Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 1

A Message from FHWA Associate

Administrator for Safety Beth Alicandri

Building on a Strong Foundation 

“Data! Data! Data! I can’t make bricks without clay!” Sir 

Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous fictional detective, Sherlock 

Holmes, serves as a good example to us—we can’t form 

theories or draw conclusions without sufficient data because 

data is the basic building block of any fact-based analysis.

Data is the basis for some of the most important things that 

transportation safety professionals do, and it is up to us to find the most 

effective way to compile and transform facts and figures into information, 

which is what enables us to identify safety issues and determine the best ways 

to address them. 

But to get to that point, we need to have the right numbers to start with, and 

we have to have the right level of quality to give us an accurate picture of 

what’s really going on. If you are not sure how to improve your data, or what 

your priorities should be, you might be interested in reading about our new 

Priorities in Roadway Safety Data Guide (page 7). We are also preparing to 

release the new Noteworthy Practices In Data Collection and AADT 

Estimation in Non-Federal Aid System Roads to share new ideas on how to 

collect traffic data affordably and to accurately estimate AADT values to 

perform data-driven safety analysis in support of decision making (page 12). In 

addition, working in conjunction with the Every Day Counts initiative, we’ve 

been helping your peers conduct data-driven safety analyses to improve 

safety on State and local roads (page 9). We’ve also been working with our 

safety partners to collect data that will help them assess the in-service 

performance of guardrail end terminals (page 12). These are just a few of the 

initiatives we’ve been undertaking here in the FHWA Office of Safety that rely 

on good data and effective data analysis practices to improve safety.

Because we want our communications to be as data-driven as our 

engineering, earlier this spring we launched a survey to gather data on what 

readers like and don’t like, and based on those results (page 2), we will work 

to improve the Compass to make it even more enjoyable to and useful for you.

A Publication of the Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2

In This Issue:

Safety Compass Subscriber Survey: The 

Results are in!.........................................2

Noteworthy Practices in Data 

Collection, AADT Estimation on NonFederal Aid System Roads.....................3

New! Crash Modification Factors 

Resource Available.................................6

New! Noteworthy Ped/Bike Safety 

Policies for Local Agencies ....................6

Priorities in Roadway Safety Data 

Guide Helps Agencies Improve Data 

Through Prioritization........................... 7

Data-Driven Safety Analysis: Adding A 

Local Focus in EDC-4.............................9

Hot Off the Press: Safety Publications 

Portfolio ................................................ 10

New! Model Rail Grade Crossing 

Action Plan Now Available.................. 12

Safety R&D Builds a Coalition of 

Partners to Assess Guardrail End 

Terminal Performance ........................ 12

Springtime Resurfacing? It’s Time to 

Consider a Road Diet........................... 14

Timing Right for Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Road Safety Assessment ......... 15

Vision Zero Gains Momentum Across 

Nation.................................................... 16

2017 National Work Zone Awareness 

Week “Work Zone Safety is in Your 

Hands”................................................... 18

Simple Changes on Local Roads = A Big 

Difference for Ohio’s TZD Efforts........ 19

Snohomish County Uses High-friction 

Surface Treatment to Improve Local 

Road Safety........................................... 21

Announcements and Events ................22

Get Safety Compass delivered 

straight to your inbox! 

Subscribe Today!
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 2

SAFETY COMPASS SUBSCRIBER SURVEY: 

THE RESULTS ARE IN!

By: Tara McLoughlin, FHWA Office of Safety, and Kayce 

Snyder, Leidos

On February 14, 2017, the Office of Safety released 

the Safety Compass Subscriber Survey to gauge 

readers’ perspectives on the newsletter. The survey 

closed on March 17, 2017. 

Levels of Satisfaction with the Safety 

Compass

The overwhelming majority of readers (85 percent) 

indicated that they were either satisfied or very

satisfied with the Safety Compass (Figure 1). 

Readers elaborated on their opinions in the 

comments section of this question and suggested 

that we have more articles on specific topics (such 

as human factors), focus newsletter issues around a 

special topic or theme, and improve the search 

function in the online archive. There were differing 

opinions on the optimal frequency of publication and 

article length; for example, one reader suggested 

that information in tri-yearly newsletters might be 

inherently dated, while another suggested we move 

to a biannual distribution.

Figure 1. A large majority of readers (85%) indicated that 

they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Safety 

Compass. Notably, no respondents indicated that they 

were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied.

Articles and Items of Interest to Readers

The most popular articles in the Safety Compass

were related to safety-related programs, resources, 

publications from FHWA and its stakeholders, and 

those on safety-related research. Readers indicated

high levels of satisfaction with topics normally 

covered in the Safety Compass, and some 

suggested perhaps adding a calendar of upcoming 

peer exchanges and webinars. Other topics of 

interest included fleet management, peer-to-peer 

articles that feature notable practices, and pieces on 

streamlining the FHWA and other Federal agencies.

How Subscribers Read the Safety 

Compass

Most respondents (84 percent) stated they click 

through the links to articles that sound interesting in 

the email announcement, and then read them on 

screen (Figure 2). Downloading and printing the hard 

copy is a method used by only 14 percent of 

respondents.

Figure 2. A large majority of readers prefer to read the 

articles onscreen.

Sharing Articles from the Safety Compass

with Others

When asked whether they’d be inclined to share 

articles from the Safety Compass via social media if 

it were easy to do so, 61 percent indicated that they 

would. Of those who said they would share articles, 

nearly 40 percent indicated they would use a 

platform such as email rather than social media. Of 

those who would use social media platforms, nearly 

30 percent of respondents would share via 

Facebook. Figure 3 shows a complete breakout.

27%

58%

15%

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither

Satisfied nor

Dissatisfied

84%

25%

14%

I click through the

links to articles

that sound

interesting in the

email, and read

them onscreen

I download the

PDF and read the

issue onscreen

I download and

print the PDF and

read the hard

copy
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 3

Figure 3. Preferred platforms for sharing Safety Compass

articles.

What Readers Like Best about the Safety 

Compass

Just under half of respondents elaborated in this 

question on what they liked best about the 

newsletter. Readers thought that the Safety 

Compass provides timely information and is a good 

overview of work coming out of the Office of Safety 

that can be applied to many audiences, including 

local governments. Readers appreciated the insights 

into what was happening at FHWA in regard to 

upcoming issues and policies. A number of readers 

thought that the Safety Compass is currently at a 

good length, and is easy to read and browse for 

topics of interest. One respondent appreciated that 

“... it provides a snapshot of what's new and current 

and allows you to get more details if desired!”

Another simply exclaimed they liked “The very fact 

that it exists!”

What Readers Like Least about the 

Safety Compass

Less than one-quarter of respondents specified 

something they did not like about the Compass. 

Some respondents thought that the newsletter was 

too long, and those voicing criticisms about the 

content sometimes found it too technical, too broad, 

or too generic. One respondent thought the Safety 

Compass articles came off as “self-promoting”;

another didn’t like the visual presentation of the 

document. One reader thought that the Safety 

Compass should draw from more non-US subjects. 

One respondent noted that they feel a little 

overloaded by information, stating, “it's another 

newsletter competing with many, many other 

newsletters.”

Final Thoughts

In the summary question, readers shared similar 

sentiments as seen in other parts of the survey. 

Users reiterated their interest in broadening and 

streamlining articles and summaries, and noted that 

some of the information may be dated by the time it 

gets published. One respondent suggested grouping 

topics under subheadings to help readability and 

organization. Respondents suggested reaching out 

to other offices throughout FHWA to get a broader 

set of topics, and one reader suggested using an 

award system to encourage participation in the 

Safety Compass. Praise was also included in the 

final comments, with one user stating, “Keep up the 

good work, this is a very valuable resource for 

helping constituents stay in the loop about what is 

happening and the resources that are available.”

We at Safety Compass would like to thank those 

who took the time to participate in the survey. As 

always, please contact Tara McLoughlin at 

tara.mcloughlin@dot.gov if you have any thoughts, 

ideas, or concerns you’d like to share about the 

contents of the Safety Compass newsletter.

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES IN DATA 

COLLECTION AND AADT ESTIMATION ON 

NON-FEDERAL AID SYSTEM ROADS 

By: Ioannis Tsapakis, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 

and Stuart Thompson, FHWA Office of Safety

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

Final Rule calls for States to collect Model Inventory 

of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data 

Elements (FDE) on all public roads, including annual 

average daily traffic (AADT) on non-Federal-aid 

system (NFAS) roadways. To meet the new 

requirements, States must expand the focus of their 

traffic count programs by targeting both higher 

functional class roadways and NFAS roads. To do 

so, transportation agencies need new ideas on how 

to collect traffic data on NFAS roads affordably and 

15%

20%

27%

38%

Yes, via

Twitter

Yes, via

LinkedIn

Yes, via

Facebook

Yes, via a

platform

such as

email
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 4

to accurately estimate AADT values to perform datadriven safety analysis and support decision making. 

In response, the FHWA Office of Safety initiated a 

project that aims to develop an informational guide

on this topic. This guide will include relevant 

methods and research findings, as well as four 

noteworthy practices, summarized as follows:

DVRPC – Innovative Traffic Data Sharing 

Practices

To reduce data collection costs, enhance safety 

analysis, promote data sharing, and enhance 

collaboration with other entities, the Delaware Valley 

Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) has 

developed the “Traffic Count Viewer,” an interactive 

web platform that provides public access to traffic 

data. DVRPC gathers different types of shortduration counts, cleans and processes the data, and 

stores it in a regional database. The Traffic Count 

Viewer communicates with the database, allowing 

users to view, filter, and download traffic counts. 

Users can also directly connect to DVRPC’s ArcGIS 

server map services and extract GIS layers, 

metadata, and traffic data in a tabular format suitable 

for use in safety analysis. Further, DVRPC provides 

disaggregated data that reside in its database upon 

request. DVRPC, transportation engineers, planners, 

developers, market analysts, and the general public 

have realized several benefits from this practice: 

• Increased efficiency within the data collection 

program due to the use of a central data 

depository. 

• Improved time and cost savings for DVRPC and 

its data partners due to elimination of duplicate 

data collection efforts. 

• Enhanced safety analysis allowing users to 

access DVRPC’s ArcGIS server and download 

different types of traffic counts, GIS layers, and 

other metadata for analytical purposes.

The new informational guide will discuss these and 

other benefits, as well as how DVRPC developed the 

Traffic Count Viewer. The case study also offers 

lessons and tips for other agencies that may be 

interested in developing similar data analysis tools.

NYSDOT – Engaging Local Agencies in Data 

Collection and Random Sampling Procedures

New York State Department of Transportation 

(NYSDOT) is a leader in developing partnerships

and projects to collect short-duration traffic counts on 

local roads. Through agreements with local 

agencies, NYSDOT provides traffic counting 

equipment in exchange for short-duration traffic 

counts. Agreements are most commonly made with 

counties but occasionally with cities and metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs). The agreement 

stipulates the minimum number of counts local 

agencies must conduct each year. This number 

equals or exceeds the breakeven point between the 

cost of the counters and cost of conducting shortduration traffic counts. The benefits of NYSDOT’s 

partnership agreements include reducing duplicate 

traffic data collection and costs and providing 

additional data, traffic equipment, software, training, 

and support to partnering local agencies.

In addition to ongoing agreements with local 

agencies, NYSDOT conducted a one-time project to 

collect short-duration counts on a random sample of 

local roads not typically counted as part of the traffic 

data collection program. The agency used random 

samples from all local roadways in each municipality 

to develop aggregate statistics for travel on local 

roadways. The benefits of the random sampling 

procedure include an increase in the number of 

short-duration traffic counts as well as more 

complete and accurate AADT for local roads. 

Selecting locations randomly also generates an 

increase in the number of counts on NFAS roads. 

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

– Innovative Traffic Data QA/QC Procedures 

and Automated AADT Estimation

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

(SEMCOG) has a unique relationship with the local 

agencies in its region in that the local agencies and 

the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) 

collect all traffic data and SEMCOG stores, validates, 

and analyzes the data. Local agencies conduct two 

types of short-duration counts: those used to develop 

AADT values for road segments and those used for 

special projects. Local agencies send both types of 

counts to SEMCOG, which then checks and 

validates the counts. SEMCOG developed 46 validity 

checks in a Microsoft Office Access database 

(shown in the figure below) to perform the

authentication. Other State and local agencies can 

develop and apply similar checks to improve the 

quality and reliability of AADT values and enhance 

safety analysis with more accurate data inputs.
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 5

In the SEMCOG Microsoft Access Database, the screen depicts a custom list that shows some of the queries 

that SEMCOG runs to validate the short-duration traffic data. SEMCOG stores the data in four tables (at right). 

The All Counts table includes detail about the count (e.g., start and end date, the direction, AADT, etc.). The All 

GIS table contains location information necessary to map short duration traffic counts to roadway segments. 

The All Location table describes the location where short duration traffic counts are taken. Finally, the All 

Source table describes the agency that collected short duration traffic counts.

To improve AADT estimates on the 40,355 road 

segments in the SEMCOG area, SEMCOG 

developed a process to estimate AADT on segments 

meeting certain criteria instead of conducting shortduration counts on each segment. SEMCOG 

developed an algorithm that works inside of its GIS 

to search for uncounted segments with nearby 

counted segments on either side. When the 

algorithm identifies such a segment, it calculates the 

weighted average of the two nearby segments and 

assigns that AADT to the uncounted segment. 

SEMCOG reports these values as interpolated segments in its traffic data viewer. This process would 

be time consuming to do manually, so SEMCOG 

automated the process using Python scripts.

Virginia Department of Transportation –

Innovative Procedures in Traffic Volume 

Estimation

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

estimates traffic volumes on secondary local 

roadways using a trip generation method instead of 

taking short-duration traffic counts. The use of trip 

generation estimates was an outcome of a review 

process that aimed to reduce data collection costs 

and achieve manpower savings by establishing a 

local secondary count program. As part of this 

program, VDOT provided guidelines to its staff on 

how to identify eligible traffic links and generate 

traffic volume estimates using the trip-generation 
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 6

method. According to this program, regional and 

district staff are responsible for reviewing candidate 

segments using aerial photos, determining potential 

development and roadway connectivity, evaluating

roadway eligibility criteria, documenting the trip 

generation estimate process used, developing 

estimates, and submitting the estimates to the 

Central Office, Traffic Engineering Division. 

VDOT has realized several benefits from using the 

trip generation method to estimate traffic volumes. 

Most benefits involve time and cost savings. 

Examples include:

• Reduced data collection costs, because using the 

trip generation method requires fewer resources 

and less manpower than conducting shortduration counts in the field. Potential duplicate 

data collection efforts are also eliminated, saving 

money and time.

• Minimized need for purchasing, maintaining, and 

calibrating traffic equipment, resulting in additional 

cost savings.

• Saved time because using the trip generation 

method is significantly faster than collecting traffic 

data in the field and processing the data in the 

office. This allows VDOT staff to allocate the time 

saved to other tasks.

The informational guide will be released in late 

spring 2017 and will be available for download at 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/. For more 

information and additional resources that can help 

you improve your AADT data collection and analysis 

processes as a part of your State’s MIRE FDE 

implementation efforts, please contact Stuart 

Thompson at stuart.thompson@dot.gov.

NEW! CRASH MODIFICATION FACTORS 

RESOURCE

By Daniel Carter, UNC Highway Safety Research Center 

and Karen Scurry, FHWA Office of Safety

Crash modification factors (CMF) are a valuable tool 

to support data driven safety analysis. CMFs can be 

used to estimate the expected number of crashes 

after implementation of given treatment. With more 

than 5,000 CMFs for 

more than 800 countermeasures in the CMF 

Clearinghouse, it can 

be difficult to identify which CMF is most applicable 

to your situation. To help with this process, several 

States have developed State CMF lists. A State CMF 

list contains pre-selected CMFs that should be used 

for data-driven safety analysis in that State. 

The CMF Clearinghouse currently contains State 

CMF lists for eight States. If your State is not listed, 

contact your State Safety Engineer to inquire about 

the availability of a State CMF list in your State. If 

your State is considering developing a State CMF 

list, the Clearinghouse provides a flyer entitled 

“Ensuring Consistency in Decision Making: Why and 

How Your State Should Develop a State CMF List,” 

which includes potential questions to consider in the 

development of a State CMF list. State CMF lists 

offer a number of benefits, including ensuring 

statewide consistency in using CMFs, enabling local 

agencies to leverage the experience of experts 

within the State, and improving communication 

related to the application of CMFs.

For questions about the CMF Clearinghouse, please 

contact Karen Scurry at 609-637-4207 or 

karen.scurry@dot.gov.

NEW! NOTEWORTHY PED/BIKE SAFETY 

POLICIES FOR LOCAL AGENCIES

By: Tamara Redmon, FHWA Office of Safety

The FHWA Safety Office has just issued the 

Noteworthy Local Policies that Support Safe and 

Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks guide. 

While much of the focus on bicycle and pedestrian 

travel is on building new infrastructure, it is important 

to keep in mind that public policies (including laws, 

regulations, ordinances, and procedures) play a 

critical role in shaping how we use and manage both 

our motorized and our non-motorized transportation 

systems.

The FHWA developed this guide to provide local and 

State agencies with tools to complement new 

infrastructure and program development. Its purpose
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 7

is twofold: to assist local and State agencies by 

providing examples for how to institutionalize 

network-supportive policies and to provide evidence 

to support policy adoption.

Building on the principles of a complete pedestrian 

and bicycle network (defined as having cohesion, 

directness, accessibility, alternatives, safety and 

security, and comfort), the guide identifies the six 

common elements of effective policies that help 

create safe and complete multimodal networks:

1. Define Success: A successful policy 

framework has clear goals, objectives, and 

performance measures to track success.

2. Protect Nonmotorized Travelers: Safety 

policies define the rules of the road for 

various user groups and how those rules are 

enforced.

3. Promote Supportive Development: The 

character of a community is defined in part 

through land use policies, which also shape 

how all people use the transportation system.

4. Design the Network: Policy tools related to 

complete streets, design guidelines, and 

others are critical for supporting the planning 

and development of bicycle and pedestrian 

networks.

5. Make It Last: In addition to building networks, 

policies shape those networks over time 

through maintenance and preservation 

activities that address all users.

6. Pay for It: Mechanisms to raise funding and 

ensure distribution of projects that support 

complete networks are critical to 

implementing safe multimodal streets.

The guide also provides information on evaluating a 

policy framework’s strengths, weaknesses, 

opportunities, and threats to help develop 

implementation steps for advancing these policies. 

For more information about the guide or for help in 

identifying ways to improve pedestrian and bicycle 

safety on your roads, please contact Tamara 

Redmon at tamara.redmon@dot.gov.

PRIORITIES IN ROADWAY SAFETY DATA 

GUIDE HELPS AGENCIES IMPROVE DATA 

THROUGH PRIORITIZATION

By: Robert Scopatz, Tim Harmon, and Meg Bryson, VHB,

and Robert Pollack, FHWA Office of Safety

The Priorities in Roadway Safety Data Guide is the 

capstone of more than 5 years of safety data 

research aimed at helping State, tribal, and local 

agencies develop more complete safety data to 

support advanced safety analysis and decision

making. Data availability and quality are key aspects 

of a successful data-driven safety program; however, 

it can be daunting for transportation agencies to 

identify where to begin with data improvement. This 

guide helps agencies understand their options and 

provides important considerations for prioritizing their

roadway safety data needs.

The guide introduces users to the importance of data 

and data quality in data-driven safety analysis, as 

well as the specific data needed to support the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and 

other safety programs and analyses throughout the 

project development process. The guide provides 

users with information for prioritizing data elements 

and methods for coordinating data collection efforts.

The Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE)

and the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements (MIRE 

FDE) are important resources for States considering

improvements to their roadway inventory data. MIRE

 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Case Studies

• Equity Analysis within a Bicycle Master Plan, 

Seattle, WA.

• Design Standards Ordinance and Healthy 

Eating and Active Living, Hernando, MS

• Long-Range Transportation Plan Performance 

Measures, Champaign County, IL

• Multimodal Level of Service, Jacksonville, FL

• Adult Bicycle Safety Program, Huntington 

Beach, CA

• Crosswalk Policy, Boulder, CO

• “Stop and Stay Stopped” Crosswalk Law, State 

of New Jersey

• Bike Parking in Lots and Garages, New York, 

NY

...and many more!

The Guide is accompanied by case studies from across the 

country that support safe and complete street networks.
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 8

Data prioritization process.

is a listing of roadway data elements that agencies 

can use in safety analysis. The MIRE FDE is a 

subset of the MIRE elements that are the minimum 

required data needed to conduct advanced safety 

analysis. Agencies should consider MIRE and other 

related data sets when determining their data needs 

for specific analyses and analytic tools.

Analysis Methods and Their Data 

Requirements

The guide separates analyses into two categories: 

network-level analyses, which require a minimum 

level of data for all sites, and project-level 

analyses, which require detailed data for a few sites 

of interest. Network-level analysis can include safety 

planning (including the SHSP), crash-based analysis 

for the roadway safety management process, and 

the systemic approach to safety management.

Prioritizing Data Elements 

Once an agency determines what it is planning to 

analyze, staff can identify the desired data elements

needed to support the analysis. Every agency faces 

resource constraints and must weigh carefully 

whether to use resources to improve data or to 

support construction projects, maintenance, or other 

safety initiatives. Agencies can use data priorities to 

allocate resources for the most pressing needs. This 

guide is intended to help agencies prioritize data 

needs for safety planning and program management 

as well as in the broader consideration of safety in all 

highway programs and projects. 

Agencies can also use the guide as a resource for 

identifying desired analysis capabilities. Once these

analyses are selected, agencies can examine the 

corresponding data requirements to identify specific 

data needs. That list of data needs can then form the 

basis for prioritization decisions. The prioritization 

process begins with identifying business needs and 

conducting a gap analysis of available and required

data elements by answering questions about the

agency’s business and data needs. This may include

identifying the intention, use, minimum data level

needed for further analysis, additional elements to

Main considerations in prioritization. The guide identifies 

six main considerations in safety data prioritization. 

Depending on the agency and its needs, some of these 

may play a larger role than others.

collect, and information the State needs to answer 

those questions.

Once States have identified the data elements of 

interest, they should work with other business offices 

within the DOT or outside partner agencies to 

determine their priorities. Agencies can apply the 

following six considerations to determine the relative 

priority of each data set or element:

Analysis Type and Usage: 

• What types of analyses does the agency want to 

perform, and what data are required for those 

analyses?

Data-related Costs:

• How will the data collection method, maintenance, 

and management affect the costs for each 

element? 

• Are there opportunities to spread the costs out 

over time or share costs with partners?
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 9

Existing Data and Management: 

• Are existing data systems sufficient or does the 

agency need to improve existing systems before 

collecting new data? 

• How can an agency balance resource allocation 

for new data collection and continued data 

maintenance?

Regional and Jurisdictional Data: 

• Do certain regions or jurisdictions have a greater 

need for safety improvements?

Data Variability over Time: 

• Which elements are unlikely to change over time? 

• Does the agency need certain data elements 

sooner than others? 

Data Sharing: 

• Do other agencies or business areas have a need 

for the same data, and can they lead or support 

the data collection and maintenance efforts?

Each agency may base their prioritization on these 

factors in varying ways depending on their data 

needs, resource constraints, and organizational 

goals. Throughout the prioritization process, States 

should work with all stakeholders when making 

decisions to consider their needs. 

Beyond Prioritization

After prioritization, agencies can begin to develop 

plans for collecting and maintaining data. Data 

prioritization is one component of the data life cycle. 

The considerations in the guide support a data 

governance framework in which subject matter 

experts, data providers, data managers, and IT staff 

work together to define data needs, set data 

standards, and maintain data for the agency. 

Investing resources and time into this process will lay 

the ground work for developing useful, sustainable 

data systems for the future to support safety 

analyses.

Conclusion and Resources

Finally, the Priorities in Roadway Safety Data Guide

is intended to be a practical resource that draws 

upon preceding reports and guides. State, tribal, and 

local agencies can use the guide to help identify data 

needs, conduct gap analyses, establish data 

priorities, and develop data collection plans. Readers 

will find useful examples of existing projects in State,

tribal, and local agencies as well as relevant 

resources. 

The Priorities in Roadway Safety Data Guide will be 

released summer 2017 on the Roadway Safety Data 

Program page. For more information on this product, 

contact Robert Pollack at robert.pollack@fhwa.gov.

DATA-DRIVEN SAFETY ANALYSIS:

ADDING A LOCAL FOCUS IN EDC-4

By Jerry Roche, FHWA Office of Safety

By using data-driven safety analysis, (DDSA), States 

were able to achieve great success in the third round

of the Every Day Counts (EDC-3) initiative. More 

than 40 States applied DDSA tools on one or more 

projects, and the DDSA team is responding to 145 

assistance requests from 44 States. FHWA has 

conducted 7 peer exchanges involving 35 States and 

has delivered 35 Highway Safety Manual-related 

training sessions to 26 States, with 14 more currently 

scheduled. 

But there is still work to do. Fortunately, DDSA has 

been selected to continue in the fourth round of EDC 

(EDC-4). In EDC-4, the DDSA team will continue to 

assist States as they incorporate predictive and 

systemic analysis into their projects, policies, and 

procedures. Our goal is to see 47 States demonstrate DDSA by the end of round four (December 

2018), and we will offer the same level of training 

and technical assistance that we did under EDC-3 to 

help them get there. 

For this round, we have enhanced our approach and 

included an additional focus: helping local agencies.

One of our goals is to identify and increase the 

number of local agencies with local road safety 

plans. The plans incorporate DDSA approaches and 

help the agencies identify which sites on their 

systems have the most potential for improvement; 

they act as a road map for targeting safety 

investments. 

(story continues on page 11)

Data-driven safety analysis is the application of the latest 

generation of tools for analyzing crash and roadway data. 
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 10

HOT OFF THE PRESS: SAFETY PUBLICATIONS PORTFOLIO 

Your colleagues in the Office of Safety have been busy this year! Check out our newest products (released 

between January 1 and April 30, 2017)! 

Systemic Safety

 Ensuring Consistency in Decisionmaking: Why and How your State Should Develop a State CMF List

 Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Supplemental Case Studies

Road Diets:

 Road Diets Winter 2017 newsletter

 “A Diet that Works: Road Diets Transform Highways to Deliver Improved Safety and Livability” (Roads 

and Bridges magazine) 

 Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 Road Diets and Emergency Response: Friends, Not Foes

 Road Diets’ Economic Impacts

 Systemically Identifying Candidate Road Diet Locations

 Road Diet Evaluation Metrics

 Road Diet Webinar: Did You Know a Road Can Go on a Diet?

 Road Diet Webinar: Public Outreach for Road Diets – How Do You Answer the Rough Questions?

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing:

 Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Action Plan and Project Prioritization

Data and Analysis:

 Reliability of Safety Management Methods: Network Screening

 Reliability of Safety Management Methods: Diagnosis

 Reliability of Safety Management Methods: Countermeasure Selection

 Reliability of Safety Management Methods: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

 Reliability of Safety Management Methods: Systemic Safety Programs.

 The Evaluation of Four Network Screening Performance Measures

 Information Guide for State, Tribal, and Local Safety Data Integration

 The Calibrator (A tool to help users assess SPF compatibility and applicability.) 

Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria

 Law Enforcement Training Video for Reporting Serious Injuries Using the MMUCC, 4th Edition Guideline
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 11

(continued from page 9)

One of the agencies that has worked closely with its 

local government partners is the Minnesota Department of Transportation, which created road safety 

plans for each of the State’s 87 counties and even 

shared funding with the local agencies to help them 

implement low-cost countermeasures. This effort has 

the added benefit of allowing the DOT to expand a 

culture that embraces a systemic approach to safety 

countermeasures throughout the State’s transpor

tation community. You can watch a video about the 

project here: https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=jVds3AWWqbk&t=49s. 

The DDSA team is also striving to increase the 

number of local projects incorporating DDSA and 

raise the percentage of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds that are applied to local 

roads. HSIP is a data-driven program, and DDSA 

tools can help agencies to quantify the expected 

safety impact of design decisions so they can 

generate benefit/cost ratios with confidence and 

Publications Portfolio (continued)

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety:

 Noteworthy Local Policies that Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks

Roadway Departure 

 Roadway Visibility Research Needs Assessment

Roadway Safety Data Program:

 Asset Management in Oregon: RSDP Case Study 

 Washington State RSDP Case Study

 Pennsylvania State Specific SPFs and CMFs Case Study

 South Carolina Safety Data Improvements Through Electronic Crash System Development Case Study 

 Arizona Importing Local and Tribal Data For Safety Analysis Case Study

 Utah and Kentucky’s Innovative Use of GIS Case Study

 Roadway Safety Data Governance in Illinois

 Alabama's Safety -Planning Tools for MPOs

 Maryland’s Data Linkage and Analysis to Support Decision Making

Data Driven Safety Analysis

 IHSDM Flyer

 Quick Start Guide to using CMFs

Planning

 Building Links to Improve Safety Flyer

 Building Links to Improve Safety Guide
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 12

better compete for funding. An example of this is a 

recently completed effort in Burlington County, New 

Jersey. County officials, with assistance from the 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the 

New Jersey Department of Transportation, and the 

FHWA performed a predictive safety analysis for 

potential intersection improvement alternatives. This 

support made it possible for the county to acquire 

HSIP funding to construct a modern roundabout. 

View a video of the story here: https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=cHv086TQ2LI&t=9s. 

Our vision is to see safety performance incorporated 

into all highway investment decisions. This perfectly 

aligns with the goal of both the U.S. Department of 

Transportation and the National Safety Council to 

end fatalities on the Nation's roads within the next 30 

years. State and local agencies are implementing 

DDSA to help make that goal a reality!

For more information on DDSA, or to request 

assistance, please visit https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

innovation/everydaycounts/edc_4/ddsa.cfm.

NEW! MODEL RAIL GRADE CROSSING 

ACTION PLAN NOW AVAILABLE

By: Kelly Morton, FHWA Office of Safety

Development of State highway-railway grade 

crossing action plans was initially required by 

Section 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 

2008, Public Law 110-432, Division A, for 10 States 

with the highest number of highway-railway grade 

crossing collisions over a specific 3-year period. 

Links to these 10 State action plans can be found on 

the Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) 

Program (RHCP) website. The National 

Transportation Safety Board then further 

recommended the FHWA and FRA develop the 

model grade crossing action plan for all States 

interested in producing a State action plan. Section 

11401 of the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act further required the 

development of the model grade crossing action 

plan, and now also requires all States to develop 

new or update existing State action plans and submit 

them to FRA.

As a result, the FHWA Office of Safety recently 

partnered with the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA) to publish a new Highway-Railway Grade 

Crossing Action Plan and Project Prioritization 

Noteworthy Practices Guide. This guide provides a 

model State action plan for rail crossing safety and 

offers tools and resources to help States identify 

specific solutions for improving safety at crossings. 

Designed for States that wish to update existing 

State action plans or develop a new State action 

plan, the guide includes several best practices 

employed by transportation agencies in 

administering Federal and State highway-railway 

grade crossings protection programs. It also 

addresses high-risk and blocked crossings. 

The guide is available from the FRA eLibrary as well 

as the newly updated RHCP website, which features 

new information and resources. Please contact Kelly 

Morton at kelly.morton@dot.gov for additional 

information about the guide or for questions about 

your State’s highway-railway grade crossing action 

plan.

SAFETY R&D BUILDS A COALITION OF 

PARTNERS TO ASSESS GUARDRAIL END 

TERMINAL PERFORMANCE

By: Ana Maria Eigan, FHWA Office of Safety R&D

This article describes how the effort started, its 

objectives, the steps taken to achieve objectives, 

what is happening now, and what is next.

In 2015, FHWA undertook The 

Prospective In-Service Performance 

Evaluation (ISPE) of Guardrail End 

Terminals (GETs), as one part of a multi-pronged 

coordinated FHWA response to address concerns 

related to the design, installation, and performance 

of GETs.

The Prospective ISPE of GETs sought 

to:

• Identify current challenges to doing ISPEs.

• Document good practices for:
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 13

o Real-time crash data collection.

o Interagency communications for crash 

reporting.

o Inventory and maintenance data management.

o Data analysis.

• Gain insights into ISPE performance relative to:

o Crash test performance criteria.

o ISPE assessment areas.

The success of the ISPE of GETs has 

been dependent upon partnerships 

between Office of Safety Research and 

Development with Office of Safety, the 

Resource Center, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Special Crash 

Investigations (SCI) Team, the Division Offices and 

the State departments of transportation (DOT).

At the start of the ISPE of GETs, the research plan 

was clear, but how it would actually be implemented 

in each State was not as certain. Each State had 

concerns and preferences that needed to be 

addressed individually in order to successfully mover 

forward. It became clear early on that a flexible 

approach that relied on mutually beneficial 

partnerships with a variety of stakeholders would be 

essential to completing this study. 

Developing and sustaining 

relationships was a crucial element in 

the success of the ISPE of GETs.

Although cooperation had been 

established at the highest Federal and State levels, 

the working level relationships were yet to be 

cultivated with the California, Massachusetts, 

Missouri, and Pennsylvania DOTs. The relationships 

relied not only on headquarters and division alliances 

but on division and State DOT relationships. These 

alliances would prove crucial in gaining the 

commitment of maintenance data collection support, 

as well as allowing the NHTSA SCI Teams to 

participate. 

Effectively, all entities learned to work as 

one team to develop the ISPE. In one 

State, FHWA would be responsible for 

gaining the cooperation of two unrelated 

agencies. The relationships did not end at the point 

of agreeing to start data collection. Instead, the State 

agency provided guidance to FHWA, allowing data 

collection to be tailored to State legal/liability

concerns. This would govern the on-going

maintenance response, as these forces would form 

part of the data collection teams, responsible for data 

sharing.

Constructing a viable data collection 

framework relied upon relationships. In 

this step, key partners were identified, as 

well as the extent of their involvement in 

data collection. These included State agency officials 

and in some States law enforcement officials. Each 

State agency determined the means by which FHWA 

would interact with personnel in the State, either 

relying on existing partnerships or as facilitators of 

new relationships that included FHWA. This helped 

establish notification plans that allowed NHTSA SCI, 

the ISPE of GETs crash investigation partner, to

arrive on-scene before clean up and repair had 

occurred in order to collect timely data.

Developing and conducting training

underpinned the guidance and cooperation 

received from State agencies. FHWA 

developed and provided training at a site 

chosen by the study partner or at the 

Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory (FOIL) for any 

partner agency that wanted this support. In some 

cases, refresher training was also requested as 

partners brought on new personnel to help with data 

collection. 

Some of the Keys to Success include: 

• A champion in each agency.

• A fully engaged and knowledgeable team with 

clear roles and responsibilities.

• Training, data collection resources, and 

communication that are tailored to the needs of 

each State.

• Regular and meaningful communication at 

multiple levels.

• Periodic acknowledgement and appreciation of 

contributions made by participants.

What is happening now in the ISPE of GETs? As 

we enter the second year of data collection, the team 

is compiling lessons learned, documenting progress 

through outreach and publications, and planning for 

how to use the lessons learned from this study to 

provide States with additional information they need 

to independently conduct ISPEs.

If you are interested in supporting this effort or 

obtaining more information, please contact Ana 

Maria Eigen at ana.eigen@dot.gov or 202-493-3168.
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 14

SPRINGTIME RESURFACING? IT’S TIME 

TO CONSIDER A ROAD DIET

By: Becky Crowe, FHWA Office of Safety

Ice, Ice, Maybe? Low temperatures and ice on 

roadways this winter may have caused pavement 

deterioration, and many roadways will require 

resurfacing during the spring season. If your roads fit 

this description, consider incorporating a Road Diet, 

or roadway reconfiguration, with your regularly 

scheduled spring maintenance as a method to 

improve safety and accommodate bicyclists. To 

assist transportation stakeholders, the FHWA

recently developed and released a new workbook, 

Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into 

Resurfacing Projects, that outlines how Road Diets, 

a proven safety countermeasure, can be used during 

resurfacing to provide bicycle accommodations.

There are a variety of reasons for including bicycle 

facilities into your projects. Well-designed, 

interconnected bicycle transportation facilities allow 

bicyclists to safely and conveniently get to jobs, 

schools, and essential services and make bicycling 

for transportation a viable choice for a broad range of 

people. Adding bicycle facilities can improve the 

safety and comfort of bicycling on a roadway, 

particularly for less experienced riders. Both

bicyclists to safely and conveniently get to jobs,

schools, and essential services and make bicycling

for transportation a viable choice for a broad range of

narrowing and reconfiguring can increase the overall 

safety and comfort of a roadway for both bicyclists 

and pedestrians without negatively impacting 

vehicular operation.

Furthermore, a Road Diet can also lower speeds and 

reduce pedestrian crossing distances, which can 

result in fewer pedestrian crashes. Last but not least, 

incorporating bicycle facilities into a resurfacing 

project can save your agency thousands in 

construction costs because it is more cost effective 

than providing the same facility as a standalone 

project. In terms of saving, a four-lane to three-lane 

conversion with bike lanes costs approximately 

$100,000 per mile with no resurfacing versus 

$36,000 per mile with full resurfacing. Installing a 

Road Diet as part of a scheduled resurfacing project 

could save an agency thousands.

To discover more and get the full details on project

savings associated with a Road Diet, please check 

out our latest flier, “How Much Does a Road Diet 

Cost?” For more information about Road Diets, 

please contact Becky Crowe at 

rebecca.crowe@dot.gov.

A two-way bicycle lane facility. (Source: FHWA)

A Road Diet with bicycle accommodations. (Source: FHWA)
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 15

TIMING RIGHT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND

BICYCLE ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT

By: Hillary Isebrands, FHWA Resource Center, Luis 

Melgoza, FHWA NM Division Office, and Caeri Thomas, 

Mid-Region Council of Governments

Pedestrian and bicycle safety is important to all 

communities. Studies have led the Center for 

Disease Control and Prevention to identify having 

safe and convenient places to walk as being a key 

strategy for improving public health.* Likewise, local 

municipalities are seeking to shift short trips from 

driving to walking and bicycling as a strategy to 

address congestion and improve air quality. The safe 

movement of pedestrians and bicyclists is a key 

ingredient towards connectivity and livability for all 

modes of transportation. But when the number of 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes and crash rates rise 

to a level that exceeds the levels of those other cities 

in the Nation, advanced measures must be taken to 

reverse the trend. Deploying proven practices for 

bettering pedestrian and bike design and safety 

provides opportunities both to improve infrastructure 

and to enhance safety for all users. 

In 2011, the City of Albuquerque, NM became 

eligible to become a Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Focus 

City by the FHWA due to a higher than average 

annual pedestrian fatality rate per population. With 

the guidance and technical support of FHWA, the 

City of Albuquerque and the Mid Regional Council of 

Governments (MRCOG) undertook numerous 

actions to increase awareness about pedestrian and 

bicycle safety issues in the city, conducting 

“Designing for Pedestrian Safety” workshops, 

holding briefings with city staff, and performing two 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Road Safety Assessments 

(RSA) along Central Avenue, where a significant 

number of pedestrian crashes occur. 

The RSA team conducted one of these reviews at 

one of the most dangerous intersections for 

pedestrians in the city: Central Ave. and San Mateo 

Blvd. This intersection is also an unsafe intersection 

for drivers and a significant transfer point for transit. 

It became apparent while studying and evaluating 

this intersection that the challenges were big and the 

timing was important. At the time, the Albuquerque 

Rapid Transit (ART) bus rapid transit project along 

Central Avenue was in the design phase. To 

incorporate the safety countermeasures identified in 

the RSA recommendations into the project, 

collaboration and coordination across city

departments and among local stakeholders such as 

MRCOG, New Mexico DOT, and the University of 

New Mexico would be crucial. 

According to the 2016 Central Ave and San Mateo 

Blvd RSA report, “[The ART] project presents a 

unique opportunity to improve pedestrian safety. 

Many of the RSA recommended improvements are 

planned to be implemented as part of the ART 

project, and the feasibility of including other 

recommendations with the ART project or as future 

projects are being investigated.”

Some of the RSA team’s recommended safety 

improvements to the Central Ave. and San Mateo 

Blvd. intersection included: 

• Addressing the lack of pedestrian space at the 

southwest corner.

• Following draft Public Right‐of‐Way Accessibility 

Guidelines (PROWAG) to increase the size of key 

spaces and align ramps and marked crosswalks 

to go beyond minimum accessibility requirements.

• Reduce turning radii at the intersection.

• Including sufficient pedestrian crossing time 

based on the users’ needs.

• Adding a pedestrian phase with every signal cycle 

(a “call” is not necessary).

• Re‐marking and widening crosswalk markings.

• Providing safety education and interventions for 

all users.

• Providing wayfinding and improving connections 

for bicyclists.

Photo illustrates the potentially dangerous pedestrianvehicle conflict at the busy intersection of Central Ave. and 

San Mateo Blvd. Source: MRCOG.
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 16

• Providing a “No Turn on Red” phase to the signal 

plan (with dynamic sign) and a “Leading 

Pedestrian Interval.”

• Coordinating with ART to perform ongoing 

monitoring for safety improvements.

Although not all recommendations may be 

completed with the implementation of ART, this RSA 

provided an important first step in seeking further 

opportunities to address safety improvements for all 

users at this vital intersection. 

For more information about the Central Ave and San 

Mateo Blvd road safety assessment, see 

http://www.mrcog-nm.gov/latest-news/1394-centralavenue-san-mateo-road-safety-assessment/

* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC 

Recommendations for Improving Health through Transportation Policy,” April 2010. Available at: 

https://www.cdc.gov/transportation/default.htm

VISION ZERO GAINS MOMENTUM 

ACROSS NATION

By: Jenn Fox, Vision Zero Network

From the Washington Post to Fortune magazine to 

Fox News, media outlets across the spectrum have 

reported similarly on one startling, new statistic—that 

U.S. traffic fatalities are at the highest level in a 

decade. These reports, based on National Safety 

Council statistics, estimate that as many as 40,000 

people died in traffic crashes last year, a 14 percent 

increase over the past 2 years and the largest 

increase in more than half a century.

Amidst this distressing news, there is also reason for 

hope as a growing number of Federal, State and 

local efforts step up their commitment and urgency 

toward a common goal to ensure safe mobility for all. 

In addition to the national Road to Zero effort 

launched last year by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation and the establishment of Toward 

Zero Deaths goals in more than 40 States, there is 

also strong and growing leadership for roadway 

safety developing in diverse, local communities 

across the Nation.

Vision Zero Gains Momentum Across Nation

As of this writing, more than 20 U.S. cities, from 

Anchorage, Alaska to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, have 

committed to Vision Zero – the goal of zero traffic 

deaths or severe injuries among road users – all in 

the past 3 years. This includes mayors, police chiefs, 

public health officials, transportation engineers, and 

others stepping up not only to set the bold goal of 

zero, but also to embrace a culture of safety in order 

to save lives.

Vision Zero is gaining momentum not only in the 

U.S. but also around the world. It was started in 

Sweden 20 years ago, where it successfully halved 

the number of traffic deaths even as trips increased, 

and is being embraced in nations as far away as 

Australia.

Vision Zero differs from a traditional approach to 

traffic safety in several key ways. First, it holds that 

traffic deaths and severe injuries are preventable, 

and that society has an ethical responsibility to 

anticipate and prevent these tragedies. Second, 

Vision Zero holds that system designers (including 

engineers, policymakers, and police) share 

responsibility with individuals for safety on our 

roadways. And finally, Vision Zero acknowledges 

that people will always make mistakes, so it is the 

role of facility designers to devise systems that 

ensure that mistakes do not result in fatalities or 

severe injuries. 

Vision Zero is, at its core, a safe systems approach. 

It elevates the importance of systems—particularly 

the built environment and policies determining 

speeds—in encouraging safe behaviors. 

Vision Zero relies on data-driven decisionmaking to 

make the most of limited resources. It also compels 

a multi-sectoral and collaborative approach, enabling 

diverse stakeholders to work together toward the 

common goal of zero, and sets transparent 

milestones. As history has shown with initiatives to 

reduce drunk driving and to increase recycling, 

transparency is essential for ensuring political 

accountability and changing cultural norms. 

Addressing the Role of Speed

To be clear, Vision Zero will not eliminate all 

crashes, but rather lessen the severity of crashes in 

order to avoid deaths and severe injuries.

Vision Zero incorporates a variety of approaches, not 

unlike the traditional “4E’s” of traffic safety, or 

“engineering, enforcement, education and 

emergency response,” to which an increasing 

number of communities are adding “equity” and 

“engagement.” Notably, Vision Zero elevates the 

importance of managing speed, acknowledging that 
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 17

speed is such a critical factor in determining the 

severity of crash-related injuries. 

In the United States, nearly one-third of traffic deaths 

involve excessive speeds. Proven strategies exist to 

manage this problem, including designing roadways 

to prioritize safety over speed; setting lower, more 

appropriate speed limits; and leveraging proven 

technologies, such as automated speed 

enforcement, to encourage safe speeds. 

On-the-ground Efforts to Reach Zero

The early experiences in New York City, which was 

the first U.S. city to commit to Vision Zero 3 years 

ago, are encouraging. The last 3 years have been 

the safest on record, with traffic fatalities decreasing

by 23 percent during that time. Local leaders credit 

this progress to the city’s work in encouraging safer 

speeds by setting lower speed limits. Thoughtful use 

of safety cameras, greater investments in 

redesigning roadways for safety, traffic 

enforcement focusing on the most 

dangerous behaviors and locations, and 

robust public awareness campaigns have 

also been important contributing factors.

Many additional communities are stepping 

up their actions based on data-driven 

analysis, using strategies such as 

managing speeds, redesigning roadways 

with greater attention to the needs of 

people walking and bicycling, and focusing 

limited enforcement resources on the most 

dangerous behaviors. These 

efforts are being 

complemented with stronger 

engagement from 

community members, 

helping to position traffic 

safety as an issue deserving 

of sustained attention. 

Building on this growing 

community support for 

proven strategies to save 

lives, Vision Zero cities are 

passing an impressive 

number of funding and policy

measures to advance their 

safety work.

In closing, it must be 

acknowledged that this work 

will be neither quick nor 

easy. But ask anyone who 

has lost a loved one in a traffic crash, and the 

urgency of Vision Zero efforts is undeniable. 

For more information, please visit the Vision Zero 

Network or the FHWA’s Toward Zero Deaths web 

page.

Jenn Fox is an environmental engineer based in San 

Francisco, California. Ms. Fox works with the Vision 

Zero Network and cities around the US towards 

sustainable and equitable community infrastructure.

The Vision Zero Network is a nonprofit project 

advancing Vision Zero by supporting the life-saving 

efforts of policymakers, implementers, and community advocates across the U.S. and is a part of the 

Road to Zero Steering Group.

Please send us your suggestions and sign up for 

updates at http:/ /visionzeronetwork.org/getinvolved/.

Data from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Impact Speed and 

a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death, September 2011.
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 18

2017 NATIONAL WORK ZONE 

AWARENESS WEEK “WORK ZONE 

SAFETY IS IN YOUR HANDS”

By: Martha C. Kapitanov, Office of Operations

This year’s National Work Zone Awareness Week 

was held April 3-7, and the kick-off event took place 

on April 4th at the Randolph/Georgia Avenue 

Interchange project in Maryland. FHWA joined the 

American Traffic Safety Services Association, the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), the American Association of State and 

Highway Transportation Officials, the American Road 

& Transportation Builders Association, the 

Associated General Contractors, the Maryland State 

Highway Administration and other stakeholders to 

raise work zone safety awareness during the kick-off 

event.

The 2017 theme Work Zone Safety is in Your Hands 

reminds us that we have the ability to improve work

zone safety by paying greater attention in and 

around work zones, which will and drive the number 

of work zone crashes down to zero. In 2015, the 

most recent year for which we have data, there were 

700 traffic-related fatalities in work zones. According 

to data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

that was an increase of 5 percent from 2014; when 

there were 669 work zone fatalities. More than 

35,000 people were injured in 2015 as a result of 

motor vehicle crashes in work zones. This has grown 

from 31,251 in 2014, an increase of 14 percent. For 

information on work zone fatalities by year and state, 

visit: https://www.workzonesafety.org/crashinformation/workzone-fatalities/.

Based on data compiled by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics,* there were 130 worker fatalities in and

around work zones in 2015, a 9 percent increase 

from 2014. According to the he BLS Census of Fatal 

Occupational Injuries, work zones include 

construction, maintenance, and utility work on a 

road, street, highway or bridge. 

OSHA defines construction work as work for 

construction, alteration, and/or repair. Examples 

include residential construction, bridge erection,

roadway paving, excavations, demolitions, and largescale painting jobs. The leading causes of worker 

deaths on construction sites were falls, followed by 

struck-by, electrocution, and caught-in/between. 

These "Fatal Four" hazards were responsible for well 

over half (64.2 percent) of the construction worker 

deaths in 2015.

In February, OSHA initiated a “Focus Four Hazards” 

campaign to raise awareness in the recognition, 

evaluation, and control of these hazards. Eliminating 

the Fatal Four could save 602 workers' lives in the 

United States. every year. For more information on 

OSHA’s Focus Four Campaign visit: https://www.

osha.gov/dte/outreach/construction/focus_four/ or 

contact Nicholas DeJesse at DeJesse.Nicholas

@dol.gov.

For more information regarding work zone 

management training, regulations, resources, and 

tools, contact Martha Kapitanov at 

Martha.Kapitanov@dot.gov or visit the FHWA Work

FHWA's North Dakota Division Office shows off its orange 

spirit on April 5, 2017, “Go Orange Day,” as part of 

National Work Zone Awareness Week.
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 19

Zone Management website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/workzones and the National Work Zone Safety 

Information Clearinghouse at http://www.workzonesafety.org

* The source for 700 traffic-related work zone fatalities is FARS and the source for 130 worker fatalities is Occupational 

Injury and Illness Classification System maintained by BLS. Each agency uses different criteria. FARS does not break 

down work zone fatalities by type.

SIMPLE CHANGES ON LOCAL ROADS =

A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR OHIO’S TZD

EFFORTS

By Victoria Beale, Ohio LTAP Center Director and 

Alejandro Chock, Safety Team, ODOT Office of Safety

Of Ohio’s 121,342 center lane miles, 41,456 of them, 

or 34 percent of Ohio’s entire roadway system, are

the responsibility of Ohio’s townships. Why is this

important to roadway safety in Ohio? Because if we 

don’t make efforts to help improve safety on the 

largest percentage of our roadway system, we will 

never get to Zero Deaths. 

The struggle in Ohio was not whether safety funds 

would be spent making safety improvements on 

townships roads—we knew it had to happen to keep 

Ohio moving Towards Zero Deaths (TZD)—but in 

determining what type of improvement(s) would be 

best targeted to township roads. Why? Because 

even though they account for the largest percentage 

of Ohio’s center lane miles, they also carry the least 

amount of traffic volume on Ohio’s system. 

The Safety Countermeasure

In late 2012, the Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Office of Safety partnered with 

Ohio’s Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP),

also based at ODOT, to identify a safety countermeasure it felt would meet the safety needs on 

Ohio’s township roads. The selected countermeasure was to target horizontal alignment signs 

and intersection signs for replacement or to install 

additional signs where warranted. New or replacement signs were all to meet the current retroreflectivity guidelines, but, just as important, the new signs 

were to be larger than those currently in place. 

16%

24%

34%

26%

State

County

Township

Municipality

Source: 2015 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Ohio center lane mileage ownership.
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 20

Increasing sign visibility through larger, more reflective, and additional signage was the plan to get 

Ohio’s township roads moving TZD – and it worked!

Township Sign Grant Program: Preliminary 

Post-Installation Results

Once the countermeasure selection was complete, 

the next challenge was for the LTAP to create a 

means for helping the townships execute 

deployment of the new signs. The result was the

Township Sign Grant Program. 

While the program has been in place now for 4 

years, ODOT was just recently able to begin 

analyzing the township roadway crash decreases. 

ODOT analyzed 24 townships which had at least 12 

months of data following the signage installation and 

found that township crashes dropped from just over 

1,443 crashes per year down to 1,294—a reduction 

of more than 10 percent. Serious injuries decreased 

from 39 to 25, nearly 36 percent, and, last but 

certainly not least, township fatalities dropped from 

4.67 per year to zero—a 100 percent reduction. 

These reductions represent a $32.7 million savings 

in comprehensive societal costs* between the before 

and after periods for the 24 townships. A total of 

$522,924.29 was spent on the townships, resulting 

in a benefit/cost ratio of 62.59.

Crash reduction percentages to date.

The ODOT Office of Safety will continue to monitor 

post-installation crash data, but anticipates continued 

crash reductions. Due to these preliminary results, 

the funding for the Township Sign Grant Program 

was recently increased from $1 million a year to $2 

million for the State’s 2018 fiscal year. 

How the Countermeasure Works

The enhanced signage countermeasure for Ohio’s 

township roads is applied through a simple process 

starting with the township’s crash map and crash 

tree (i.e., a chart that breaks down crashes into 

subcategories, such as location and type). 

Townships that were ranked highest for having 

above average, system-wide crash rates were 

invited to apply for the grant. These townships were 

provided copies of their crash map and crash tree 

and directed to determine their signage needs 

utilizing the following continuum:

1. Hot Spot Approach – look at their hotspots from 

the crash maps to determine what signage 

upgrades and/or additional installations are 

needed to improve safety at these locations.

2. Systemic Approach – look at locations that are 

similar to the hotspots (i.e., have the same 

geometric qualities) but have not yet experienced 

the same number or severity of crashes as the 

hot spot locations to determine what signage 

upgrades or additional installations are needed to 

improve safety at these locations. 

3. Systematic Approach – look at the crash trees to 

determine what additional safety signage could 

or should be added to the entire system to 

improve safety.

To determine the actual signs to install, the 

townships were provided a guidance packet which 

shows recommended signage installations for both 

intersections and curves. The townships compared

their existing signage installations to the 

recommended signage installations and created their 

sign needs list.

Once the township received the requested signage, 

the staff worked to install the new or upgraded signs 

using local forces. Guidance for installation is 

available both from the recommended signage 

packet as well as through the Ohio LTAP Center’s 

sign installation smartphone application, which is 

available for both Apple and Android phones. (For 

more information, see: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/

Divisions/Planning/LocalPrograms/LTAP/Pages/

LTAP-Smart-Phone-Applications.aspx). 

The Simple Change

By addressing signage, one of the simplest and most 

cost-effective safety countermeasures available, 

• 100% Reduction in Fatalities

• 35.9% Reduction in Serious 

Crashes

• 10.34% Reduction in Overall 

Crashes
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 21

Ohio now has a good starting point for improving 

safety on its township roads. Considering that a 36 

in. by 36 in. stop sign averages about $45, Ohio is 

making a small portion of its Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) funding go a long, 

long way. 

Everyone knows achieving Zero Deaths on our 

roadways will be much more complex than changing 

out a sign to improve its visibility, but signs have 

proven to be an excellent starting point for the 34 

percent of Ohio’s roadway system with the lowest 

traffic volumes. 

Want to Learn More?

If you are interested in learning more about Ohio’s 

Township Sign Grant Program, please contact 

Victoria Beale, Ohio LTAP Center Director, at 

614-466-3129 or via email at 

Victoria.beale@dot.ohio.gov. 

* Comprehensive costs include not only the economic cost 

components, but also a measure of the value of lost 

quality of life associated with the deaths and injuries – that 

is, what society is willing to pay to prevent them. 

Comprehensive costs should be used for a cost-benefit 

analysis, but because the lost quality of life represents 

only a dollar equivalence of intangible qualities, they do 

not represent real economic losses and should not be 

used to determine the economic impact of past crashes.

SNOHOMISH COUNTY USES HIGHFRICTION SURFACE TREATMENT TO 

IMPROVE LOCAL ROAD SAFETY

By: Joseph Cheung, FHWA Office of Safety, and Lisa 

Bedsole, Leidos

Snohomish County, Washington, has joined a 

growing number of counties across the Nation that 

are using an innovative, low-cost technology to 

enhance traction on road surfaces: high friction 

surface treatment, or HFST. Funded through 

Washington State Department of Transportation’s 

(WSDOT) 2016 Innovative Safety Program,

Snohomish County received a $1.3 million grant to 

apply HFST to 15 rural road sections throughout the 

unincorporated areas of the county and will begin 

applying these treatments in July 2017. 

HFST is a low-cost safety solution that has the 

potential to produce dramatic crash reductions. It is a 

treatment that targets problem locations such as 

curves, ramps, and downgrades where vehicles are 

at risk of departing the roadway, especially in wet or 

dark conditions. Spot pavement treatments apply a 

calcined bauxite aggregate with a highly durable, 

polish-resistant property on top of a layer of polymer, 

which locks the aggregate in place and bonds it to 

the existing road surface. HFST is designed to 

compensate for excessive speed, distracted driving, 

or driver error when a vehicle enters a curve by 

increasing pavement friction to help vehicles stay on 

the roadway.

This low-cost countermeasure is no stranger to 

Washington State. In 2015, WSDOT installed HFST 

to increase traction on two freeway ramps with some 

of the highest percentages of wet weather-related 

collisions in the State. Preliminary WSDOT data 

indicates that, in the first 10 months following the 

installation, one ramp saw only one wet surfacerelated crash compared to an average of just under 

14 such crashes during the same 10-month window 

in each of the previous 5 years. In the City of 

Bellevue in King County, a 2004 installation of 

HFST—one of the first in the country—on a steep, 

sharp curve approaching an intersection resulted in a 

crash reduction of 78 percent. 

“Statistics from the City of Bellevue indicate that they 

have had success with HSFT at an intersection that

is often affected by icy weather conditions. Similarly, 

this grant will enable us to improve safety for our 

motorists,” said Snohomish County Public Works 

Director Steve Thomsen. 

The challenging road geometry of this intersection in the 

City of Bellevue, WA made HFST a good solution for 

reducing run-off-road crashes. Source: FHWA
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 22

When measured over time, HFST is more costeffective than traditional paving because it lasts 

longer. This also means less labor resources are 

used to fix pavement friction issues, and fewer 

construction projects reduces the number of 

construction-zone related accidents. For more 

information about HFST, or to find out if HFST can 

help improve safety on your roads, visit 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement_

friction/high_friction/ or contact Joseph Cheung at 

joseph.cheung@dot.gov.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND EVENTS

International Roadside Safety Conference, 

June 12-15, 2017, San Francisco, California. 

The TRB Standing Committee on Roadside Safety 

Design, in conjunction with Transportation Pooled 

Fund Program Project No. TPF-5(329), is sponsoring 

the first ever International Roadside Safety

Conference (IRSC). This conference will provide a 

global forum to explore current roadside safety 

problems and practices and disseminate research 

results related to a full range of roadside safety 

issues, including: administration, planning, design,

construction, operations, and maintenance. The 

theme is “Safer Roads, Saving Lives, & Saving 

Money.” It is also the goal to highlight technological 

advancements and innovations involving new 

research as well as proven practices related to the

theme. For more information and to register, visit 

http://tinyurl.com/gm5cgxx. 

Joint ITE/CITE Annual Meeting, July 30–

August 2, 2017, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

The ITE and CITE annual meeting will showcase the 

very best transportation has to offer from an 

international perspective. The theme is 

“Transportation for All: Putting New Ideas into 

Practice.” It represents the need for a multifaceted 

approach to transportation, combining the visionary, 

forward-thinking ideas of tomorrow with a deep dive 

into the practical “how-to” professionals need to do 

their job today. Focus sessions will include topics 

related to Vision Zero, safety and mobility, vulnerable 

road users, and designing for safety, among many 

others. For more information or to register, visit 

http://www.ite.org/annualmeeting/.

2017 Governors Highway Safety Association 

Annual Meeting, September 16–20, 2017, 

Louisville, Kentucky. The theme for this year’s 

annual event is “Highway Safety in a New Era” 

because from a new Administration in Washington, 

D.C., to new technologies, to new behavioral 

challenges, we are truly entering a new era in traffic 

safety. The Governors Highway Safety Association 

2017 Annual Meeting will explore these new 

challenges and opportunities and consider how the 

highway safety community can best respond to drive 

down crashes and fatalities. For more information or 

to register, visit https://tinyurl.com/l6qzhk3. 
Spring 2017: Volume 11 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 23

The Safety Compass Newsletter

is a publication of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration.

The Federal Highway 

Administration publishes the Safety 

Compass newsletter three times a 

year. We can be reached at:

FHWA Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Room E71-320

Washington, DC 20590

The Safety Compass is available online at the FHWA Office of Safety 

website at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/newsletter/safetycompass/.

We welcome your comments and highway safety-related articles. The 

purpose of this newsletter is to increase highway safety awareness and 

information and to provide resources to help save lives.

We encourage readers to submit highway safety articles that might be of 

value to the highway safety community. Send your comments, questions 

and articles for review electronically to Tara McLoughlin at:

tara.mcloughlin@dot.gov.

FHWA and its safety partner, the Roadway Safety Foundation (RSF), are accepting applications 

for the 2017 National Roadway Safety Awards through June 9, 2017. These biennial awards 

recognize roadway safety achievements in infrastructure, operational, and programrelated improvements. 

Nominated projects and programs are judged based on their effectiveness, innovation, and 

efficient use of resources. 

Eligible applicants include State, local, and tribal governments as well as planning organizations, 

regional councils, Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAPs), Tribal Technical Assistance 

Programs (TTAPs), and universities. The program is available to U.S. nominees only, including 

U.S. territories and funded operations such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and 

the Mariana Islands.

‘‘Apply! This is a great opportunity to share highway safety. Every life counts. The application process takes a bit of 

work, but it is definitely worth it. The recognition our agency received was fantastic. Not to mention the time I spent in 

Washington, DC and getting to know all the other award winners!’’ —Brent Jennings, Highway Safety Manager Idaho 

Transportation Department

Additional details, instructions, and application packets are available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ or

www.roadwaysafety.org. Act fast! Nominations are due by June 9, 2017!