however the extent of 

collaboration among agencies in setting targets is unknown. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

11

Table 3.1 State Safety Targets

State DOT Target Number DOT Target Rate SHSO Target Number SHSO Target Rate

Target 

Consistency Methodology

AK Target Zero; Reduce 

fatalities 50% from the 

2006-2008 three-year 

average by 2030 (2012 

SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 50%

from 62 in 2008 to 31 

by 2030 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100

MVMT from 1.29 in 2008 to 

0.65 by 2030 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Y Linear, One-Half Fatalities, 

TZD

AL Toward Zero Deaths. 

Reduce fatalities 50%

from 862 in 2010 to 431 

in 2035 (2012 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

three-year average 975 

in 2011 to 901 in 2012. 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from 2.0 in 2006 to 

1.5 by 2013 (FY 2012 HSP)

N Linear, TZD, Other

AR Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from 2.1 in 

2005 to 1.8 in 2010 

(2007 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

2005-2009 five-year 

average of 631 to 570 

by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from the 2005-2009 

five-year average of 1.92 to 

1.67 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Similar N/A

AZ Zero fatalities by 2050, 

with an interim target to 

reduce fatalities 11.4% 

from 1,288 in 2006 to 

1,141 by 2010 (2007 

SHSP)

Reduce fatalities by 7% 

from the 2007-2009 

three-year average of 

939 to 873 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from the 2007-2009 

three-year average of 1.51 

to 1.43 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N Linear, Committee

CA Reduce fatalities by 

20% from 2,715 in 2010 

to less than 2,172 by 

2020 (2011 Survey)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT by 20% from 

0.84 in 2010 to less 

than 0.67 by 2020 

(2011 Survey)

Reduce fatalities by 

14.35% from the 2007-

2009 three-year 

average of 3,503 to 

3,000 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from the 2007-2009 

three-year average of 1.18 

to 1.03 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N Linear, Committee, Forecast 

tool, TZD

CO Reduce fatal crash 

/100 MVMT to 1.0 by 

2008 and maintain 1.0 

through 2010 (2007 

SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

465 in 2009 to 435 in 

2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Maintain the fatalities /100 

MVMT in 2012 at or below 

0.95 (FY 2012 HSP)

N Linear, Committee
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

12

State DOT Target Number DOT Target Rate SHSO Target Number SHSO Target Rate

Target 

Consistency Methodology

CT No target – currently 

developing a target* 

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities 5%

from the 2007-2009 

three-year average of 

274 to 260 by 2013 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT by 5% from the 

2007-2009 three-year 

average of 0.86 to 0.82 by 

2013 (FY 2012 HSP)

N N/A

DC Reduce fatalities 50%

from 57 in 2005 to 28 in 

2025 (2007 SHSP)

Reduce the number of 

serious and fatal 

injuries in the District by 

50% from the 2001-

2005 five-year average 

by 2025 (FY 2012 HSP)

Y Committee

DE Reduce fatalities from 

118 in 2009 to 102 by 

2012 (2010 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT to 1.0 by 2018 

(2010 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 6% 

from the 2007-2009 

three-year average of 

118 to 110 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT by 6% from the 

2007-2009 three-year 

average of 1.29 to 1.20 by 

2012 and 1.0 by 2018 

(2012 Survey and FY 2012)

Similar Linear, Committee

FL Reduce fatalities 5%

annually from 2006-

2010 five-year average 

of 2,904 to 2,028 by 

2017 (2012 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 5%

from 2,558 in 2009 to 

2,430 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from 1.31 in 2009 to 

1.28 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N Linear, Committee, TZD

GA Reduce fatalities by 41 

each calendar year 

from 1,200 in 2010 to 

1,036 fatalities by 2014 

(2011 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

1,284 in 2009 to 1,122 

by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT by 6% from 1.18 in 

2009 to 1.11 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Similar One-Half Fatalities

HI Zero Deaths; Reduce 

fatalities 20% from 100 

in 2011 to 80 by 2017 

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities 10% 

from 2005-2009 fiveyear average of 131 to 

118 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Reduce fatality /VMT from 

the 2005-2009 five-year 

average of 131 to 113 by 

2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Similar Committee, One-Half 

Fatalities, TZD, Other
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

13

State DOT Target Number DOT Target Rate SHSO Target Number SHSO Target Rate

Target 

Consistency Methodology

IA Reduce fatalities from 

the 2002-2006 five-year 

average of 445 to 400 

by 2015 (2007 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities to 348 

by 2017 with interim 

goals of 390 by 2013

and 360 by 2015 (2012 

Survey)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT by 2% from the 

2005-2009 average of 1.36 

to 1.33 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N Linear, TZD

ID Reduce the five-year 

average fatalities to 195 

by 2015 (2012 Survey)

Reduce the five-year 

average fatalities /100 

MVMT to 1.16 by 2015 

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities from a 

five-year average of 

250 in 2009 to 217 in 

2011, 207 in 2012, 200 

in 2013, 196 in 2014, 

192 in 2015 (2012 

Survey)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT to a five-year 

average of 1.38 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Similar Linear, Committee, TZD

IL Zero fatalities. Reduce 

fatalities by 5 to 10%

annually (2012 Survey; 

Vision Zero from 2009 

SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

1,355 in 2004 to 643 in 

2013 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from 1.24 in 2004 to 

0.64 by 2013 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Similar Committee

IN Reduce fatalities from 

692 in 2009 to 496 by 

2027 with 20 fewer 

deaths annually (2009)

Reduce fatalities from 

754 in 2010 to 722 by 

2012 and 661 by 2014 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from 0.96 in 2010 to 

0.90 by 2012 and 0.78 by 

2014 (FY 2012 HSP)

N N/A

KS Reduce fatalities 50%

from the 2005-2009 

five-year average of 

417 to 208 by 2029 

(2012 Survey, 2011 

SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

the 2005-2009 five-year 

average of 416 to 393 

by 2012 and 361 by 

2016 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from 2005-2009 

five-year average of 1.39 to 

1.29 by 2012 and 1.17 by 

2016 (FY 2012 HSP)

N Linear, Committee, One-Half 

Fatalities

KY Reduce the number of 

fatalities 50% by 2030 

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities by 3%

from the 2008-2010 

three-year average of 

792 to 768 by 2012, 

745 by 2013, and 724 

by 2014 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT by 3% from the 

2008-2010 three-year 

average of 1.66 to 1.61 by 

2012, 1.56 by 2013, and 

1.51 by 2014 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N Committee, TZD
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

14

State DOT Target Number DOT Target Rate SHSO Target Number SHSO Target Rate

Target 

Consistency Methodology

LA Reduce fatalities 50%

from the 2006-2009 

five-year average of 

965 to 482 by 2030 

(2012 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 2.4%

annually from the 2004-

2008 five-year average 

of 957 to 478 by 2030 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT by 2.4% annually 

from the 2004-2008 fiveyear average of 2.15 to 

1.07 by 2030 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Similar Linear, Committee, One-Half 

Fatalities, TZD

MA Towards zero fatalities; 

Reduce fatalities 20%

by 2016, and 50% by 

2030 (2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities 5%

from the 2006-2010 

five-year average of 

374 to 355 (2007-

2011)FY 2012)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT by 1.5% from 0.61 in 

2009 to 0.60 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

N Committee, One-Half 

Fatalities, TZD

MD Reduce fatalities 19.8%

from 592 in 2008 to 475 

by 2015 (2011 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 50%

by 2030 and to 475 by 

2015 (2012 Survey)

Reduce fatality rate 19.6%

from 1.07 in 2008 to 0.86 

by 2015 (FY 2012 HSP)

Y Linear, Committee, One-Half 

Fatalities, TZD

ME No target (2012 Survey) Reduce fatalities 5%

from the 2006-2010 

five-year average of 

169.2 to 160.7 by 2015 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT 5% from the 2006-

2010 five-year average of 

1.14 to 1.08 by 2015 

(FY 2012 HSP)

N N/A

MI Reduce fatalities from 

889 in 2011 to 750 by 

2016 (2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities from 

889 in 2011 to 750 by 

2016 (2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 0.87 by 2015 

(2012 Survey)

Y Linear, Committee, TZD, 

Other

MN Reduce fatalities to 400 

by 2010 from 494 in 

2006 (2007 SHSP)

Zero fatalities and to 

educe fatalities 28%

from the 2005-2009 

average of 488 to 350 

by 2015 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from the 2005-2009 

average of 0.85 to 0.60 by 

2015 (FY 2012 HSP)

Similar Linear, Forecast, Committee, 

TZD

MO Reduce fatalities from 

878 in 2009 to 700 by 

2016 (2012-2016 

SHSP)

Reduce fatalities to 850 

by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

N Committee, Other

MS Reduce fatalities to 525 

by 2017 (2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities 15%

from 700 in 2009 to 595 

in 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT by 15% from 1.73 in 

2009 to 1.47 in 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

N Committee
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

15

State DOT Target Number DOT Target Rate SHSO Target Number SHSO Target Rate

Target 

Consistency Methodology

MT Reduce fatalities and 

incapacitating injuries 

50% from 1,704 in 2007 

to 852 by 2030 (2010 

SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

the 2005-2008 threeyear average of 257 to 

220 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 2.45 in 2007 to 

2.00 by 2013 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Y Linear, Committee, One-Half 

Fatalities

NC Reduce fatalities to 

1,541 by 2011 (2012 

Survey)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 1.36 by 2011 

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities 20%

from the 2005-2009 

five-year average of 

1,504 to 1,203 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT by 20% from the 

2005-2009 five-year 

average of 1.47 to 1.18 by 

2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

N Linear, Committee, One-Half 

Fatalities

ND Toward zero deaths; 

Reduce fatalities to 100 

by 2020 (2012 Survey, 

TZD in 2010 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

the 2006-2010 five-year 

average of 114 to 99 by 

2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from the 2006-2010 

five-year average of 1.46 to 

1.27 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N TZD

NE Reduce fatalities from 

181 in 2011 to 104 in 

2016 (2012-2016 

SHSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 0.5 by 2016 

(2012-2016 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 10%

from the 2008-2010 

three-year average of 

207 to 186 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP) 

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 0.5 per 100 

MVMT by 2015, with interim 

targets of 0.84 by 2012 and 

0.80 by 2013 (2012 Survey) 

N Linear, Committee, TZD

NH Zero Deaths; Reduce 

the five-year average of 

fatalities and severe 

injuries 50% by 2030 

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities 5%

from 128 in 2010 to 122 

by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 1.06 in 2008 to 

1.0 by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

N Forecast, Committee, OneHalf Fatalities, TZD

NJ Continually reduce the 

frequency and severity 

of crashes statewide 

(2007 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 1%

from the 2009-2011 

three-year average of 

589 to 584 by 2013

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from the 2009-2011 

three-year average of 0.77 

to 0.76 by 2013 (2012 

Survey)

N Linear, Mandate

NM Reduce fatalities 50%

from the 2006-2008 

five-year average of 

455 to 227 by 2030 

(2010 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

361 in 2009 to 328 by 

2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 1.39 in 2009 to 

1.24 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Similar Linear, One-Half Fatalities
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

16 

State DOT Target Number DOT Target Rate SHSO Target Number SHSO Target Rate

Target 

Consistency Methodology

NV Reduce fatalities to zero 

with interim targets to 

reduce fatalities by 50% 

from the 2004-2008 

five-year average of 

395 to 195 by 2030

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities from 

257 in 2010 to 236 by 

2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 0.99 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

N One-Half Fatalities, TZD

NY Reduce fatalities from 

1,231 in 2008 to 1,169 

by 2010 and 1,035 by 

2014 (2010 SHSP)

Reduce fatal 

crashes/100 MVMT 

from 0.87 in 2008 to 

0.83 by 2010 and 0.74 

by 2014 (2010 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities to 

1,127 by 2013 (2012 

Survey) 

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 0.86 by 2013 

(2012 Survey)

N Linear

OH Reduce fatalities from 

1,286 in 2004 to 1,100 

by 2008 (2006 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 1.14 in 

2004 to 1.0 by 2008 

(2006 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities by 

4.7% from the 2008-

2010 three-year 

average of 1,099 to 

1,047 by 2012 and 950 

by 2014 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT by 4.8% from the 

2008-2010 three-year 

average of 0.99 to 0.94 by 

2012 and 0.86 by 2014 

(FY 2012 HSP)

N Linear, Committee, TZD

OK Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT by 20% from 

1.71 in 2004 to 1.37 by 

2015, resulting in a 

projected savings of 

185 lives (2007 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 1%

from 738 in 2009 to 695 

in 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT by 0.01 annually 

from 1.57 in 2009 to 1.54 

by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

N Committee

OR Reduce fatalities to 305 

by 2030 (2011 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 0.88 by 2030 

(2011 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

the 2008-2010 threeyear average of 370 to 

330 by 2015 with an 

interim target to reduce

fatalities to 348 by 2013

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from the 2008-2010 

three-year average of 1.10 

to 0.85 by 2015 with an 

interim target of 1.03 by 

2013 (2012 Survey)

N Linear, Committee
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

17

State DOT Target Number DOT Target Rate SHSO Target Number SHSO Target Rate

Target 

Consistency Methodology

PA Reduce fatalities and 

major injuries 50% by 

2030, reducing fatalities 

from 1,413 in 2010 to 

707 by 2030 (2012 

Survey) 

Reduce fatalities from 

the 2006-2010 five-year 

average of 1,413 to 

1,341 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N Linear, Committee, One-Half 

Fatalities

PR N/A

RI Zero deaths and to 

reduce fatalities 50% 

from 67 in 2010 to 33 

by 2030 (2012 SHSP)

 Reduce fatalities 3.2% 

annually to meet the 

goal of halving fatalities 

by 2030 (2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 1.01 in 2009 to 

1.00 by 2011 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Y One-Half Fatalities, 

Committee, TZD

SC Reduce fatalities 25% 

from 1,046 in 2004 to 

784 by 2010 (2007 

SHSP)

 Reduce fatalities 15% 

from the 2007-2009 

three-year average of 

964 to 819 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT by 5% from the 

2007-2009 three-year 

average of 1.93 to 1.83 by 

2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Similar N/A

SD Reduce fatalities 47%

from 186 in 2005 to 99 

by 2015 (2007 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities /100 

MVMT from 2.29 in 

2005 to 1.00 by 2015 

(2007 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 10%

from 140 in 2010 to 126 

by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 1.58 in 2010 to 

1.35 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Similar N/A

TN Reduce fatalities from 

1,044 in 2008 to 900 by 

2013 (2009 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities from 

1,031 in 2010 to 900 in 

2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 1.46 in 2010 to 

1.30 in 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Similar Committee

TX Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 1.23 by 2016 

(2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities from 

3071 in 2009 to 3,000 

by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 1.34 (CRIS) and 

1.32 (FARS) by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Similar Linear, Committee

UT Target Zero (2011 

SHSP)

 Zero deaths, and 

reduce fatalities to 235 

by 2012 (2012 Survey 

and FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT to 0.90 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Y Committee
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

18 

State DOT Target Number DOT Target Rate SHSO Target Number SHSO Target Rate

Target 

Consistency Methodology

VT Reduce major crashes 

from the 2004 level to 

350 by 2010, resulting 

in 40 fewer fatalities 

and 26 fewer 

incapacitating injuries 

(2006 SHSP)

Zero deaths and reduce 

fatalities 6.9% from the 

2008-2010 three-year 

average of 72 to 67.6 

by 2012 (2012 Survey 

response and FY 2012)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT by 2% from 2008-

2010 three-year average of 

0.95 to 0.93 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

N One-Half Fatalities, TZD

VA Reduce fatalities 50%

by 2030 with an interim 

goal of reducing 3.2% 

annually from 2010 to 

2016 (2012 Survey)

Reduce fatalities 1%

from 739 in 2010 to 734 

in 2012 (FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 0.90 in 2010 to 

0.87 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N One-Half Fatalities, TZD

WA Reduce fatalities and 

serious injuries to zero 

by 2030 and reduce 

fatalities to 496 by 2012 

and 460 by 2014 (2010 

SHSP)

Zero fatalities by 2030, 

with interim targets to 

reduce fatalities from 

the 2007-2009 threeyear average of 528 to 

496 by 2012 (2012 

Survey and FY 2012)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from 2007-2009 

three-year average of 0.94 

to 0.85 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Y Committee, TZD

WI Reduce fatalities from 

the 2005-2009 five-year 

average of 676 to 551 

by 2013 (2011-2013

SHSP) 

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from the 2005-

2009 five-year 

average of 1.15 to 

0.94 by 2013 (2011-

2013 SHSP) 

Reduce fatalities 5% 

from the 2005-2009 

five-year average of 

692 to 657 by 2011 

(FY 2012 HSP) 

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT by 5% from 2005-

2009 five-year average of 

1.17 to 1.11 by 2011 

(FY 2012 HSP)

N TZD

WV Target Zero; Reduce 

fatalities 25% from the 

2001-2005 five-year 

average of 400 to 300 

by 2010 (2007 SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 7.5%

from the 2006-2010 

five-year average of 

378 to 350 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from the 2006-2010 

five-year average of 1.87 to 

1.80 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

N N/A

WY Zero deaths with an 

interim target to reduce 

fatalities to 135 (2012 

Survey and SHSP)

Reduce fatalities 10%

from the 2005-2009 

five-year average of 

162 to 146 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP)

Reduce fatalities/100 

MVMT from the 2005-2009 

five-year average of 1.73 to 

1.56 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP)

Similar Committee
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

19

Table 3.2 MPO Safety Targets

MPO MPO Target Methodology

Cheyenne MPO Reduce fatal and injury crashes by 10% from 2006 five-year 

average to 406 by 2020

Committee

Mid America Regional Council 

(MARC)

Reduce fatalities from 182 in 2010 to 91 by 2040 Linear

Portland Metro Reduce fatalities and serious injuries by 50% from 2005 

level 

Committee

Source: Survey, 2012.

As shown in Figure 3.6, the majority (56 percent) of DOT and SHSO targets are 

different. Only 15 percent are the same, and 27 percent are similar. 

Figure 3.6 Consistency between DOT and SHSO Targets

Same

15%

Similar

27% Different

56%

N/A

2%

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

20 

3.4 SAFETY TARGETS DEGREE OF AMBITION

To determine how aggressive States were in setting their safety targets, CS calculated the annual percent reduction in fatalities for the DOT and the SHSO

targets, based on survey results, SHSPs and HSPs. As has been noted earlier, the 

base years and timeframes vary for targets so annual reduction rates are 

calculated based on timeframes of one year to more than 20 years. One critical 

element of this calculation is the base year used. To calculate an annual rate of 

fatality reduction, the base year and target year must be known. For example, if 

the target is to reduce fatalities by one-half by 2030, with base year of 2008, the 

annual rate of reduction is 3.1 percent; if the base year is 2012, the annual rate of 

reduction is 3.8 percent. The difference in annual rates of reduction is shown in 

the far right column. 

Targets range from a low of 0.3 percent reduction per year (OK SHSO) to a high 

of 10.5 percent reduction per year (NE DOT), as shown in Table 3.3. Twenty-one

DOTs and 13 SHSOs have target annual reductions between three and four percent, which is in line with halving fatalities by 2030 depending on the base year. 

The difference in annual rate of fatality reduction generally ranges from 0 to 5 

percent per year. Among states for which both the DOT and SHSO annual rates 

could be calculated, 19 states have DOT and SHSO annual reduction targets 

within one percent per year and 16 have annual reduction targets that differ by 

more than one percent per year. Table 3.4 shows the MPO target annual rate of 

fatality reduction, which ranges from 0.9 percent to 2.3 percent.

Table 3.3 State Target Annual Percentage Reduction in Fatalities

DOT SHSO Difference

AK 3.1% 3.1% 0.0%

AL 2.7% 7.6% -4.9%

AR N/A 3.3% – 

AZ 3.0% 2.4% 0.6% 

CA 2.2% 5.0% -2.8%

CO N/A 2.2% – 

CT N/A 1.3% – 

DC 3.4% 3.4% 0.0%

DE 4.7% 2.0% 2.7%

FL 5.0% 1.7% 3.3%

GA 3.6% 4.4% -0.8%

HI 3.7% 3.4% 0.2%

IA 1.2% 5.5% -4.4%

ID N/A 4.3% – 

IL 5%-10% 7.9% – 

IN 1.8% 3.2% -1.4%

KS 3.4% 2.0% 1.4%
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

21

DOT SHSO Difference

KY 3.8% 2.2% 1.6%

LA 3.2% 2.4% 0.8%

ME 3.8% 5.0% -1.2%

MA 3.1% 3.8% -0.7%

MD N/A 1.0% – 

MI 3.3% 3.3% 0.0%

MN 5.1% 5.3% -0.2%

MS 3.2% N/A – 

MO 3.0% 5.3% -2.3%

MT 3.0% 3.8% -0.8%

NC N/A 7.2% – 

NE 10.5% 5.1% 5.4%

ND N/A 6.8% – 

NH 3.8% 2.5% 1.2%

NJ N/A 1.0% – 

NM 3.1% 3.1% 0.0%

NV 3.1% 4.2% -1.1%

NY 4.2% N/A – 

OH 3.8% 1.2% 2.6%

OK N/A 0.3% - 

OR 0.4% 2.3% -1.8%

PA 3.4% 2.6% 0.8%

PR N/A N/A - 

RI 3.4% 3.2% 0.2%

SC 4.7% 5.3% -0.6%

SD 6.2% 5.1% 1.0%

TN 2.9% 6.6% -3.6%

TX N/A 0.8% – 

UT N/A N/A – 

VA 3.8% 0.5% 3.3%

VT N/A 3.5% – 

WA 3.7% 2.1% 1.6%

WI 5.0% 2.5% 2.5%

WV 5.6% 3.8% 1.8%

WY N/A 3.5% – 

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

Note: Data were not available for States without calculations shown in the table.
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

22 

Table 3.4 Regional Target Annual Percentage Reduction in Fatalities

MPO Annual Percent Reduction

Cheyenne 0.9%

MARC 2.3%

Metro Portland 2.3%

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

3.5 ACHIEVEMENT OF SAFETY TARGETS

Given the range of measurement approaches (i.e., three- or five-year average, 

single-year count), base years, and target years for the safety targets, it is 

challenging to generalize about trends in safety target achievement by States. 

There are at least two ways to measure a State’s progress towards achievement 

of its fatality target: by comparing actual and target fatalities in years for which 

fatality data is available, and by comparing projected fatalities with target fatalities in a future year. Table 3.5 shows details on rates of target achievement using 

both methods, including the years and fatality numbers used to calculate the rate

using the actual fatality data comparison method. 

One way to measure a State agency’s progress toward achievement of its target 

can be calculated by comparing the target number of fatalities to the actual number of fatalities in a given set of years using a ratio. If the ratio meets or exceeds 

one, the State can be considered to be meeting or exceeding its target in that set 

of years, and if the ratio is less than one the State can be considered to not be 

meeting its target in that set of years. 

Figure 3.7 shows the extent to which States are achieving their targets, using the 

actual fatality data comparison method. The actual number of fatalities in a State 

was compared to the target number of fatalities, calculated using a linear trend 

reduction. If a State experienced a number of fatalities less than or equal to the

target (totaled for years in which fatality data were available) the agency was 

considered to meet or exceed its target. About 411 percent of reporting State 

agencies met or exceeded their targets, 19 percent did not meet their targets, and 

for 41 percent of agencies it was not possible to calculate a ratio due to data 

availability. 

 

1 Percentages may add up to greater than one due to rounding.
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

23

Figure 3.7 Target Achievement as Compared to Actual Fatality Data from 

2011 and Prior Years

Met or Exceeded 

Target (Actual 

Fatalities < 

Target), 41%

Did Not Meet or 

Exceed Target 

(Actual Fatalities 

> Target), 19%

N/A, 41%

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Another way to measure a State’s progress towards achievement of its fatality 

target is calculated by projecting future fatality reductions and comparing this to 

the State agency’s target. In essence, this comparison allows for an 

understanding on whether the State will reach its stated target if current trends 

continue in the future. This allows FHWA and States to understand, among 

other things, whether additional interventions might be needed to reach a given 

safety target. 

For each State, annual fatality reductions were projected using a linear trend 

from 2011 through the year of the fatality target, which is shown graphically in 

the fact sheets. The target is then compared with the number of projected fatalities in the target year. If the projected number of fatalities is less than the target, 

the State can be considered on track to meet or exceed the agency’s target. If the 

projected number of fatalities is greater than the target, the State is not on track to 

meet the agency’s target. 

Figure 3.8 shows the extent to which States are on track to achieve their fatality 

target, based on the projected fatalities method. For just under 63 percent of 

State agency targets the State is on track to meet or exceed the target, 25 percent 

are not on track to meet their targets, and for 12 percent of responding agencies 

no target was set. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

24 

Figure 3.8 Projected Target Achievement Using Fatality Projections in the 

Target Year

Will Meet or 

Exceed Target 

(Projected 

Fatalities < 

Target), 63%

Will Not Meet or 

Exceed Target 

(Projected 

Fatalities > 

Target), 25%

Did Not Set 

Target, 12%

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

25

Table 3.5 Rates of Fatality Target Achievement Using the Actual Fatality Comparison and Projected Fatalities Method

State

Baseline 

Measure Type

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Comparison 

Range Start 

Year

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Comparison 

Range End Year

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Actual Fatalities 

During 

Comparison 

Range

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Target Fatalities 

During 

Comparison 

Range

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Ratio 

(Target/Actual)

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Met or 

Exceeded 

Target?

Projected 

Target 

Method: 

Target End 

Year

Projected 

Target 

Method: 

On Track to 

Meet or 

Exceed 

Target?

AK – DOT 3-year Average 2008 2011 267 281 1.05 Y 2030 Y 

AL – DOT Single Year 2010 2011 1,756 1,707 0.97 N 2035 N 

AL – SHSO 3-year Average 2011 2011 868 975 1.12 Y 2012 Y 

AR – DOT N/A – – – – – – – – 

AZ – DOT Single Year 2006 2010 4,867 6,073 1.25 Y 2010 Y 

CA – DOT Single Year 2010 2011 5,511 5,376 0.98 N 2020 – 

CA – SHSO 3-year Average 2009 2011 9,455 10,006 1.06 Y 2012 Y 

CO – SHSO Single Year 2009 2011 1,362 1,365 1.00 Y 2012 Y 

CT – DOT N/A – – – – – – – – 

DC – DOT Single Year 2005 2011 243 369 1.52 Y 2025 Y 

DE – SHSO 3-year Average 2009 2011 336 346 1.03 Y 2012 Y 

FL – DOT 5-year Average 2010 2011 5,630 5,663 1.01 Y 2017 N 

GA – DOT Single Year 2010 2011 2,470 2,359 0.96 N 2014 N 

HI – DOT Single Year – – – – – – 2017 N 

IA – SHSO Single Year – – – – – – 2017 Y 

ID – SHSO 5-year Average – – – – – – 2015 Y 

ID – DOT 5-year Average – – – – – – 2015 Y 

IL – DOT Single Year – – – – – – 2015 Y 

KS – DOT 5-year Average 2009 2011 1,234 1,220 0.99 N 2029 Y 

KY – SHSO 3-year Average 2010 2011 1,549 1,573 1.02 Y 2014 N 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

26

State

Baseline 

Measure Type

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Comparison 

Range Start 

Year

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Comparison 

Range End Year

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Actual Fatalities 

During 

Comparison 

Range

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Target Fatalities 

During 

Comparison 

Range

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Ratio 

(Target/Actual)

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Met or 

Exceeded 

Target?

Projected 

Target 

Method: 

Target End 

Year

Projected 

Target 

Method: 

On Track to 

Meet or 

Exceed 

Target?

LA – DOT 3-year Average 2010 2011 1,560 1,732 1.11 Y 2030 Y

LA – SHSO 5-year Average 2008 2011 3,608 3,692 1.02 Y 2030 Y

MA – DOT Single Year – – – – – – 2030 Y

MD – SHSO Single Year 2008 2011 2,121 2,268 1.07 Y 2015 Y

ME – DOT N/A – – – – – – – –

MI – DOT Single Year – – – – – – 2016 Y

MI – HSO Single Year – – – – – – 2016 Y

MN – SHSO 5-year Average 2009 2011 1,379 1,395 1.01 Y 2015 Y

MO – DOT Single Year 2009 2011 2,483 2,558 1.03 Y 2016 Y

MS – DOT Single Year – – – – – – 2017 Y

MT – DOT Single Year 2007 2011 1,125 1,325 1.18 Y 2030 Y

NC – DOT Point Estimate 2011 2011 1,227 1,541 1.26 Y 2011 Y

ND – DOT Point Estimate – – – – – – 2020 N

NE – SHSO 3-year Average 2010 2011 405 404 .99 N 2012 Y

NH – DOT 5-year Average – – – – – – 2030 Y

NJ – SHSO N/A – – – – – – 2013 Y

NM – DOT 5-year Average 2008 2011 1,640 1,758 1.07 Y 2030 Y

NV – DOT 5-year Average 2008 2011 1,364 1,525 1.12 Y 2030 Y

NY – SHSO Point Estimate – – – – – – 2013 Y

OH – SHSO 3-year Average 2010 2011 2,137 2,148 1.01 Y 2013 N

OK – DOT N/A – – – – – – – –

OR – DOT Single Year – – – – – – 2030 Y
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

27

State

Baseline 

Measure Type

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Comparison 

Range Start 

Year

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Comparison 

Range End Year

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Actual Fatalities 

During 

Comparison 

Range

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Target Fatalities 

During 

Comparison 

Range

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Ratio 

(Target/Actual)

Actual Fatality 

Comparison 

Method: 

Met or 

Exceeded 

Target?

Projected 

Target 

Method: 

Target End 

Year

Projected 

Target 

Method: 

On Track to 

Meet or 

Exceed 

Target?

OR – SHSO 3-year Average 2010 2011 712 732 1.03 Y 2015 Y 

PA – DOT 5-year Average 2010 2011 2,778 2,791 1.00 Y 2030 N 

PR – DOT N/A – – – – – – – – 

RI – DOT Single Year 2010 2011 133 132 0.99 N 2030 Y 

SC – DOT Single Year 2004 2010 6,886 6,405 0.93 N 2010 N 

SD – DOT Single Year 2005 2011 1,026 1,119 1.09 Y 2015 Y 

TN – DOT Single Year 2008 2011 4,007 4,003 .99 N 2013 N 

TX – DOT N/A – – – – – – – – 

UT – SHSO Point Estimate – – – – – – 2012 N 

VA – DOT Single Year 2010 2011 1,504 1,459 0.97 N 2030 N 

VT – SHSO 3-year Average 2010 2011 139 142 1.02 Y 2012 Y 

WA – DOT Single Year – – – – – – 2014 Y 

WI – DOT 5-year Average 2009 2011 1,951 1,928 0.99 N 2013 N 

WV – SHSO 5-year Average 2010 2011 742 743 1.00 Y 2012 Y 

WY – DOT Point Estimate – – – – – – 2012 N 

MARC Single Year – – – – – – 2040 Y 

Cheyenne 5-year Average 2006 2011 2,710 2,657 0.98 N 2020 N 

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Note: Actual fatalities during a range of years were compared to the target fatalities for that year(s), projected using a linear reduction trend between the initial year and end 

year of the target. The ratio of target to actual fatalities and whether the State has met or exceeded the fatality target can only be calculated when at least two years of 

FARS data is available between the initial and end year of the target, or the target was set as a point estimate in a single year prior to 2011. 

A target fatality reduction range was set for Illinois. Illinois trends show that it is on track to meet or exceed at least the minimum fatality reduction target by 2015.
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

28 

3.6 U.S. DOT RESOURCES USED OR PLANNED FOR

SETTING TARGETS

Respondents were able to provide multiple responses to the survey question 

about the types of national resources they used or plan to use in setting a safety 

target. Of the 11 options shown in Figure 3.9, the Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) was the most frequently used resource (58 percent). The 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM), Safety Analyst, and GIS Safety Analyst were 

used by 25, 19, and 16 percent of respondents, respectively. Forty-four percent of 

State agency representatives used other resources such as State crash databases. 

Figure 3.9 U.S. DOT Safety Resources Used or Planned

0%

1%

5%

5%

10%

11%

16%

19%

25%

44%

58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

HERS

NASS-GES

Fast FARS

PBCAT

IHSDM

HPMS

GIS Safety Analyst

Safety Analyst

HSM

Other

FARS

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

Note: Multiple responses permitted.

3.7 SUPPORT DESIRED FOR SAFETY TARGET SETTING

Agencies were asked what type of support was desired to help them set targets. 

Among State and MPO agency representatives 31 percent expressed interest in a 

FHWA-supported peer exchange for safety target setting practices. Twenty percent of the survey respondents requested support through guidance materials, 

while 13 percent would like technical assistance, and 10 percent seek training, as 

shown in Figure 3.10. The survey was structured to allow only one selection per 

respondent, but many respondents noted in the comments section they would 

benefit from all types of support. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

29

Figure 3.10 FHWA Support Desired

10%

13%

20%

26%

31%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Training

Technical Assistance

Guidance Materials

Other

Peer Exchange

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Note: One response permitted.

A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

31

4.0 Compendium Fact Sheets

This section contains fact sheets on safety targets for the 55 State agencies with 

valid survey responses. Information for 49 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia is included. For four states that provided both DOT and SHSO survey 

responses and have different targets, the research team prepared two fact sheets. 

There are three MPO fact sheets. The fact sheets document the safety targets, the 

methodology for setting safety targets, the resources used in setting targets, and 

the desire for future support. Each fact sheet contains a graph displaying 11

years of fatality trends from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a forecast of 

that trend, and the State target to show progress in achieving the target. 

4.1 FACT SHEET ORGANIZATION AND 

METHODOLOGY

The fact sheets are divided into six sections, preceded by a target summary. The 

target summary notes the State’s target from the agency or agencies responding 

to the survey (DOT and/or SHSO), which also is presented in Table 3.1. The 

source of the target, whether survey response, SHSP, or HSP, also is included in 

the target summary section. The remainder of the sections are described below.

Fatality Target

The fatality target section reports the types of targets from survey responses, 

SHSPs, and/or HSPs. As noted earlier, the primary source for the targets was 

published reports. In cases where a survey response appeared to be more 

current, that information was used. In general, States set targets in terms of 

fatality reduction and/or fatality rate reduction. Survey respondents also 

reported the type of target used: “toward zero deaths (TZD)”, another type of 

target, and interim targets for any of the above. The target for any of these 

options also is included in this section. 

Methodology 

The Methodology section describes the methodologies used by the agencies to 

create fatality targets, as indicated by survey responses. Methodologies from 

which survey respondents could choose include linear reduction, forecast output, policy mandate, committee, AASHTO target to halve fatalities, or toward

zero deaths (TZD). Respondents also could indicate they used a methodology 

not included in this list. All responses received in the survey are included in the 

fact sheet. Survey responses regarding whether a target was subject to feasibility 

testing, along with any details provided about the testing, are also reported in 

this section. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

32 

Data Used 

The Data Used section indicates the types of data used to set the State targets, as 

indicated by the survey respondents. Types of data include fatalities, fatality 

rates, serious injuries, or other. 

Resources Used or Planned 

The Resources Used or Planned section indicates the national resources used (or 

planned to be used) to set the State targets, as indicated by the survey respondents. Respondents were able to choose from a list of 10 options, including FARS 

and HPMS, or describe another type of resource (generally State-specific) that 

was used. 

Capacity Building Strategies Desired 

The Capacity Building Strategies Desired section indicates the type of FHWA 

support desired by the survey respondents to help them set targets. The options 

presented by the survey were guidance materials, a peer exchange, technical 

assistance, training, or other. Initially the survey asked respondents to choose 

only one option; however many respondents indicated in the comments that they 

would desire additional strategies. All strategies chosen or mentioned by the 

respondents are included in this section. 

Fatality Trend versus Target

FHWA is interested in understanding a State’s progress towards meeting its

fatality target. The Fatality Trend versus Target section displays a figure documenting the fatality target and trends within the State. Given the range of 

measurement approaches (i.e., three-year averages or single-year counts), base 

years, and target years in the targets defined by State agencies, it is challenging 

to generalize about trends in safety target achievement by States. This figure was 

created for each fact sheet to aid in this comparison, as well as to show how a 

State’s target relates to the fatality trend and future trend forecast. Example 

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are provided below to aid in understanding the figure 

components. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

33

Figure 4.1 Example Fatality Trend Figure

Single Year Fatality Trend; 2013 Target Year

1,251 1,177 1,193 1,339 1,270 1,284 1,211 1,043 

986 

1,032 

946 973 943 912 881 

1,044 

900 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2009 DOT Target

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Figure 4.2 Example Fatality Trend Figure 2 

Five-Year Average Fatality Trend; 2030 Target Year

 

472 476 469 454 422 395 368 340 326 312 297 226 154 

83 

455 

227 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015202020252030

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

34

Each figure displays three types of data: Actual fatalities, projected fatalities, and 

the fatality target. Actual fatalities from 2001-2011 FARS data are shown as dark 

blue bars. Projected fatalities from 2012 through the target year are shown in 

light green bars. The target itself is shown by a red line or dot. For most States, 

the dots indicate the base and final target values, and the line indicates a linear 

reduction from the base year number of fatalities to the target year fatalities. The 

x-axis indicates years, and the y-axis indicates number of fatalities. The legend 

indicates whether single-year or multiple-year average data is used, the agency 

setting the target (DOT or SHSO), and the year of the plan (SHSP or HSP) in 

which the target was reported. Only the fatality reduction target for a 

responding agency noted at the top of the first page of the fact sheet is shown in

the figure. 

Projected fatality trends are a key component of understanding whether a State is 

reaching its fatality target. In essence, a projected trend shows what will happen 

in the future if the State continues on the same path as it currently is 

experiencing. In order to compare fatality targets with fatality trends within a 

State, a linear regression methodology was used to project future fatality rates. A 

linear regression equation (also known as a “line of best fit”) was developed for 

each State based on FARS fatality data from 2001-2011. Fatalities for years 2012 

and beyond were projected using the regression. For States that report data 

based on single year fatality values, the blue bars represent the fatalities from 

FARS and green bars or the represent projected fatalities. For States which use a 

three or five-year average in reporting a target, the blue and green bars in the 

figure represent the three-or five-year average calculated from the FARS and 

projected fatality data. For example, in Figure 4.2, the 2005 bar represents an 

average of fatalities from 2001-2005.

Agencies set fatality reduction targets ranging from one year to several decades. 

For States with targets for 2015 or earlier, the figure shows annual fatality and 

projected fatality data from a base year through 2015. For States with targets for 

years after 2015, the figure shows annual fatality and projected fatality data from 

a base year through 2015, and then shows data in five-year increments until the 

target year. For example, as in Figure 4.2, when a State sets a target for 2030, 

annual data is shown through 2015, and then data is shown in five-year increments (i.e., 2020, 2025, 2030) until the target year. A blue dashed line is included 

in figures indicating the break between annual and five-year data. 

The fatality target is shown as a red line in the figure with the base year and target year values labeled and indicated by red dots. A linear regression (or “line of 

best fit”) approach was used to determine the annual target values between the 

base and target years. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 both illustrate this approach. For 

States with stated interim targets, these targets are also labeled and included as 

red dots. For States with a single target value without a base year (i.e., “500 

fatalities in 2020), the target is shown as a single dot. 

To determine a State’s level of achievement towards reaching its fatality target, 

the target can be compared with actual and forecasted fatality data. To 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

35

determine a State’s progress towards reaching its fatality target using actual 

fatalities in past years, the target (red line/dots) can be compared to the actual 

(blue bars) fatalities to show a State’s progress towards reaching its target. When 

the actual fatalities are at or below the target level for a particular year, the State 

can be considered to be meeting or exceeding its fatality target. When the actual 

fatalities are at or above the target level for a particular year, the State can be 

considered to be not meeting its target in that year. For example, in Figure 4.1, 

the State would be considered to achieve its target in 2009 and 2011, but not in 

2010.2 This is the approach shown in Figure 3.7. 

A State’s progress towards achievement of its fatality target also can be 

calculated using projected future fatalities based on current fatality trends. This 

approach involves comparing the target (red line/dots) to the projected (green 

bars) fatalities. In essence, this comparison allows for an understanding of 

whether the State will reach its stated target if current trends continue in the 

future. In Figure 4.1, the State would not be considered on track to achieve its 

fatality target in 2013, while in Figure 4.2 the State would be considered on track 

using this approach. This is the approach shown in Figure 3.8. Both of these 

approaches allow FHWA and States to understand whether a State is on track to 

reach its safety target. 

 

2 Due to year-to-year variation, this type of comparison is best done using multiple years 

of data. When possible, for Table 3.5 and Figure 3.7 multiple years of data were used to 

determine a State’s fatality target achievement.

Alabama 

Survey Respondent: Alabama Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 862 in 2010 to 431 by 2035. The methodologies are 

Linear Trend and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 862 in 2010 to 431 by 2035. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility testing of the target is in progress, but details are not available.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – Critical Analysis Reporting 

GIS Safety Analyst Environment (CARE)

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

991 1,038 

1,004 

1,154 

1,148 

1,207 

1,110 

969 848 862 894 852 758 664 570 476 

862 

431 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 862 in 2010 to 431 by 2035. 
Alabama 

Survey Respondent: Alabama Highway Safety Office (SHSO)

The fatality target is to reduce fatalities from the three-year average of 975 in 2011 to 901 in 2012. The 

fatality rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from 2.0 in 2006 to 1.5 by 2013. The methodology 

used is Other (FY 2012 HSP).

Fatality Target

 Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from three-year average of 975 in 2011 to 901 in 2012. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatality rate from 2.0 per 100 MVMT in 2006 to 1.5 in 2013. 

Other

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other – Set by agency staff using FARS trends 

and State data. Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Resources Used or Planned

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

101110651102117011551095

976893868

890 888 889 870 

975

901

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities from the three-year average of 975 in 2011 to 901 in 2012. 
Alaska

Survey Respondent: Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT)* 

The fatality target is Toward Zero Deaths with a target to reduce fatalities by 50 percent from the 2008 

three-year average of 73 to 36 by 2030. The methodologies are Linear Trend, Halving Fatalities by 2030, 

and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 SHSP).

Survey Respondent: Alaska Highway Safety Office (SHSO)†

The fatality target is Towards Zero Deaths with an interim target to reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 62 

in 2008 to 31 by 2030. The fatality rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from 1.29 in 2008 to 0.65 

by 2030 (FY 2012 HSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths * †

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 50 percent from the 2008 three-year average of 73 to 36 by 

2030.* Reduce fatalities 50 percent from 62 in 2008 to 31 by 2030.†

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from 1.29 in 2008 to 0.65 by 2030.†

Other 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend * † AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030 * †

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target* †

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Methodology

The DOT target was not tested. The HSO target requires an average annual reduction is about two 

fatalities per year, which seemed achievable to the office.

Data Used

Fatalities * † Serious Injuries * †

Fatality Rate † Other – Fatal crashes

* indicates Alaska Department of Transportation response. 

† indicates Alaska Highway Safety Office response.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS* 

IHSDM FARS*†

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – State Crash Data* and HSIP†

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials* Training†

Peer Exchange*† Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

92 96 91 83 76 73 69 61 64 62 61 53 50 32 15 

0 

73 

36 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from the 2008 three-year average of 73 to 36 by 2030. 

SHSO Target: (not shown) Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 62 in 2008 to 31 by 2030.
Arizona

Survey Respondent: Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is zero fatalities by 2050, with an interim goal to reduce fatalities by 11.4 percent from 1,288 in 

2007 to 1,141 by 2010. The methodologies are Committee and Toward Zero Deaths (2007 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths – Zero fatalities by 2050.

Fatality Reduction 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities by 11.4 percent from 1,288 in 2007 to 1,141 by 2010.

1

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested through scenario analysis. Five scenarios, including a status quo 

(increasing) trend, 5 or 10 percent reductions, and reducing fatalities to zero by 2050 were considered. The 

most aggressive target of zero deaths was chosen. The adoption of an absolute number was preferred over 

the use of a rate as it would be more effective as an outreach and communications tool and would allow for 

subgoals of 15 percent reduction in fatalities to be assigned to each emphasis area, acknowledging overlaps

in the emphasis areas will lead to a total statewide reduction in fatalities of less than 15 percent.2

Data Used

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

 

1 Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2007. Interim target was based on projections using last year of 

available data at the time. The SHSP also includes fatality reductions based on projected future fatalities (not 

included here). The interim fatality reduction targets have been exceeded but are included here for 

comparison purposes.

2 Arizona SHSP 2007.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

1,051 

1,132 

1,118 

1,151 

1,179 

1,293 

1,071 

938 806 759 825 806 769 732 695 

1,288 

1,141 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2007 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities to zero by 2050 and by 11.4 percent from 1,288 in 2006 to 1,141 by 2010. 
Arkansas 

Survey Respondent: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (DOT)

The target is to reduce the 2005 fatality rate of 2.1 per 100 MVMT to 1.8 by 2010. The methodology is not 

specified (2007 SHSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce the 2005 fatality rate of 2.1 fatalities per 100 MVMT to 1.8 by the 

year 2010.

Other 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Data Used
HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Resources Used or Planned

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

611 640 640 703 654 665 649 600 596 571 549 575 566 558 549 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance. 

DOT Target: Target not shown in figure because only a fatality rate target was set.
California

Survey Respondent: California Department of Transportation (DOT)

The fatality target is zero, with the goal to reduce fatalities 20 percent to 2,172 by 2020. The rate target is to 

reduce the fatality rate 20 percent from 0.84 per 100 MVMT in 2010 to 0.67 in 2020. The methodologies are 

Analysis Tool, Committee, and Toward Zero Deaths (2011 Survey response3

). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 20 percent from 2,720 in 2010 to 2,176 by 2020. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by 20 percent from 0.84 in 2010 to 

0.67 by 2020. 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Historically, California’s fatality reduction per decade has ranged from one percent to 35.7 percent. 

Therefore, the 20 percent reduction was deemed feasible by the Steering Committee.4

Data Used

Note: The State is in the process of revising its goals to include serious injuries.

 

3 Interview with Jesse Bhullar, California Department of Transportation (November 2011).

4 Ibid.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – Statewide Integrated Traffic Records 

GIS Safety Analyst System

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

3,956 

4,088 

4,224 

4,120 

4,333 

4,240 

3,995 

3,434 

3,090 

2,720 

2,791 

2,831 

2,682 

2,533 

2,384 

2,235 

2,086 

1,936 

1,787 

1,638 

2,715 

2,172 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities 20 percent to 2,176 by 2020. 
California

Survey Respondent: California Office of Traffic Safety (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities 14.35 percent from the 2009 three-year average of 3,503 to 3,000 by 2012. 

The rate target is to reduce the fatality rate from the 2009 three-year average of 1.18 per 100 MVMT to 1.03 

by 2012. The methodology used is Linear Trend (FY 2012 HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 14.35 percent from the 2009 three-year average of 

3,503 to 3,000 by 2012.

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce the fatality rate from the 2009 three-year average of 1.18 per 

100 MVMT to 1.03 by 2012. 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested by using the 10-year historical fatality trend and setting a target 

based on a 3-year base average. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

408941444226423141893890350630812867

2,781 

2,768 

2,682 

2,533 

3503

3000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg)

2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce traffic deaths by 14.35 percent from the 2009 three-year average of 3,503 to 3,000 

by 2012. 
Colorado

Survey Respondent: Colorado Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Safety (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities from 465 in 2009 to 435 in 2012. The fatality rate target is to maintain at or 

below 0.95 fatalities per 100 MVMT. The methodologies are Linear Trend and Committee (FY 2012 HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from 465 in 2009 to 435 in 2012. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Maintain fatality rate under 0.95 per 100 MVMT. 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility testing is in progress, but details are not available.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

741 743 642 667 606 535 554 548 465 450 447 393 361 330 298 

465 

435 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities from 465 in 2009 to 435 in 2012. 
Connecticut

Survey Respondent: Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT)

There is no current DOT target. 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Note: There currently is no DOT target. The State is discussing plans to set a fatality target and 

developing a methodology.

Methodology

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

318 325 298 294 278 311 296 302 224 320 220 252 245 239 233 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Not shown in figure because no target has been set. 
Delaware

Survey Respondent: Delaware Office of Highway Safety (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities six percent from the 2009 three-year average of 118 to 110 by 2012. The rate 

target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT six percent from the 2009 three-year average of 1.29 to 1.20 by 

2012, and to 1.0 by 2018. The methodologies are Linear Fatality Reduction Trend and Committee (FY 2012 

HSP and 2012 Survey response).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatality rate by six percent to a three-year average of 110 in 2012. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatality rate to 1.20 per 100 MVMT by 2012 and 1.0 by 2018. 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested through trend analysis as well as analysis of the capability of 

partners to implement countermeasures toward achieving the goal. 

Data Used

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

134133136138133129118113105

101 100 

99 96 

118

110

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance. 

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities from the three-year average of 118 in 2009 to 110 by 2012. 
District of Columbia

Survey Respondent: District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities 50 percent from 57 in 2005 to 28 by 2025. The methodology is Committee

(2007 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

 Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 57 in 2005 to 28 by 2025.5

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other – Reduce serious injuries by 50 percent from five-year average of 1,670 to 835 by 2025.

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility testing is in progress, but details are not available.

Data Used

 

5 District of Columbia Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 2007. The 2007 fatality goal has been exceeded but is 

included here for comparison purposes. 
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

68 47 67 43 48 37 44 34 29 24 27 19 15 11 

7 

57 

28 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.6

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities 50 percent from 57 in 2005 to 28 by 2025. 

 

6 Due to the magnitude of the decrease in fatalities in the years for which data was examined (2001-2011), the 

projected linear trend indicates that fatalities will be reduced to zero by 2017. 
Florida

Survey Respondent: Florida Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities five percent annually from the 2010 five-year average of 2,904 to 2,028 by 

2017. The methodologies are Linear Reduction Trend, Committee, and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 SHSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from a 2010 five-year average of 2,904 to 2,028 in 2017. 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities five percent per year (2012 Survey response). 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

3,216 

3,285 

3,300 

3,262 

3,126 

2,911 

2,719 

2,584 

2,481 

2,446 

2,418 

2,385 

2,308 

2,904 

2,028 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities from the 2010 five-year average of 2,904 to 2,028 by 2017. 
Georgia

Survey Respondent: Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities by 41 annually from an estimated 1,200 in 2010 to 1,036 

by 2014. The methodology is Halve Fatalities by 2030 (2011 SHSP).

Fatality Target 

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 41 annually from 1,200 in 2010 to 1,036 by 2014. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target 

Methodology

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Feasibility was tested using a consensus building method. The current target to reduce fatalities by 

41 annually was set based on the previous AASHTO goal of annually reducing fatalities by 1,000 

nationally; Georgia’s target represents four percent of the national total.

Data Used

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – Fatalities tracked daily as high-level 

GIS Safety Analyst subtotals.

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

1,647 

1,524 

1,603 

1,634 

1,729 

1,693 

1,641 

1,495 

1,292 

1,247 

1,223 

1,274 

1,233 

1,191 

1,150 

1,200 

1,036 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2011 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities by 41 annually from an estimated 1,200 in 2010 to 1,036 by 2014. 
Hawaii

Survey Respondent: Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is zero deaths and to reduce fatalities 20 percent from 100 in 2011 to 80 by 2017. The 

methodologies are Committee, Halve Fatalities by 2030, and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 Survey response).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 20 percent from 100 in 2011 to 80 or fewer by 2017. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend

Forecasting or Analysis Tool

Mandated by Policy-Makers 

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities 

by 2030 

Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Other – No scientific analysis conducted – 

just a desire to set an aggressive goal.

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested. The survey respondent noted the target was not set 

scientifically; it was the result of a strong desire to set an aggressive goal. The benefit of an aggressive 

fatality goal is that it sustains stakeholder motivation. However, motor vehicle fatalities are 

significantly influenced by factors beyond the control of transportation safety and should not be used 

to compel accountability. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

140 119 133 142 140 161 138 107 109 113 100 107 104 101 

97 

94 91 

100 

80 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities 20 percent from 100 in 2011 to 80 by 2017.
Idaho

Survey Respondent: Idaho Department of Transportation – Division of Highways (DOT)

The fatality target is to reduce the five-year average fatalities to 195 by 2015. The fatality rate target is to 

reduce the five-year average fatalities per 100 MVMT to 1.16 by 2015. The methodology was not specified

(2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce five-year average fatalities to 195 by 2015 (primary goal). 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce five-year average fatality rate to 1.16 per 100 MVMT by 2015 

(secondary goal).

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce five-year average fatality rate to 1.38 per MVMT by 2012. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

270 272 269 257 250 237 217 205 196 186 178 

217 

195 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce five-year average fatalities to 195 by 2015. 
Idaho

Survey Respondent: Idaho Department of Transportation – Office of Highway Safety (SHSO)

The target is to reduce the five-year average of fatalities from 250 in 2009 to 192 by 2015. The 

methodologies are Linear Fatality Reduction Trend, Committee, and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 Survey 

response). 

The fatality rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT to a five-year average of 1.38 by 2012 (FY 2012 

HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce five-year average fatalities to 192 by 2015 (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce five-year average fatalities per 100 MVMT to 1.38 by 2012 

(FY 2012 SHSO). 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce five-year average fatalities to 217 by 2011, 207 by 2012, 200 by 2013, and 196 

by 2014 (2012 Survey response). 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – Data for other performance measures 

included in Traffic Safety Performance Measures 

for States and Federal Agencies 

(DOT HS 811 025). 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT

GIS Safety Analyst 

Other – Data for performance measures and 

goals specified in Traffic Safety Performance 

Measures for States and Federal Agencies. 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange

Technical Assistance

Other – Transportation Safety Institute’s 

course on Data Analysis and Evaluation, 

which includes methods to set goals.

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

270 272 269 257 250 237 217 205 196 186 178 

250 

217 

192 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Targets

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce five-year average fatalities to 192 by 2015 with interim goals. 
Illinois

Survey Respondent: Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities to zero, with targeted reductions of 5 to 10 percent annually. The 

methodology is Committee (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

 Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 5 to 10 percent annually.

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility test is in progress; the State is conducting a review of performance by emphasis area.

Data Used
HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – State supported systems and tools

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Resources Used or Planned

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

1,414 

1,420 

1,454 

1,355 

1,363 

1,254 

1,248 

1,043 

911 927 918 838 776 714 652 

602 

918 

748 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend

2012 DOT Target (10%) 2012 DOT Target (5%)

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance. 

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities by five to 10 percent annually. 
Iowa

Survey Respondent: Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau (SHSO) 

The target is to reduce fatalities to 348 by 2017, with interim goals of 390 by 2013 and 360 by 2015. (2012 

Survey response) The methodologies are Linear Trend and Towards Zero Deaths. 

The fatality rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by two percent from the 2009 five-year average 

of 1.36 to 1.33 by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities to 348 by 2017 (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by two percent to a five-year average of 

1.33 by 2012 (FY 2012 SHSO). 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to 390 by 2013 and 360 by 2015 (2012 Survey response).

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Historical data is utilized in analyzing trends and for setting goals and strategies.7

 Feasibility of the 

target was not tested.

Data Used

 

7 State of Iowa Highway Safety Plan, FY 2012.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

446 405 443 388 450 439 446 412 371 390 360 378 372 365 359 353 347 

390 

360 348 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 SHSO Targets

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities to 348 by 2017 with interim goals of 390 by 2013 and 360 by 2015. 
Kansas 

Survey Respondent: Kansas Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities by 50 percent from a five-year average of 417 in 2009 to a 

five-year average of 208 by 2029. The methodologies are Linear Trend, Halve Fatalities by 2030, and 

Committee (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from a five-year average of 417 in 2009 to a 

five-year average of 208 by 2029. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Note: Not all resources indicated were necessarily used for fatality target setting.

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

471466448431416417401

391 386 379 313 256 199 

417 

208 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2005200620072008200920102011201220132014201920242029

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from a five-year average of 417 in 2009 to a five-year 

average of 208 by 2029. 
Kentucky

Survey Respondent: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Office of Highway Safety (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities three percent from the 2010 three-year average of 792 to 724 by 2014. The 

rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by three percent from the 2010 three-year average of 1.66 to 

1.51 by 2014. The methodologies are Committee and Toward Zero Deaths (FY 2012 HSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities three percent from the 2010 three-year average of 792 to 724 

by 2014. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by three percent from the 2010 three-year 

average of 1.66 to 1.51 by 2014. 

Other – In the process of setting a long-term target for 2030. 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to a three-year average of 768 by 2012 and 745 by 2013. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility testing is in progress, but details are not available.

Data Used
HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Resources Used or Planned

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

896936959954921867827792757

745 736 734 716 

792 

724 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013. 

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities by three percent from the 2010 three-year average of 792 to 724 by 2014.
Louisiana

Survey Respondent: Louisiana Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities by 50 percent from the 2008 five-year average of 965 to 482 by 2030. The 

methodologies are Linear Trend, Halve Fatalities by 2030, Committee, and Toward Zero Deaths (2011 

SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 50 percent 482 by 2030. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target – Five-year benchmarks that correspond to the 50 percent reduction

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

933 925 943 959 981 965 911 820 740 712 600 487 375 

965 

482 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2003200420052006200720082009201020112015202020252030

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2011 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from the 2008 three-year average of 965 to 482 by 2030. 
Louisiana

Survey Respondent: Louisiana Highway Safety Commission (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities 2.4 percent per year, from the 2008 five-year average of 957 to 478 by 2030. 

The rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by 2.4 percent annually from the 2008 five-year 

average of 2.15 to 1.07 by 2030. The methodology is Halve Fatalities (FY 2012 HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 2.4 percent per year, from a five-year average of 957 in 2008 

to 848 by 2013. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by 2.4 percent annually from a five-year 

average of 2.15 in 2008 to 1.07 by 2030. 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce five-year average fatalities to 848 by 2013. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

938 945 962 957 937 888 826 

779742720

713 622 510 398 

957 

848

478 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015202020252030

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities 2.4 percent per year from the 2008 five-year average of 957 to 478 by 

2030.
Maine

Survey Respondent: Maine Department of Transportation (DOT)

There is no DOT target.

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other – The State is not considering development of a fatality target. 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

192 216 207 194 169 188 183 155 159 161 136 140 133 127 120 

0

50

100

150

200

250

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: No fatality target has been set.
Maryland

Survey Respondent: Maryland Highway Safety Office (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities by 50 percent by 2030, and to 475 in 2015. The methodologies are Linear 

Trend, Committee, Have Fatalities by 2030, and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 Survey response). 

The rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by 19.6 percent from 1.07 in 2008 to 0.86 by 2015 

(FY 2012 SHSO). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 50 percent by 2030 and to 475 by 2015.

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by 19.6 percent from 1.07 in 2008 to 0.86 

by 2015. 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to 522 in 2012, 506 in 2013, and 490 by 2014. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Targets were based on reducing fatalities by one-half by 2030, which was determined to be a realistic 

goal. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

659 661 650 643 614 652 614 591 549 496 485 496 478 460 443 

592 

475 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2011 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities from 592 in 2008 to fewer than 475 in 2015. 
Massachusetts

Survey Respondent: Massachusetts Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities by 50 percent by 2030. The methodologies are Committee, Halve Fatalities 

by 2030, and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 50 percent by 2030. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities by 20 percent by 2016. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other – Information on how states overcome 

data deficiencies. Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

477 459 462 476 441 429 434 364 340 347 337 320 304 288 272 193 114 

34 

337 

169 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities 20 percent by 2016 and 50 percent by 2030. 
Michigan

Survey Respondent: Michigan Department of Transportation (DOT)*

The target is to reduce fatalities from 889 in 2011 to 750 by 2016. The methodologies are linear trend, 

committee, Toward Zero Deaths, and other (2012 Survey response). 

Survey Respondent: Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (SHSO) †

The target is to reduce fatalities from 889 in 2011 to 750 by 2016. The rate target is to reduce fatalities per 

100 MVMT to 0.87 by 2015. The methodologies are Linear Trend, Committee, and Toward Zero Deaths

(2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from 889 in 2011 to 750 by 2016.* †

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce the fatality rate to 0.87 by 2015.†

Other 

Interim Target – MDOT interim goals will be set using a linear trend.* Reduce fatalities to 792 and 

0.91 per 100 MVMT by 2013, and to 763 and 0.87 per 100 MVMT by 2014. †

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend*† AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target*†

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other – Use of Focus Groups*

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion*†

Fatalities*† Serious Injuries* 

Fatality Rate† Other – VMT and State trend data.†

Methodology

Feasibility of the DOT target was not tested.* Feasibility testing of the SHSO target is in progress by 

monitoring daily fatalities and utilizing the assistance of a research university.† 

Data Used

* indicates Michigan Department of Transportation response. 

† indicates Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning response.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS†

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – State crash database*†

GIS Safety Analyst* 

Guidance Materials* Training*

Peer Exchange*† Other 

Technical Assistance*

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

1,328 

1,277 

1,283 

1,159 

1,129 

1,086 

1,087 

980 872 942 889 812 765 718 671 624 

889 

750 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities from 889 in 2011 to 750 by 2016. 

SHSO Target: (not shown) Reduce fatalities from 889 in 2011 to 750 by 2016.
Minnesota

Survey Respondent: Minnesota Department of Public Safety (SHSO)

The target is zero fatalities and to reduce fatalities by 28 percent from the 2009 five-year average of 488 to 

350 by 2015. The methodologies are Linear Trend, Forecasting Tool, Committee, and Toward Zero Deaths

(FY 2012 HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 28 percent from the 2009 five-year average of 488 to 350 

by 2015. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce the fatality rate from the 2009 five-year average of 0.85 to 0.60 

by 2015. 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to 390 by 2011 and 360 by 2013. Reduce the fatality rate to 0.69 

per 100 MVMT by 2011 and 0.64 by 2013. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool – SAS, Excel. Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – Regional and National Trends.

Methodology

Feasibility testing is in progress, but details are not available.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities by 28 percent, from the 2009 five-year average of 488 to 350 by 2015. 601 586 557 517 488 458 433 402 376 352 314 

488 

350 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target
Mississippi

Survey Respondent: Mississippi Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities to 525 by 2017. The methodology is Committee (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities to 525 by 2017.

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

784 885 872 900 931 911 884 783 700 641 630 672 649 626 603 580 525 

630 

525 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities to 525 by 2017. 
Missouri

Survey Respondent: Missouri Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities from 878 in 2009 to 700 by 2016. The methodologies are Committee and 

Other (2012-2016 SHSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from 878 in 2009 to 700 by 2016. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers 

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Other – Reviewed national targets to determine 

Missouri’s “share” and set goal accordingly. 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – Transportation Management System 

GIS Safety Analyst (TMS) data.

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

1,098 

1,208 

1,232 

1,130 

1,257 

1,096 

992 960 878 821 784 780 737 693 650 606 

878 

700 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities from 878 in 2009 to 700 by 2016. 
Montana

Survey Respondent: Montana Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities and incapacitating injuries by 50 percent from 1,704 in 2007 to 852 by 2030. 

The methodologies are Linear Trend, Committee, and Halve Fatalities by 2030 (2010 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities and incapacitating injuries by 50 percent from 

1,704 in 2007 to 852 by 2030. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target –Reduce the number of fatalities and incapacitating injuries based on a 

five-year average.

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT

GIS Safety Analyst 

Other – Statewide trend analysis based on 

internal safety management system.

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

230 269 262 229 251 264 277 229 221 189 209 211 206 201 196 173 149 125 

277 

139 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015202020252030

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities and incapacitating injuries by 50 percent from 1,704 in 2007 to 852 by 

2030. Trend graphic includes only fatalities.
Nebraska

Survey Respondent: Nebraska Office of Highway Safety (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities 10 percent from the 2010 three-year average of 207 to 186 by 2012 

(FY 2012 HSP). 

The rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT to 0.5 by 2015. The methodologies are Linear Trend, 

Committee, and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 10 percent from the 2010 three-year average of 207 to 186 by 

2012. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatality rate to 0.5 per 100 MVMT by 2015. 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatality rate to 0.84 per 100 MVMT by 2012 and 0.80 per 100 MVMT 2013. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

282285274266267244229207198

185 180 175 165 

207 

186 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities from the 2010 three-year average of 207 to 186 by 2012. 
New Hampshire

Survey Respondent: New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is zero deaths and to reduce the five-year average of fatalities and serious injuries 50 percent by 

2030. The methodologies are Forecasting Tool, Committee, Halve Fatalities by 2030, and Toward Zero 

Deaths (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce five-year average fatalities and serious injuries by 50 percent by 2030.

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce five-year average fatalities and serious injuries by 3.4 percent annually.

Methodology

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

 

Feasibility of the target was tested with trend analysis using five years of data.

Data Used

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

142 127 127 171 166 127 129 138 110 128 

90 

115 109 107 101 

88 69 50 

119 

60 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015202020252030

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce the five-year average of fatalities and serious injuries 50 percent by 2030.
New Jersey

Survey Respondents: New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities one percent from the 2011 three-year average of 589 to 584 by 2013. The 

rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from the 2011 three-year average of 0.77 to 0.76 by 2013. 

The methodologies are Linear Trend and Mandate (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities one percent from the 2011 three-year average of 589 to 584 

by 2013. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce the fatality rate per 100 MVMT from the 2011 three-year average 

of 0.77 to 0.76 by 2013. 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility testing in progress, but details are not available.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

750742734747747695633577589

584 582 549 529 

589 584 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities from the 2011 three-year average of 589 to 584 by 2013. 
New Mexico

Survey Respondents: New Mexico Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities 50 percent from the 2008 five-year average of 455 to 227 by 2030. The 

methodologies are Linear Trend and Halve Fatalities by 2030 (2010 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 50 percent from the 2008 five-year average of 455 to 227 

by 2030. 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to 382 by 2015, 331 by 2020, and 279 by 2025. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030 

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested by observing that the 2009 fatality number achieved corresponded 

to the 2017 fatality target.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

472 476 469 454 422 395 368 340 326 312 297 226 154 

83 

455 

227 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015202020252030

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce five-year average fatalities by 50 percent from 455 in 2008 to 227 by 2030. 
New York

Survey Respondent: New York Department of Motor Vehicles (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities to 1,127 by 2013 and reduce the fatality rate to 0.86 per 100 MVMT by 2013. 

The methodology is Linear Trend (2012 Survey response).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities to 1,127 by 2013. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatality rate to 0.86 per 100 MVMT by 2013. 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested by using fatality trend analysis. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange

Technical Assistance

Other – At this point the agency feels it can 

conduct its own analysis.

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

1,564 

1,530 

1,493 

1,495 

1,434 

1,454 

1,332 

1,238 

1,158 

1,201 

1,169 

1,102 

1,057 

1,013 

968 

1,127 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013. 

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities to 1,127 by 2013. 
Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Zero fatalities. 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce five-year average fatalities by 50 percent from 395 in 2008 to 195 by 2030. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Nevada

Survey Respondent: Nevada Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities to zero with interim targets to reduce fatalities by 50 percent from the 2008 

five-year average of 395 to 195 by 2030. The methodologies are Halve Fatalities by 2030 and Toward Zero 

Deaths (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

377 400 399 390 360 326 289 265 252 239 227 163 

99 

35 

395 

195 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015202020252030

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities to zero, and by 50 percent from the 2008 five-year average of 395 to 195

by 2030. 
North Carolina

Survey Respondent: North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities to 1,541 by 2011. The rate target is to reduce fatalities to 1.0 per 100 MVMT 

by 2008. The methodologies are Linear Trend, Committee, and Halve Fatalities by 2030 (2012 Survey 

response, adapted from 2007 SHSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities to 1,541 by 2011. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatality rate to 1.0 per 100 MVMT by 2008.8

Other – Reduce fatal crash rate annually by 2.5 percent over a 20-year period.

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – VMT and population trends.

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested. The fatality target was determined by using VMT projections and 

the target fatality rate.

Data Used

 

8 North Carolina Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 2007.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – North Carolina’s crash database and 

GIS Safety Analyst safety traffic analysis system.

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

1,530 

1,576 

1,553 

1,573 

1,547 

1,554 

1,676 

1,428 

1,313 

1,320 

1,227 

1,295 

1,264 

1,233 

1,202 

1,541 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2007 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities to 1,541 by 2011. 
North Dakota

Survey Respondent: North Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is zero fatalities with an interim target to reduce fatalities to 100 by 2020. The methodology is 

Toward Zero Deaths (2012 Survey response).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to 100 by 2020. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

105 

97 

105 100 123 111 111 104 140 105 148 133 136 139 142 145 148 152 155 158 

100 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance. 

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities to 100 by 2020.
Ohio

Survey Respondent: Ohio Department of Transportation – Traffic Safety Office (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities 4.7 percent from the 2010 three-year average of 1,099 to 950 by 2014. The 

fatality rate target is to reduce fatalities by 4.8 percent from the 2010 three-year average of 0.99 to 0.86 by 

2014. The methodologies are Linear Trend, Committee, and Toward Zero Deaths (FY 2012 HSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from the 2010 three-year average of 1,099 to 

950 by 2014. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities 4.8 percent from the 2010 three-year average of 0.99 to 

0.86 by 2014. 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to a three-year average of 1,047 and reduce the fatality rate to 

0.94 per 100 MVMT by 2012. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – Fatality categories, e.g., alcohol-related.

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested by analyzing historical crash trends. Historically Ohio crash data, VMT, 

and population have been used to establish goals for priority emphasis areas. The office analyzes the 

previous five years of data to set goals for the upcoming fiscal year. The amount of reduction/increase for 

each goal is set based on past trends.9

 

Data Used

 

9 Ohio Highway Safety Plan, FY 2012.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

135713261294128212711228115610981039

1,031 

991 960 922 

1,099 

950 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities from the 2010 three-year average of 1,099 to 950 by 2014.
Oklahoma

Survey Respondent: Oklahoma Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce the fatality rate 20 percent from 1.71 per 100 MVMT in 2004 to 1.37 by 2015. The 

methodology is Committee (2007 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatality rate 20 percent from 1.71 per 100 MVMT in 2004 to 1.37 by 

2015; an estimated 185 lives will be saved. 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility testing is in progress, but details were not available. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other – Funding

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: No fatality target shown in figure; DOT has set rate target only. 682 739 671 774 803 765 766 750 737 668 696 726 

725 725 724 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend
Oregon

Survey Respondent: Oregon Department of Transportation – Highway Division (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities to 305 by 2030. The rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT to 0.88 

by 2030. The methodologies are Linear Trend and Committee (2011 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities to 305 by 2030.

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT to 0.88 by 2030. 

Other 

Interim Target – Target set every two years to meet 2020 goal.

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – State crash database

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

487 478 455 416 377 317 331 335 319 303 287 206 125 

44 

331 

305 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2011 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities to 305 by 2030. 
Oregon

Survey Respondent: Oregon Department of Transportation – Transportation Safety Division (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities from the 2010 three-year average of 370 to 330 by 2015. The rate target is to 

reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from the 2010 three-year average of 1.10 to 0.85 by 2015. The 

methodologies are Linear Trend and Committee (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction – Reduce three-year average fatalities to 330 by 2015. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce the three-year average fatality rate to 0.85 per 100 MVMT by 2015. 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce the three-year average fatalities to 348 by 2013; Reduce the three-year 

average fatality rate from the 2010 average of 1.10 per 100 MVMT to 1.03 by 2013. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – Data from 25 topical areas are reviewed 

to impact State targets/goals. 

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other – None required. 

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

479468485474473450416370342

328 328 319 303 

370 

330 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013. 

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities to 330 by 2015. 
Pennsylvania

Survey Respondent: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce the five-year average fatalities by 50 percent by 2030, from 1,413 in 2010 

to 707 by 2030. The methodologies are Linear Trend, Halve Fatalities by 2030, Committee, and Other (2012 

Survey response).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce five-year average fatalities by 50 percent by 2030, from 1,413 in 2010 

to 707 by 2030. 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities by 35 annually. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other – Decided by over 50 stakeholders and 

safety partners at a safety summit. Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Methodology

Feasibility of the target is in progress using the following methodology: Based on overall goal, goals 

for each specific safety focus area were established. To meet the goal in each safety focus area, specific 

strategies (action items) were established. This was established based on past-performance 

measurements and benefit/cost analysis. Future funding potential was considered to balance the 

activities that would help meet the goals. 

Data Used

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT

GIS Safety Analyst 

Other – Crash Data Analysis and Retrieval 

Tool (CDART) 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange

Technical Assistance

Other – Roadway Departure and Intersection 

Safety Implementation Plans

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

1,566 

1,564 

1,540 

1,518 

1,471 

1,413 

1,365 

1,323 

1,278 

1,270 

1,242 

1,087 

927 766 

1,413 

707 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015202020252030

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce five-year average fatalities by 50 percent by 2030, from 1,413 in 2010 to 707 by 

2030.
Puerto Rico

Survey Respondent: Puerto Rico Traffic Safety Commission (SHSO)

The Commonwealth has not set a fatality target.

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Note: The Commonwealth has other performance-based targets for highway safety in place, 

including for the 10 performance measures required by GHSA and NHTSA.10 The 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has considered developing a fatality target.

Methodology

Data Used

 

10Puerto Rico Traffic Safety Commission HSP FY 2012.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

 -

 50

 100

 150

 200

 250

 300

 350

 400

 450

 500

452 405 365 340 359 309 284 259 234 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: No fatality target has been set. 
Rhode Island

Survey Respondent: Rhode Island Department of Transportation (DOT)*

The target is to reduce fatalities to zero, with interim targets of reducing fatalities 50 percent from 67

fatalities in 2010 to 33 fatalities by 2030. The methodologies are Committee, Halve Fatalities by 2030, and 

Toward Zero Deaths (2012 SHSP). 

Survey Respondent: Rhode Island Office of Highway Safety (SHSO)†

The target is to reduce fatalities by 50 percent by 2030. The methodology is Toward Zero Deaths (2012 

Survey response). The rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from 1.01 in 2009 to 1.0 by 2011

(FY 2012 HSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths* 

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 50 percent from 67 fatalities in 2010 to 33 fatalities by 2030.* †

Fatality Rate Reduction –Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from 1.01 in 2009 to 1.00 by 2011.† 

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to 55 by 2016.* Reduce fatalities by 3.2 percent annually.† 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030* 

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target* † 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion* 

Fatalities*† Serious Injuries*†

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the DOT target was not tested.* Feasibility of the target was tested using 

Countermeasures That Work and CRFs. † 

Data Used

* indicates Rhode Island Department of Transportation response. 

† indicates Rhode Island Office of Highway Safety response. 
Resources Used or Planned

HSM* HPMS

IHSDM FARS*†

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange*† Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

87 81 69 65 83 67 66 65 63 60 58 46 34 22 

67 

33 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities 50 percent from 67 in 2010 to 33 by 2030. 

SHSO Target: (not shown) Reduce fatalities 50 percent by 2030. 
South Carolina

Survey Respondent: South Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities 25 percent, from 1,046 in 2004 to 784 in 2010. The methodology was not 

specified (2007 SHSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 25 percent, from 1,046 in 2004 to 784 in 2010. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Note: The State also has other performance-based targets for highway safety.

Methodology

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

1,060 

1,053 

969 1,046 

1,094 

1,045 

1,077 

921 894 809 828 838 814 790 766 

1,046 

784 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2007 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities by 25 percent, from 1,046 in 2004 to 784 in 2010. 
South Dakota

Survey Respondent: South Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities 47 percent from 186 in 2005 to 99 by 2015. The rate target is to reduce the 

fatalities per 100 MVMT from 2.29 in 2005 to 1.00 by 2015. The methodology is unknown (2007 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 47 percent from 186 in 2005 to 99 by 2015. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatality rate from 2.29 fatalities per 100 MVMT in 2005 to 1.00 in 

2015.

Other 

Interim Targets – Reduce fatalities by five percent annually to 144 by 2010. Reduce the fatality rate 

per 100 MVMT to 1.55 by 2010. The 2005 rate of 2.29 fatalities per 100 million VMT to 1.55 by 2010.

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Note: No fatality target was indicated in the 2012 survey. The respondent indicated that the State 

had other safety performance targets in place. 

Methodology

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

171 180 203 197 186 191 146 121 131 140 111 114 106 

98 

91 

186 

99 

0

50

100

150

200

250

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2007 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities from 186 in 2005 to 99 by 2015. 
Tennessee 

Survey Respondent: Tennessee Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities from 1,044 in 2008 to 900 by 2013. The methodology is Committee (2009 

SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from 1,044 in 2008 to 900 by 2013. 

Fatality Rate Reduction 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

The survey respondent did not know if the feasibility of the target had been tested. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

1,251 

1,177 

1,193 

1,339 

1,270 

1,284 

1,211 

1,043 

986 1,032 

946 973 943 912 881 

1,044 

900 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2009 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities from 1,044 in 2008 to 900 by 2013.
Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatality rate to 1.23 fatalities per 100 MVMT by 2016. 

Other 

Interim Targets – Reduce the fatality rate per 100 MVMT to 1.27 by 2012, 1.26 by 2013, 1.25 by 2014, 

and 1.24 by 2015. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other 

Texas 

Survey Respondent: Texas Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce the fatality rate to 1.23 fatalities per 100 MVMT by 2016. The methodologies are 

Linear Trend and Committee (2012 Survey response).

Fatality Target

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – Did not use any of the above

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

3,736 

3,823 

3,821 

3,699 

3,536 

3,531 

3,466 

3,476 

3,104 

3,023 

3,016 

2,959 

2,873 

2,787 

2,701 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Not shown, as the State only set a fatality rate target. 
Utah 

Survey Respondent: Utah Department of Public Safety – Highway Safety Office (SHSO)

The target is zero deaths. The methodology is Committee (2012 Survey response). 

The Highway Safety Plan fatality target is to reduce fatalities to 235 by 2012, and to reduce the fatality rate to 

0.90 per 100 MVMT by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Zero deaths; Reduce fatalities to 235 by 2012. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT to 0.90 by 2012. 

Other 

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested. Stakeholders decided that no target other than zero is 

acceptable. The goal is not based on an analytical or forecasting tool. 

Data Used

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – No data needed to support zero 

fatalities. 
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

291 328 309 296 282 287 299 276 244 253 240 240 233 226 219 

235 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities to zero and to 235 by 2012.
Vermont 

Survey Respondent: Vermont Governor’s Highway Safety Program (SHSO)

The target is zero deaths. The methodology is Toward Zero Deaths (2012 Survey response). 

The Highway Safety Plan target is to reduce fatalities from the 2010 three-year average of 72 to 67.6 by 

2012. The rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by two percent from the 2010 three-year average 

of 0.95 to 0.93 by 2012 (FY 2012 HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from the 2010 three-year average of 72 to 68 by 2012. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT by two percent from the 2010 three-year 

average of 0.95 to 0.93 by 2012. 

Other 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Methodology

The survey respondent did not know if the feasibility of the target was tested. 

Data Used

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

808280867575717367

63 59 60 57 

72 

68 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (3-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (3-Yr Avg) 2012 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities to zero and from the 2010 three-year average of 72 to 67.6 by 2012. 
Virginia

Survey Respondent: Virginia Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is to reduce fatalities 50 percent by 2030 with an interim goal of reducing fatalities 3.2 percent 

annually from 742 in 2010 to 603 in 2016. The methodologies are Halve Fatalities by 2030 and Toward 

Zero Deaths (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 740 in 2010 to 370 in 2030.

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities 3.2 percent annually to 603 in 2016. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030 

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested through trend analysis of fatalities and serious injuries between 

2001 and 2010. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

947 962 1,027 

825 758 740 764 764 744 724 704 683 603 502 401 

742 

603 

371 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016202020252030

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Future trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities from 742 in 2010 to 603 by 2016 and 371 by 2030.
Washington

Survey Respondent: Washington Department of Transportation (DOT)*

The target is zero fatalities and serious crashes by 2030 with an interim goal to reduce fatalities to 496 by 

2012 and 460 by 2014. The methodology is not indicated (2010 SHSP). 

Survey Respondent: Washington Traffic Safety Commission (SHSO)†

The target is zero fatalities by 2030 with an interim target to reduce fatalities from the 2009 three-year 

average of 528 to 496 by 2012. The rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from the 2009 threeyear average of 0.94 to 0.85 by 2012. The methodologies are Committee and Toward Zero Deaths (2012 

Survey response and FY 2012 HSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths*†

Fatality Reduction – Zero fatalities by 2030.* †

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from the 2009 three-year average of 0.94 

to 0.85 by 2012.†

Other – Zero fatal and serious injury crashes by 2030.* Reduce annual fatal crashes by 26. †

Interim Target – Reduce fatalities to 496 by 2012 and 460 by 2014*† Reduce fatalities to 532 in 2010, 

with similar goals in 2012 and 2014 (2012 SHSP and FY 2012 HSP). †

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target †

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion †

Methodology

Feasibility of the DOT target was tested but the survey respondent did not know the details. 

Washington has set interim goals halfway between the projected and aspirational rate of reductions 

(2012 SHSP).* 

Data Used

Fatalities † Serious Injuries †

Fatality Rate † Other

* indicates Washington Department of Transportation response. 

† indicates Washington Traffic Safety Commission response.
Resources Used or Planned

HSM † HPMS

IHSDM † FARS †

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT †

GIS Safety Analyst † 

Other – FHWA’s economic model for 

estimating crash costs †

Guidance Materials † Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

649 658 600 567 649 633 571 521 492 460 457 446 426 405 385 

496 

460 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities to 496 by 2012 and 460 by 2014. (2010 SHSP) 

SHSO Target: (not shown) Reduce fatalities from the 2009 three-year average of 528 to 496 in 2012. 
West Virginia

Survey Respondent: West Virginia Governor’s Highway Safety Program (SHSO)

The target is to reduce fatalities 7.5 percent from the 2010 five-year average of 378 to 350 by 2012. The rate 

target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from the 2010 five-year average of 1.87 to 1.80 by 2012. The 

methodology is unknown (FY 2012 HSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities 7.5 percent from the 2010 five-year average of 378 to 350 by 

2012. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from the 2010 five-year average of 1.87 to 

1.80 by 2012.

Other 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

399 405 404 401 390 378 364 345 336 330 330 

378 

350 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2011 SHSO Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

SHSO Target: Reduce fatalities from the 2010 five-year average of 378 to 350 by 2012. 
Wisconsin

Survey Respondent: Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is zero deaths and a five percent annual reduction in fatalities from the 2009 five-year average of 

676 to 551 by 2013. The fatality rate target is to reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from the 2009 five-year 

average of 1.15 to 0.94 by 2013. The methodology is Toward Zero Deaths (2011 SHSP).

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities five percent annually, from a 2009 average of 676 fatalities to 

551 by 2013. 

Fatality Rate Reduction – Reduce fatalities per 100 MVMT from the 2009 five-year average of 1.15 to 

0.94 by 2013. 

Other 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested, but details are not available. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

804 796 787 738 692 644 615 572 554 538 515 

676 

551 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015

Fatalities (5-Yr Avg, FARS) Fatality Trend (5-Yr Avg) 2011 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities from the 2009 five-year average of 676 to 551 by 2013. 
Wyoming

Survey Respondent: Wyoming Department of Transportation (DOT)

The target is zero deaths with an interim goal to reduce fatalities to 135. The methodology is Committee

(2012 Survey response and 2012 SHSP). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths 

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities to 135. 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other – Reduce fatal crashes to 120. 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – Fatal crashes, PDO crashes

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was tested primarily through consensus of what is achievable. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – MIRE data housed in the HPMS system

GIS Safety Analyst 

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange

Technical Assistance

Other (need continued support of CMF 

research to support fatality reduction 

estimates).

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trends versus Targets

Fatality Trend

186 176 165 164 170 195 150 159 134 155 135 137 133 129 125 

135 

0

50

100

150

200

250

200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015

Fatalities (FARS) Fatality Trend 2012 DOT Target

Source: FARS, 2013.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

DOT Target: Reduce fatalities to 135. 
Cheyenne MPO

Survey Respondent: Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

The target is to reduce fatal and injury crashes 10 percent from the 2006 five-year average of 451 to 406 by 

2020. The methodology is Committee (2012 Survey response and Cheyenne Transportation Safety Management 

Plan). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatal and injury crashes by 10 percent from the 2006 five-year average 

of to 406 by 2020. 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other – Target includes both fatal and injury crashes. 

Interim Target

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other 

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – All injury crashes. 

Note: The Wyoming target is less than 135 fatalities, less than 120 fatal crashes.

Methodology

As the number of fatal crashes in the MPO region is so small (an average of six fatal crashes per year 

from 2007 to 2011) the target includes fatal and injury crashes. Crashes were chosen as a measure 

because there is no way to control the number of passengers in each vehicle involved in a crash. 

Feasibility of the target was not formally tested. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – State crash database

GIS Safety Analyst

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatal and Injury Crash Trend

451 461 445 448 457 448 450 451 452 451 452 453 453 453 454 

451 

406 

 370

 380

 390

 400

 410

 420

 430

 440

 450

 460

 470

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities and Injury Crashes (5-Yr Avg, MPO)

Fatal and Injury Crash Trend (5-Yr Avg, MPO)

MPO Fatal and Injury Crash Target

Source: Cheyenne, 2012.

Note: Future trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance.

MPO Target: Reduce fatal and injury crashes 10 percent from the 2006 five-year average of 451 to 406 

by 2020.
Mid-America Regional Council

Survey Respondent: Mid-America Regional Council (MPO)

The target is to reduce fatalities 50 percent from 182 in 2010 to 91 by 2040. The methodology is Linear 

Fatality Reduction Trend (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 210 in 2010 to 105 by 2040. 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other 

Interim Target – Monitor annual fatality totals for benchmark reduction. 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other – Used the four-year State SHSP goal to 

create a linear trend line. Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Other – Reduce total crashes. 

Note: The Kansas target is to halve the fatalities from a five-year average of 417 at the end of 2009 to a 

five-year average of 208 by the end of 2029; the Missouri target is to reduce fatalities from 878 in 2009 

to 700 by 2016.

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested.

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other – Missouri and Kansas States Databases

GIS Safety Analyst

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other

Technical Assistance

Fatality Trend versus Target

Fatality Trend

 -

 50

 100

 150

 200

 250

 300

253 227 245 217 237 215 194 173 152 131 110 

89 

182 

91 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Fatalities (MARC, 2010) Fatality Trend 2010 MPO Target

Source: MARC, 2011.

Note: Fatality trend calculated by Cambridge Systematics based on past performance. 

MPO Target: Reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 182 in 2010 to 91 by 2040. 
Portland Metro

Survey Respondent: Portland Metro (MPO)

The target is to reduce fatalities by 50 percent from 2005 levels, across all modes, by 2035. The 

methodology is Committee (2012 Survey response). 

Fatality Target

Toward Zero Deaths

Fatality Reduction – Reduce fatalities from 2005 level by 50 percent, across all modes, by 2035. 

Fatality Rate Reduction

Other – Reduce serious injuries from 2005 level by 50 percent, across all modes, by 2035.

Interim Target 

Linear Fatality Reduction Trend AASHTO Target to Halve Fatalities by 2030

Forecasting or Analysis Tool Toward Zero Deaths Target 

Mandated by Policy-Makers Other 

Set by Committee through Deliberation 

and Discussion

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Fatality Rate Others

Note: The Oregon target is to reduce fatalities to 330 by 2015.

Methodology

Feasibility of the target was not tested. 

Data Used
Resources Used or Planned

HSM HPMS

IHSDM FARS

SafetyAnalyst FastFARS

HERS NASS – GES

PBCAT Other 

GIS Safety Analyst

Guidance Materials Training

Peer Exchange Other – Would like to see one tool that can 

address measures at multiple levels: long-range 

plans, TIPs, and projects.

Technical Assistance

Capacity Building Strategies Desired

Fatality Trend versus Target

Data are not available. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

A-1

A. Survey

Introduction to Survey 

Over the last several years, Transportation Performance Management – a 

strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and policy 

decisions to achieve performance goals – has emerged as a best practice within 

the transportation industry. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

recognizes the need to prepare for and transition to the administration of a consistent performance management framework for State and local highway safety 

programs. This need is also recognized and further supported by the U.S. DOT, 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), the Governor’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and many 

other highway safety stakeholders. 

In order to prepare for this transition, FHWA is seeking feedback from its 

customers on additional FHWA services needed – or how they can be 

improved – to assist agencies in target setting and information on how States, 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and local agencies currently set 

targets. To develop strategies for improvement and to collect this feedback on 

current experiences, FHWA, through its contractor, Cambridge Systematics, is 

conducting a survey to solicit information from its customers to understand and 

improve methods to assist in fatality target-setting practices. Information 

collected from the survey will be used internally as background and supporting 

information for an overall research project on target setting methodologies and is 

not intended for publication. 

To assist FHWA in improving its safety program, please answer the following 

questions related to the FHWA tools and services used to support target setting, 

how FHWA can improve its services in support of the fatality targets adopted by 

your State and the methodologies used to select the fatality target in your State. 

We appreciate your support of this effort. FHWA remains committed to working 

with our State, regional, and local partners to understand and build on 

noteworthy practices. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

A-2 

Background Information 

1. Agency

2. Name of person/s completing survey instrument

3. Title

4. Department/Division 

5. Business Telephone Number

6. Business E-mail Address

Survey Questions

1. Does your State set a fatality target? 

a. Yes

b. No

c. I do not know

If the participant answers “Yes” to Question #1 the questionnaire will continue to 

Question #2. If the participant answers “No” or “I do not know” to Question #1, 

the questionnaire will continue to question 1A.

Question 1A: Select all statements that apply to your State’s activities related to 

performance management targets. 

a. The State has considered developing a fatality target 

b. There have been discussions about plans to develop a fatality target 

c. The State is developing a methodology to set a target

d. The State has other performance-based targets for highway safety in place 

e. The State is not considering development of a fatality target 

If the participant selects response “a” “b” “c” or “d” to Question 1A, the 

questionnaire will continue to Question 5. 

2. What is the State fatality target? (Please include the target date and target 

value description, i.e., number per 100 VMT) 

3. Did your State set interim targets? 

a. Yes

b. No

c. I do not know

If the participant answers “Yes” to Question #3 the questionnaire will continue to 

Question #3A. If the participant answers “No “or “I do not know” to Question 

#3, the questionnaire will skip to the Question #4. 
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

A-3

Question 3A: What are the interim targets? 

4. What methodology did your agency use to set the overall and/or interim 

targets? Please select all that apply. 

a. Target based on a linear fatality reduction trend line over a specified time 

frame

b. Target based on the output of a forecasting or analysis tool. Please 

describe the tool and/or analysis method

c. Target was mandated by the policy makers

d. Target was set by a committee, consensus, or a leadership group through 

deliberation and discussion 

e. Adopted the AASHTO target to halve fatalities by 2030 

f. Adopted the Towards Zero Deaths target 

g. Other – please specify the prescribed methodology for setting the target

5. Which of the following FHWA supported tools or services did you use or do 

you intend to use to develop fatality targets? 

a. Highway Safety Manual (HSM)

b. GIS Safety Analysis Tool

c. Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM)

d. Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)

e. SafetyAnalyst

f. FARS

g. Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS)

h. FastFARS

i. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT)

j. National Automotive Sampling System – General Estimates System 

(NASS-GES)

k. Other – please specify

6. Do these tools meet your needs for setting and evaluating performance 

targets? 

a. Yes

b. No

If participants answer “no” to Question 6, the questionnaire will go to Question 

6A. If Question 6 is “yes,” the questionnaire will skip to Question 7.
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

A-4 

Question 6A: What improvements to these products or services would better 

assist your State/jurisdiction in developing, setting and evaluating the target? 

End of questionnaire for those answering “No” or “I do not know” to Question 1. 

7. What data were used to support the selection of the fatality reduction target? 

a. Fatalities 

b. Fatality rate 

c. Serious injuries

d. Other – Please specify.

8. Did your agency consider using a different methodology to select the fatality 

target? 

a. Yes

b. No

c. I do not know

9. Was the feasibility of meeting the fatality target tested through analysis? 

a. Yes

b. No

c. In Progress

d. I do not know

If the respondent answers “Yes” or “In Progress” (a or c) to Question #10, the 

questionnaire will continue to Question #10A. If the participant answers “No” or 

“I do not know” (b or d) to Question #10, the questionnaire will skip to Question 

#11. 

Question 10A: How was the feasibility of meeting the target tested? 

10. Which of the following capacity building strategies that FHWA offers would 

assist your State in developing, setting and achieving highway safety 

performance measures and targets? 

a. Guidance materials 

b. Peer exchange

c. Technical assistance 

d. Training

e. Other
A Compendium of State and Regional Safety Target Setting Practices

A-5

11. Would your State be interested in hosting or attending an FHWA sponsored 

Peer Exchange to assist FHWA in sharing information to improve FHWA 

products and services for target setting methods and practices?

a. Yes

b. No

c. I do not know

12. Do other agencies in the State also set fatality targets and, if so, are they 

consistent with the target identified in Question #2? 

a. Yes, and they are consistent

b. Yes, but they are not consistent

c. No

d. I do not know

If the participant answers “Yes” to Question #12 (a or b) the questionnaire will 

continue to Question #12A. If the participant answers “No” or “I do not know”

to Question #12, the questionnaire ends.

Question 12A: If yes (a or b), please provide the other agency’s name and a 

contact for follow up.

a. Agency Name

b. Title

c. Department/Division

d. Business Telephone Number

e. Business E-mail Address

f. I do not know the contact information


U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov

July 2013

FHWA-SA-14-008