Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 1

A Message from FHWA Associate 

Administrator for Safety, Tony Furst

From Chasing the Ambulance to 

Keeping It Parked 

Traditionally, safety improvements were implemented by 

conducting site analyses of locations that had high crash 

numbers and applying countermeasures at those 

locations. This data-driven approach has resulted in 

substantial safety improvements, and while still a very 

necessary part of reducing fatalities and serious injuries, it is reactive to 

crash history data. Is there a way to use data to proactively prevent 

crashes? The answer is yes, and Karen Scurry from FHWA’s Office of 

Safety spearheaded the development of the Systemic Safety Project 

Selection Tool to do exactly that.

The definition of risk management has a few variants, but in essence it is 

the identification, evaluation, and prioritization of risks that allow us to 

make decisions to reduce the probability and/or impact of unwanted

events. Ideally, the risks with the greatest impact and probability are 

prioritized and addressed first, and lesser risks are addressed in 

descending order.

The Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool helps identify roadway 

features correlated with severe crash types and then supports the analysis 

of a roadway system for the presence of those roadway features. Locations on the system with risk factors (roadway features) are identified so 

they can be evaluated for countermeasures and prioritized for investment.

The tool assists with the selection of countermeasures that are most 

appropriate for those locations so they can be implemented before the 

identified locations develop a crash history – stopping a crash before it 

happens.

The systemic approach goes beyond managing risk just at high crash

locations; it takes a broader view and seeks to minimize risk across an 

entire roadway system. This enables a more comprehensive and proactive 

approach to planning safety improvements to help prevent the most severe 

crashes on the Nation’s roadways. I encourage you to read in more detail 

about this tool in this edition of the Safety Compass. It’s widespread use 

can help us transition from chasing the ambulance to keeping it parked.

A Publication of the Federal Highway Administration Safety Program Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2

In This Issue:

Saving Lives on Local Roads: 

FHWA Assesses Local Road 

Safety Funding, Training, 

and Technical Assistance 

Practices ....................................2

Systemic Safety Project 

Selection Tool: Identify and 

Treat High-Risk Road 

Features.....................................4

Toward Zero Deaths: 

Planning for Safety in Otter 

Tail County................................5

FHWA Issues Guidance on 

State Safety Data Systems 

and the Geospatial Network .....7

Supporting Design Flexibility 

to Make Bicycling and 

Walking Safer and More 

Convenient.................................8

Advancing Roadway Safety 

Culture Understanding .............9

FHWA Work Zone Safety 

Grant Still Providing Vital 

Safety Training and 

Guidance Products after 

Seven Years ..............................11

HSM Promotes Safety 

Performance Functions to 

Help States Determine Crash 

Frequency................................ 12

Events and Announcements.... 14
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 2

SAVING LIVES ON LOCAL ROADS:

FHWA ASSESSES LOCAL ROAD SAFETY 

FUNDING, TRAINING, AND TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANCE PRACTICES 

By: Danena Gaines, Senior Associate, Cambridge 

Systematics; Nicole Waldheim, Associate, Cambridge 

Systematics; Karen Scurry, FHWA Office of Safety

Many local roads are maintained by local agencies 

with limited resources and staff, making it 

particularly challenging to address safety issues. As 

such, these agencies rely on State DOTs to provide 

funding, training, and technical assistance to 

advance local road safety initiatives. However, 

DOTs face a number of challenges in their efforts to 

distribute Federal funding to local agencies to 

maintain and improve local road safety. In 2012, 

the FHWA launched an assessment to:

• Identify the programs through which Federal 

and State funding and resources are being 

provided to local agencies and the challenges 

these agencies face in qualifying for or 

participating in the programs; and

• Identify model practices for overcoming these 

challenges.

Thirty-eight of 50 State DOTs responded to a 

questionnaire distributed under this assessment, 

and Ohio, Nebraska, Louisiana, Florida, 

Tennessee, and California were interviewed to 

further identify noteworthy practices. 

The assessment revealed that local road safety 

programs are organized and administered 

differently from State to State. The level of support 

provided to local agencies varies just as greatly,

and no “one size fits all” solution exists. In general, 

the questionnaire identified four levels of support: 

resources and information, training and 

development, technical assistance, and project 

implementation strategies. The following sections 

summarize the key findings, challenges, and 

noteworthy practices identified in each of these 

areas.

Resources and Information

A number of the DOTs set aside funds for local 

safety, including Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) funding, High Risk Rural Road 

Program funding (HRRRP), State funds, or other 

Federal funding sources. Fatality and serious injury 

data are the key determinants for setting aside 

funding. The questionnaire surveyed respondents 

on whether these funds were obligated or spent on 

local roads. Between fiscal years 2009 and 2011,

States reported spending $710.1 million of HSIP, 

HRRRP, other Federal funds, and State funds on 

local road safety improvements. To encourage local 

agencies to develop road safety projects for 

funding, a number of DOTs provide financial 

incentives, with the most common being funding for 

the preliminary engineering components of projects 

(i.e., work necessary to advance a project from 

concept stage to contract award).

Training and Development 

DOTs, LTAPs, MPOs, and other entities (such as 

universities) provide training on data analysis, 

problem identification, countermeasure identification, benefit/ cost 

analysis, application preparation, and project 

development. For example, Caltrans developed Local Roadway 

Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road 

Owners, which provides 

an easy-to-use and comprehensive framework of 

the steps and analysis 

tools local jurisdictions 

need to proactively identify 

locations with roadway 

safety issues and come up 

with the appropriate countermeasures.

Technical Assistance

DOTs, LTAPs, and MPOs provide technical 

assistance to local agencies by supporting 

technical activities. Technical assistance may 

include data analysis, problem identification, 

countermeasure identification, benefit/cost analysis, 

application preparation, project development, post 

project evaluation, and other types of support. 

DOTs use a number of approaches to help local 

agencies identify road safety projects for funding. 

Two of the most common strategies are conducting 

road safety audits (RSAs) and systemic safety 

analyses.

A number of challenges are inherent to the data 

collection and analysis that are a necessary 

element of systemic safety analyses. SeventyCaltrans Local Roadway 

Safety Manual

(Source: Caltrans)
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 3

one percent of the DOTs recognized lack of 

exposure data on local roads as the top challenge,

29 percent cited completeness and accuracy of 

crash data, and 15 percent 

mentioned a lack of proven data 

analysis techniques. States 

identified a variety of strategies to 

mitigate some of the data 

concerns. Notably, Ohio DOT 

developed a web-based GIS 

Crash Analysis Tool (GCAT). Crash data and maps 

are available for most of the local roadways, and 

the tool can also produce standard crash trend 

charts and graphs. Local agencies are offered halfday training on this tool at no cost.

Project Implementation Strategies 

Many DOTs provide support personnel or other 

resources to local agencies to coordinate project 

implementation. Some strategies include guiding 

local project selection criteria, reviewing project 

applications, providing stewardship and oversight, 

and identifying opportunities to streamline the 

project development and implementation process. 

Of particular interest are the approaches to help 

streamline the Federal-aid process for local safety

improvement projects. For example, the Florida 

DOT uses a “push-button” contract process, 

implementing projects from a pre-approved list of

safety countermeasures that do not require right-ofway acquisition and have minimal environmental 

impacts. This process has resulted in project 

timelines being reduced by 25 months. This is 

among the 20 strategies identified in the 

assessment to reduce the administrative burden of 

safety project for local agencies. 

A shortage of staff at local agencies means that 

some States take on the responsibility of 

implementing safety improvements on local 

roadways on behalf of those local agencies. The 

GCAT Crash Data Map showing fatal, injury, and property damage only crashes

(Source: Ohio Department of Transportation)

By using a “push-button” contract process, the Florida DOT 

implements projects from a pre-approved list of safety 

countermeasures. This process has resulted in project timelines 

being reduced by 25 months.
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 4

Tennessee DOT Local Roads Safety Initiative 

provides low-cost safety improvements to local 

agencies through a consultant contract and process 

that directly engages local stakeholders. 

Noteworthy practices identified through the 

assessment clearly show the extent of project 

administration, and implementation support varies

depending on available resources and the State’s 

local road safety program organization.

Louisiana LTAP-led road safety audit with South Central 

Planning and Development Commission

(Photo courtesy of South Central Planning and 

Development Commission)

The full report, Assessment of Local Road Safety 

Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance, 

contains the assessment findings, case studies, 

and a list of questions State DOTs and LTAP 

centers can use to identify opportunities to enhance 

or initiate a local road safety program. To read the 

full report, please visit the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program resources page at 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/ or the 

Local and Rural Road Safety Program website at 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/. For 

hard copies, contact the report center at 

report.center@dot.gov. 

SYSTEMIC SAFETY PROJECT SELECTION 

TOOL: IDENTIFY AND TREAT HIGHRISK ROAD FEATURES

By: Karen Y. Scurry, P.E., FHWA Office of Safety

The FHWA Office of Safety has released a new 

Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool which 

provides analytical techniques and models for State 

and local agencies to apply the systemic approach 

to safety.

Systemic safety involves improvements that are 

widely implemented based on high-risk roadway 

features correlated with particular severe crash 

types. It compliments traditional site analysis by 

recognizing that crashes alone cannot always 

determine what countermeasures to implement, 

particularly on low-volume local and rural roadways 

and in many urban areas where conflicts exist 

between vehicles and vulnerable road users (e.g., 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists). 

The Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool 

involves three basic elements: selecting locations 

and countermeasures, achieving the correct 

balance between systemic and traditional safety 

investments, and evaluating the effectiveness of 

the systemic approach. The following is a 

description of how the Systemic Safety Project 

Selection Tool addresses each of these elements: 

• Systemic Safety Planning Process. 

Identifies priority crash types and associated 

risk factors; evaluates proven, low-cost safety 

countermeasures; and prioritizes alternative 

candidate locations for systemic safety 

investment.

The Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool

(Source: FHWA)
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 5

• A Balance between Systemic and 

Traditional Safety Investments. Provides a 

framework for setting funding goals between 

systemic and site analysis programs.

• Systemic Safety Program Evaluation. Offers

high-level guidance for evaluating systemic 

program effectiveness.

The tool is flexible, easy to use, and 

accommodates whatever data an agency has 

available. It can be applied to a variety of systems, 

locations, and crash types. It also promotes a 

process that can be incorporated into existing 

safety management efforts, so minimal training and 

technical assistance is required. Since the systemic 

safety process is based on risk rather than location, 

the tool helps agencies identify characteristics to 

support system-wide risk assessments.

To download the Systemic Safety Project Selection 

Tool or to obtain more information, please visit

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic. 

TOWARD ZERO DEATHS: PLANNING 

FOR SAFETY IN OTTER TAIL COUNTY

By Richard West, PE, Otter Tail County and Renae 

Kuehl, PE, PTOE, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

Minnesota’s visionary Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) 

program was initiated by a diverse partnership of 

Minnesota State and county stakeholders who all 

saw the same problem: too many people in 

Minnesota were dying and being seriously injured 

on our roads. When TZD started in 2003, there 

were 655 fatalities in Minnesota, an increase 

from previous years. TZD was created to 

reverse the trend.

In 2008, the Minnesota Local Road 

Research Board (LRRB) developed a 

training course entitled “Rural Road Safety 

Solutions,” available at http://www.lrrb.org/

media/reports/2010RIC03.pdf, that was deployed 

statewide and educated county engineers on 

existing safety issues and various safety strategies 

that have been proven to reduce crashes. The 

LRRB, with MnDOT State aid, also funded the 

development of the Minnesota Crash Mapping 

Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) tool which is a webbased, user-friendly software program that helps 

traffic safety professionals easily map and analyze 

crash data on State and local systems. MnCMAT 

enables users to analyze ten years of detailed 

crash data using 32 different filters (e.g., driver 

behavior and crash data) to analyze various types 

of crash scenarios. By specifying certain crash 

attributes, users can customize searches to 

analyze crash data, identify trends, and produce 

maps with plotted crash locations, charts, and 

automated crash reports. The MNCAT tool is 

available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/

sa_crashmapping.html

In 2010, the Minnesota DOT shifted from a focus 

on reducing the overall number of crashes on the 

State system to a focus on reducing the number of 

the most severe crashes on the local system that 

result in traffic fatalities and life-changing injuries. 

A framework to overcome this challenge was 

established using a crash mapping tool (MnCMAT) 

and a formalized systematic process to develop 

unique County Roadway Safety Plans for the 87 

counties in Minnesota. Otter Tail County was one 

of the first counties to have its plan completed. 

County officials point to the importance of strong 

partnerships with FHWA, Mn/DOT, MN LTAP, the 

Mn/DOT Office of State Aid and the MN LRRB as 

being critical to the successful development of the

plan.

County Road Safety Plan Process 

The primary objective of the County Road Safety 

Plan Process (CRSP) is to identify a specific set of 

safety-oriented projects (such as the implementation of specific strategies at specific 

locations) and to directly link these projects to the 

causation factors associated with the most severe 

crashes on county highways. The diagram on page 

6 outlines the process that was used in all 87 of 

Minnesota’s counties to develop unique plans that 

are specific to the crash characteristics and the 

needs of each county.

Otter Tail County CRSP 

Otter Tail County’s CRSP was completed in August 

2011 and included suggested safety strategies for 

at-risk intersections, segments, and curves within

the county totaling almost $7.2 million worth of

In Minnesota, of the 190 fatal crashes each year, 33 

percent involve a single vehicle running off the road,

75 percent occur in rural areas, and approximately 62 

percent occur on the local system.
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 6

County Road Safety Plan Process for Otter Tail County

(Source: Minnesota DOT)

potential safety projects. Since the completion of 

the plan, Otter Tail County has been successful in

securing funds for many of the suggested safety 

projects. When it applied for the first round of

Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) funds in

2009, Otter Tail County combined most of its

projects with other counties within its district; this

allowed each of the counties to implement more of 

the safety strategies at a lower cost since the 

mobilization costs for the contractor were reduced.

Overall, county officials indicate that the benefits of 

having a County Road Safety Plan are tremendous 

and far outweigh the challenges in developing it. 

Not only does the plan help them prioritize projects 

and apply for HSIP funding, it is an important tool 

for facilitating discussions with the county board 

and the public on roadway safety issues.

Stakeholders agree that this process has been very 

valuable and has provided them with a tool that will 

help save lives on our local roadways.

One lesson that participants took away from the 

plan development process is that a greater level of 

public involvement from the beginning would have 

benefitted the process greatly, because with 

implementation, the county is now seeing the need 

to continue to educate the public on the plan and

the projects that are being constructed as a result.

Ongoing public education (including local elected 

officials) about the CRSP and safety projects is 

critical as public awareness is essential to the 

success of the overall Towards Zero Death 

program in Minnesota. 

For more information about Otter Tail County’s 

experience with developing a successful county 

road safety plan, contact Rick West at 

rwest@co.ottertail.mn.us.
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 7

HSIP Funding for Otter Tail County Projects, 2009 and 2011

(Source: Otter Tail County)

FHWA ISSUES GUIDANCE ON STATE 

SAFETY DATA SYSTEMS AND THE 

GEOSPATIAL NETWORK

By: Robert Pollack, FHWA Safety Data Manager

On December 27, 2012 the FHWA issued new 

guidance on the content and capabilities that each 

State’s safety data system should have. This 

guidance identifies and clarifies the provisions of 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

(MAP-21) reauthorizing legislation pertaining to 

the data, data systems, and analyses States 

should be using to support their Highway 

Safety Improvement Programs (HSIPs) and 

their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). 

A copy of the guidance is available at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesafe

tydata.cfm.

The new guidance describes the elements of a 

safety data system in terms of: 

• Types of roadways on which data should be 

collected for MAP-21;

• Types of data that should be collected;

• Development of a geolocation system for the 

data;

• Analysis and evaluation capabilities;

• Establishment of a subset of Model Inventory 

of Roadway Elements (MIRE) that States 

should be collecting on all public roads; and

• Coordination between State agencies 

responsible for the safety data in support of a 

uniform approach to data collection and 

maintenance.

In addition, the FHWA Office of Highway Policy 

Information and the Office of Planning, 

Environment, and Realty issued a “Memorandum 

on Geospatial Network for All Public Roads” on 

August 7, 2012 (available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/arn

old.pdf). This memorandum identified a Highway 

Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 

Want to learn how Tennessee reduced intersection fatalities by 26%? Or how the 

Florida Highway Patrol identified critical safety areas using a web-based crash 

mapping and analysis tool developed for law enforcement? Or how Alabama flexes HSIP 

Funds for increased enforcement? Search the FHWA Noteworthy Practice Database to find 

out more about these and other innovative approaches to safety program planning, 

implementation, and evaluation. Learn how to save time, resources, and money, and most 

important—save lives! Visit http://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/default.aspx today!
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 8

requirement for States to 

update their linear 

referencing systems to 

include all public 

roadways within the State. 

This linear referencing 

system is a means to 

geolocate all safety data 

on a common highway 

basemap that includes all 

public roads.

Subsequent to releasing the memo, FHWA 

conducted an economic analysis, the MIRE 

Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit 

Estimation, to quantify the expense and expected 

benefits of the investment for each State to collect 

the FDEs. Collecting the subset of MIRE and 

expanding the States’ linear referencing systems is 

expected to improve an agency’s ability to locate 

problem areas and apply appropriate 

countermeasures, hence improving safety through 

the integration of the additional roadway and traffic 

data into the safety analysis process. The analysis 

considers the extent of data collection already 

being conducted by the States and provides a 

national cost estimate. The cost estimations used in 

this analysis reflect the additional costs that 

States would likely incur based on what is being 

collected through HPMS but is not being collected 

through other efforts. MIRE Fundamental Data 

Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation is available for 

download at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/

downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf. 

For more information about the MIRE 

Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation report, please contact Stuart Thompson at: 

stuart.thompson@dot.gov. For more information on 

the FHWA guidance, please contact Bob Pollack at 

robert.pollack@dot.gov. 

SUPPORTING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY TO 

MAKE BICYCLING AND WALKING 

SAFER AND MORE CONVENIENT

By: Gabe Rousseau, Safety Operations Team Leader, 

Federal Highway Administration

People in communities across the country are 

looking for cheaper and more convenient 

transportation options, and because of this, we’re 

seeing a renewed interest in walking and bicycling. 

A number of trends are influencing this resurgence, 

such as young adults waiting to get their drivers’ 

licenses (and driving less than previous cohorts); 

cities and States adopting “complete streets” 

polices that aim to accommodate the needs of all 

road users in transportation decisions; and new 

programs such as car share and bike share, which 

are creating innovative transportation options. 

Cities are also experimenting with new signals, 

markings, and signs to improve the safety and 

transportation experience for bicyclists and 

pedestrians. Because of this evolution of the 

transportation landscape, FHWA offices often 

receive requests for help in understanding whether 

a particular facility is allowed by the official design 

guidelines. Questions like, “Can our city install this 

new bike design? It’s not mentioned in the design 

guides.” Or “Is this pavement marking allowed in 

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and 

is it experimental?” are common. 

In recent years, a number of unfamiliar bicycle 

treatments have popped up, and it can be 

confusing to understand what can and cannot be 

installed according to design guidelines. Several 

offices at FHWA have been working to make it 

easier for people to understand what is permissible, 

what is experimental, and how much design 

flexibility there is. Two resources can help 

practitioners work through these issues and lead to 

more informed transportation decisions.

The first resource is an FHWA web page

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pede

strian/guidance/design_guidance/mutcd_bike.cfm) 

that lists many of the new bicycle treatments, such 

as green bike lanes and cycle tracks (i.e., bike 

lanes that are physically separated from car lanes) 

and explains their status in the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and in the 

AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle 

Facilities. The web page is updated regularly when 

the status of treatments changes or new treatments 

are identified. People can also find out if there are 

experiments underway for treatments that are not 

yet in the MUTCD by looking at the online Official 

Rulings database, which can be found at 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp. 

The second resource is the FHWA guidance memo

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pede

strian/guidance/design_guidance/design_flexibility.

cfm) released on August 20, 2013 that stresses the 

agency’s “...support for taking a flexible approach 

to bicycle and pedestrian facility design.” The 
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 9

American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the 

Development of Bicycle Facilities (aka, “the 

AASHTO bicycle facilities guide”), the primary 

national design guideline for bicycle facilities, 

provides flexibility to encourage facilities that fit the 

local context. In 2010, the National Association of 

City Transportation Officials (NACTO) released the 

Urban Bikeway Design Guide to augment 

AASHTO’s bicycle facilities guide. Practitioners 

have had questions about how the NACTO guide 

should be used, and the August memo clarifies that 

FHWA supports using both guides to consider 

options for improving transportation safety and 

convenience for bicyclists. The memo also explains 

that similar synergies exist for the AASHTO Guide 

for the Planning, Design, and Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities and the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers Designing Urban 

Walkable Thoroughfares. 

FHWA hopes that practitioners will benefit from 

these two resources and use them to improve the 

safety and convenience of bicyclists and 

pedestrians across the country. These resources 

can help transportation agencies strive towards the 

goals of the 2010 US DOT Policy Statement on 

Bicycling and Pedestrian Accommodation which 

states that “...DOT encourages transportation 

agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, 

and proactively provide convenient, safe, and 

context-sensitive facilities that foster increased use 

by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and 

abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics 

when appropriate.” View the policy statement at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pede

strian/overview/policy_accom.cfm.

For more information on the FHWA resources 

available to promote safe bicycling and walking, 

contact Gabe Rousseau at 

gabe.rousseau@dot.gov.

ADVANCING ROADWAY SAFETY 

CULTURE UNDERSTANDING

By: Ryan Brumfield, Safety Engineer, FHWA WV 

Division; Chimai Ngo, FHWA Transportation Specialist; 

Stuart Thompson, FHWA Transportation Specialist; 

Tamiko Burnell, FHWA Transportation Specialist

Most recent discussions regarding roadway safety 

culture have centered on defining the issue and 

reaching a common understanding of what “a culture of safety” means in the transportation context. 

There is consensus among safety experts and in 

literature that safety culture exists in different forms 

in the transportation industry. For instance, a State 

department of transportation (DOT) may strive to 

have a strong organizational safety culture in which 

all employees are committed to a safe work environment and proactively incorporate roadway 

safety considerations into the policies, programs, 

and products they manage or work on. In addition, 

the DOT wants road users throughout its jurisdiction to have a strong public safety culture in which 

everyone appreciates and practices safe driving.

Organizational Safety Culture

The extent to which safety is highly valued and 

rigorously pursued by an organization indicates the 

  Featured Resource: CMFs in Practice  

Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) in Practice is a series of five guides which illustrates how CMFs support 

a number of safety-related activities in the project development process. The guides identify opportunities 

for agencies to consider and quantify safety in specific activities, including: 

 Roadway safety management processes 

 Road safety audits

 Design decisions and exceptions 

 Development and analysis of alternatives

 Value engineering

The purpose of the CMFs in Practice series is to illustrate the value of CMFs in these five activities and 

demonstrate the practical application of CMFs. For more information about CMFs in Practice, visit: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/resources/cmfs/.
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 10

strength of that organization’s safety culture. For 

example, a State DOT with a strong safety culture 

has employees who are safety conscious both in 

their daily routines and in the work they perform. 

They are aware of potential hazards in their work 

environment and are prepared to react to incidents. 

They have safety in mind when planning, scoping, 

designing, and constructing a roadway. All 

employees regularly communicate the importance 

of safety with colleagues, customers, and 

contractors. Executive leaders are vocal supporters of safety and empower employees to seek 

innovative approaches to improving safety.

Public Safety Culture

States or communities with a positive public safety 

culture have citizens who understand the risks 

associated with transportation and choose to make 

safe choices when using the transportation system. 

Drivers in a community with a strong safety culture

are likely to wear their seat belt voluntarily, obey

posted speed limits, limit distractions and 

inattention, and refrain from drinking and driving. In 

contrast, communities or states with poor public 

safety culture have citizens who are more likely to

drive recklessly, fail to use a seatbelt, and drive

distracted or impaired. 

Notable Roadway Safety Culture 

Initiatives

USDOT Safety Council. In 2009, former USDOT 

Secretary Ray LaHood created the USDOT Safety 

Council composed of executive members from 

each of USDOT’s modal agencies. The Safety 

Council leverages departmental expertise and 

leadership for information exchange, discussion, 

and collaboration to enable coordinated, crossmodal approaches to advancing the safety goal. 

As part of the Safety Council, a special action team 

was developed to take on the issue of safety 

culture. Through the work of the Safety Culture 

Action Team, Secretary LaHood signed the first 

ever USDOT Policy Statement on Safety in 2011. 

The Safety Council and Safety Culture Action Team 

continue to facilitate collaboration between the 

modal agencies and spur creative thinking to 

address complex issues in safety culture.

2013 National Roadway Safety Culture 

Summit. On August 20 and 21, the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) hosted the 

first National Roadway Safety Culture Summit. The 

summit was organized by the TRB Roadway Safety 

Cultures Subcommittee and sponsored by the AAA 

Foundation for Traffic Safety. The two-day event 

included a number of presentations to frame the 

issues, define safety culture, and present examples 

of successful safety culture transformation. The 

summit also featured a keynote address from Anne 

Ferro, administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration. It also included a powerful 

speech from Dr. Jay Winsten, Associate Dean of 

Harvard’s School of Public Health, who helped 

make the term “designated driver” relevant by 

working with Hollywood to include mention of the 

expression, among other safety messages, in a 

number of television shows in the late 1980s. In 

addition, the summit included four breakout tracks: 

organizational safety culture; public safety culture;

leadership/creating champions and partnerships;

and safety culture of professionals/ workforce 

development. Each track provided an opportunity 

for participants to work in groups to develop 

research needs and action items related to a 

specific area of interest. 

The summit concluded with representatives from 

the four breakout tracks presenting research ideas 

and near-term actions related to their subjects. 

Notes from these breakout tracks, as well as key 

points from conference presentations and 

speeches, will be presented in a summit report, 

expected to be released in fall 2013. The TRB 

Roadway Safety Cultures Subcommittee that 

helped organize the summit will sponsor sessions 

at the 2014 TRB Annual Meeting, including a recap 

of the summit and discussion of research needs. 

Anne Ferro, Administrator of Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) welcomed participants to 

the 2013 National Roadway Safety Culture Summit 

(Photo courtesy of FMCSA).
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 11

National Transportation Safety Board 

Forum. On September 10 and 11, 2013 the 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

hosted a forum titled, “Safety Culture: Enhancing 

Transportation Safety.” The forum provided firsthand accounts of efforts from both transportation 

and non-transportation industries to develop 

positive safety cultures. Highlighting progress while 

recognizing remaining challenges, the invited 

panelists discussed advances in safety culture 

research and described the roles, responsibilities, 

and methods for developing effective safety 

cultures within their industries.

National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program Project. The AASHTO Standing 

Committee on Research recently approved funding 

for a National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) project titled “Development of a 

Strategic Plan for Transforming Traffic Safety 

Culture.” This project will include a synthesis of 

existing work in safety culture and provide 

recommendations for State and local agencies to 

transform their organizational and public safety 

cultures. The project will begin in the next few 

months and has an anticipated timeframe of 24 

months.

Contact Ryan Brumfield at ryan.brumfield@dot.gov

or Chimai Ngo at chimai.ngo@dot.gov for more 

information on safety culture.

FHWA WORK ZONE SAFETY GRANT 

STILL PROVIDING VITAL SAFETY 

TRAINING AND GUIDANCE PRODUCTS 

AFTER SEVEN YEARS

By Jawad Paracha, FHWA Work Zone Program 

Manager

Section 1409 of the Safe Accountable, Flexible, 

and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established the FHWA 

Work Zone Safety Grant Program in 2005. FHWA 

awarded the first set of grants, totaling $17.2 

million, in 2006. In 2011, the 

agency awarded a second set of 

grants, valued at $10 million. 

Together, the 2006 and 2011 

grants serve as important 

education and training tools to 

help construction workers and 

practitioners learn about national standards and 

best practices in work zone safety. The grants 

address three focus areas: highway work zone 

worker safety training, highway work zone safety 

guidelines development, and highway work zone 

safety guidelines training. All Work Zone Safety 

Grant training and guidance products have been 

developed with input from actual work zone 

practitioners, and grant training is consistent with 

the National Highway Institute’s instructional design 

standards. 

Since the grant program began in 2006, more than 

40 training products and programs have been 

developed and delivered to more than 50,000 

students throughout the United States. Additionally, 

more than 25 guidance products have been 

developed and delivered to an incredible 165,000+ 

workers and practitioners, with more being 

delivered every day. Instructional products (e.g., inperson training, web-based training, and CD-based 

training) and guidance documents are available on 

such topics as: 

• Worker/Construction Safety

• Vehicles and Heavy Equipment 

• Flagging Operations 

• Utility/Maintenance Work Zones 

• ITS and Technology 

• Temporary Traffic Control

• Public Information 

• Operations Strategies 

• Traffic Impact Analysis 

• Work Zone Road Safety Audits

• Work Zone Inspections

• Positive Protection

All the training and guideline products developed 

under the grant program as well as a 

comprehensive library of resources on how to 

maintain safe, effective work zones can be 

found on the grant-sponsored National Work 

Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse at 

http://www.workzonesafety.org/.

All training products developed under this program 

can be used free of charge. Also, any training 

provided by grantees under the grant program is 

Since the grant program began in 2006, more than 40 training 

products and programs have been developed and delivered to 

more than 50,000 students, and more than 25 guidance 

products have been developed and delivered to 165,000+ 

workers and practitioners.
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 12

either free or may involve a small fee of up to $25 

per attendee. As we continue to reconstruct and 

replace our Nation’s aging transportation 

infrastructure, please work with us to share this 

important information with your partners in safety 

so that the grant may continue its critical work of 

training workers and saving lives on America’s

roads and highways. 

For more information on the grant program, contact 

Jawad Paracha at jawad.paracha@dot.gov.

HSM PROMOTES SAFETY 

PERFORMANCE FUNCTIONS TO HELP 

STATES DETERMINE CRASH 

FREQUENCY

By Stuart Thompson, FHWA Transportation Specialist, 

and Esther Strawder, FHWA Transportation Specialist

It’s a rule of thumb in the transportation safety 

community that the more agencies know about why 

crashes occur, the more successfully they can 

identify and apply the most effective solutions. The 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) supports efforts to 

define effective solutions by providing analytical 

tools that can help agencies predict the overall 

impacts of their safety programs and project 

delivery decisions on roadway safety, including the 

use of Safety Performance Functions (SPF). SPFs

are statistical models used to estimate the average 

crash frequency for a specific facility type. 

The HSM identifies 

SPFs for three facility 

types: rural two-lane, 

two-way roads; rural 

multilane highways; and 

urban suburban 

arterials. Since HSM 

publication in 2010, 

additional research has 

developed predictive 

methods for freeways 

and ramps/interchanges, and NCHRP 

Project 17-58 is actively 

developing prediction models for six-lane and oneway urban and suburban arterials. Additionally,

State researchers have worked independently to 

develop many more SPFs. 

HSM Implementation Pooled Fund 

Study Works to Advance Understanding, 

Use of SPFs

Initiated in 2012, the HSM Implementation Pooled 

Fund Study (PFS), also focuses on providing more 

resources to advance the application of SPFs. The 

primary objective of this study is (1) to advance 

ongoing efforts by lead States in the implementation of the HSM, and (2) to expand HSM 

implementation to all States. Presently there are 17 

organizations and agencies contributing to the 

effort, including the Louisiana Transportation 

Research Center and the State departments of 

transportation (DOT) for California, Idaho, Illinois, 

Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. These 

16 DOTs meet annually to develop and update their

work plans as well as participate in quarterly 

conference calls.

Current projects of the HSM Implementation Pooled 

Funded Study include guidance in the calibration 

and/or development of SPFs to better account for 

regional and geographical differences. The 

following list provides descriptions of the guides 

currently under development through the HSM 

Implementation PFS as well as an NCHRP project:

1. How to Choose Between Calibrating SPFs from 

the HSM and Developing Jurisdiction-Specific 

SPFs. The guide gives a comparison of the 

benefits and challenges facing agencies either 

pursuing calibration of HSM SPFs or 

developing their own SPFs for their state or 

region. 

2. A How-to Guidebook for States Developing 

Jurisdiction-Specific SPFs. The guidebook 

includes a step-by-step process for an agency 

to develop SPFs for its state or region. The 

guide incorporates a comprehensive definition 

of SPFs terminology and examples.

3. NCHRP HR 20‐7 (332) Users’ Guide to 

Develop Highway Safety Manual Safety 

Performance Function Calibration Factors. This 

guide focuses on the predictive method found in 

Part C of the HSM (2010). The predictive 

method, namely the Empirical Bayes (EB) 

method, is used to estimate the expected 

average crash frequency of an individual site.

Other PFS projects under development include an

SPF Clearinghouse and involvement with an
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 13

Workshop attendees from left to right: Stuart Thompson, FHWA; Tim Barnett, Alabama DOT; Clayton Chen, 

FHWA; Krista Nordback, Portland State University; Dr. Ezra Hauer, Instructor; Xiao Duan Sun, Louisiana State 

University; Andrea Bill, University of Wisconsin; Kelly Campbell, Idaho DOT; Tim Harmon, NH DOT.

FHWA-sponsored workshop that trains participants

in SPF development and evaluation. The SPF 

Clearinghouse will be a web-based database of 

SPFs along with supporting documentation to help 

practitioners identify the most appropriate SPFs for

their safety needs. Users will be able to search this 

site to find SPFs or submit their own SPFs to be 

included in the Clearinghouse. Development of this 

site is scheduled to start early 2014. 

Two pilot SPF development workshops have been 

conducted for researchers as well as State 

personnel and their consultants. The first took place 

at the TRB 2013 annual meeting in Washington, 

D.C., and the second was held in Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana in July 2013. Both workshops were 

conducted by Dr. Ezra Hauer, Professor Emeritus 

in the Department of Civil Engineering at the 

University of Toronto. These workshops used 

commonly available spreadsheet tools and 

provided participants with insight into the SPF

development process and how to evaluate resulting 

functions. Participants ranked the course in the 90

percent plus range and recommended that it be

made available to other users. The course is being 

evaluated for release to interested universities for 

use in graduate classes with the potential for a 

train-the-trainer course in mid-2014. 

For more details on how SPFs are used, visit 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/il_cstd.c

fm. Public agencies interested in joining the 

HSM Pooled Fund Study can view the 

Objectives and Scope of Work here: 

http://www.pooledfund.org/details/study/484 or 

contact the program manager, Esther Strawder 

of FHWA’s Safety Technologies Team, 

esther.strawder@dot.gov. Those interested in the 

guides developed through the Pooled Fund Study 

and/or the SPF workshop should also forward their

questions to Esther.
Fall 2013: Volume 7 Issue 2 Safety Compass Newsletter • 14

EVENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

39th International Forum on Traffic 

Records & Highway Information Systems, 

St. Paul, Minnesota, October 27-30, 2013.

The Traffic Records Forum provides an opportunity 

for traffic records professionals of all disciplines and 

in all types of organizations to share their 

experiences, innovations, studies, technologies, 

etc. in presentations, sessions, and conversations. 

In 2013, ATSIP will spotlight the contribution of 

local planners, health care providers, law 

enforcement, clerks of court, prosecutors, and 

universities in the collection and use of traffic 

records. For more information, contact Cynthia 

Burch at forum@atsip.org or visit 

http://www.trafficrecordsforum.org/.

LoTrans 2013: The Transportation 

Management Virtual Conference and

Innovation Showcase featuring “Best 

Practices in Work Zone Safety,” November 

19-20, 2013. This virtual trade show and 

conference operates like a traditional trade show,

but offers exhibit halls, educational sessions, and 

training events in a virtual environment, so all 

attendees need to participate is a computer and an 

internet connection. The work zone safety segment 

of the program will include sessions on topics such 

as:

• OSHA’s Work Zone Inspection Directive

• Preventing Work Zone Intrusions

• Work Zone Liabilities

• Globally Harmonized Standards on Hazard 

Communication

• Work Zone Safety Audits

• OSHA’s New Standard on Silica Exposure and 

its Impacts on Roadway Construction

For more information, please visit: 

http://www.lotransvirtualconference.org/.

Safety Academy: Essential Training for 

Roadway Construction Safety Directors, 

Foreman and Supervisors, Washington, 

DC, December 2-6, 2013. Located at the 

American Road and Transportation Builders 

Association (ARTBA) headquarters, this course

offers OSHA 500 certification and Flagger Training 

Instruction certification. The course provides 

extensive coverage of OSHA standards as they 

relate to the construction industry and provides 

“train-the-trainer” instruction that prepares students 

to educate others in the OSHA course material. 

Students will learn how to provide instruction on 

standard flagging procedures and how to provide 

safe passage in and around work areas. For more 

information, contact Holly DiGangi at 202.289.4434 

ext. 304 or visit http://www.artba.org/safetyacademy/.

93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC, January 

12-16, 2014. Held at the Washington Marriott 

Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, and Washington 

Hilton hotels, this year’s program will attract nearly 

12,000 transportation professionals from around 

the world. The spotlight theme for the 2014 TRB 

Annual Meeting is “Celebrating Our Legacy, 

Anticipating Our Future.” Register by November 

30th to take advantage of lower rates. For more 

information and to register, visit:

http://www.trb.org/AnnualMeeting2014/AnnualMeeti

ng2014.aspx. 

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 E71-105

Washington, DC 20590

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

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.