Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest 

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

this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and 

the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and 

maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality 

issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. 
 

 

 

 

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 

FHWA-SA-10-024 

4. Title and Subtitle 

The Essential Eight – Fundamental Elements and Effective 

Steps for SHSP Implementation 

7. Author(s) 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 

Cambridge, MA 02140 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety E-71-320 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

June 2010 

6. Performing Organization Code 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

10. Work Unit No. 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-05-D-00026

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

May 2010-August 2010 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

FHWA: Tamiko Brim-Burnell, Office of Safety 

16. Abstract 

This document describes the components necessary for successful Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) implementation. It features discussions on the four fundamental elements (leadership, 

collaboration, communication, and data collection and analysis) and the four steps for successful 

implementation (emphasis area action plans; linkage to existing plans; marketing; and monitoring, 

evaluation, and feedback). For each element and step, the document provides a list of key strategies as 

well as a checklist for practitioners to use to assess their implementation efforts. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Transportation safety, SHSP implementation, No restrictions. This document is available to the 

HSIP, HSP, CVSP, transportation planning public through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No of 22. Price 

Pages 

78 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington DC 20590 

June 2010 

Message from the FHWA Associate Administrator of the Office of Safety 

The SAFETEA-LU Act of 2005 required all States to develop Strategic Highway Safety Plans 

(SHSP). Just two years later all States met this requirement. Since then the focus has shifted from 

SHSP development to SHSP implementation. This document, The Essential Eight – Fundamental 

Elements and Effective Steps for SHSP Implementation, will help States implement their SHSPs. 

The initial draft of the Implementation Process Model (IPM) incorporated the latest research 

as well as the practical experiences of six model States. Ten other States then pilot-tested the 

IPM. This final version incorporates the lessons learned during the pilot test. It describes 

how to develop the fundamental elements of leadership, collaboration, communication, and 

data analysis and how to apply them to the four steps to implementation. These four steps 

cover: 1) emphasis area action plans; 2) integration with existing transportation and safety 

plans; 3) marketing; and 4) monitoring, evaluation, and feedback. Included in this document 

are lists of strategies based on noteworthy practices as well as checklists of questions to help 

practitioners assess their SHSP implementation efforts. Each chapter describes a fundamental 

element or step and provides guidance on advancing SHSP implementation. 

Sincerely yours, 

Joseph S. Toole 

Associate Administrator for Safety 

Federal Highway Administration 

Table of Contents
 

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan Implementation Process Model Overview ................... 1

 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

 Background...................................................................................................................... 1
 

Implementation Process Model (IPM) Methodology ................................................. 2

 IPM Elements ................................................................................................................... 2
 

Using the IPM.................................................................................................................. 3
 

Chapter 1 – Overview of the Essential Eight Components........................................................ 5

 Fundamental Elements ................................................................................................... 6
 

Steps for Implementation............................................................................................... 8
 

Chapter 2 – Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication................................................. 11
 

Key Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication Strategies ............................ 14

 Checklist......................................................................................................................... 15
 

Chapter 3 – Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data.............................................................. 17
 

Key Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing Strategies ............................................ 21

 Checklist......................................................................................................................... 22
 

Chapter 4 – Emphasis Area Action Plans.................................................................................... 23
 

Key Emphasis Area Action Plan Strategies ............................................................... 26

 Checklist......................................................................................................................... 26
 

Chapter 5 – Integration into Other Transportation Plans and Programs .............................. 27
 

5.1 Long-Range Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs . 28
 

Key Integration Strategies – LRTP and S/TIP ........................................................... 32
 

5.2 Highway Safety Improvement Programs .................................................................. 33
 

Key Integration Strategies – HSIP............................................................................... 37
 

5.3 Highway Safety Plans................................................................................................... 38
 

Key Integration Strategies – HSP ................................................................................ 41
 

5.4 Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans................................................................................ 42
 

Key Integration Strategies – CVSP.............................................................................. 45
 

5.5 Plan and Program Integration Checklist and Timeline ............................................ 46

 Checklist......................................................................................................................... 46

 Timeline.......................................................................................................................... 47
 

Chapter 6 – Marketing ................................................................................................................... 49
 

Key Marketing Strategies ............................................................................................. 55

 Checklist......................................................................................................................... 55
 

Chapter 7 – Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback ................................................................. 57
 

Key Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback Strategies ............................................ 59

 Checklist......................................................................................................................... 60
 

Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 61
 

Glossary............................................................................................................................................ 65
 

i 

FHWA together with other safety partners 

provided SHSP development guidance in A 

Champion’s Guide to Saving Lives. Most states 

followed some or all of the following steps:

• Gain leadership support and initiative;

• Identify a champion;

• Initiate the development process;

• Gather data;

• Analyze data;

• Establish a working group;

• Bring safety partners together;

• Adopt a strategic goal;

• Identify key emphasis areas;

• Form task groups;

• Identify key emphasis area 

performance-based goals;

• Identify strategies and 

countermeasures;

• Determine priorities for 

implementation; and

• Write the SHSP.

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan
 

Implementation Process Model Overview
 

 Introduction
 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in collaboration with partners at the 

Federal, State, and local levels (e.g., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)), is leading the 

effort to implement Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) across the Nation. To assist 

States with this task the partners researched noteworthy practices and incorporated them 

into an SHSP Implementation Process Model (IPM). The IPM is an implementation guide 

based on research, the experiences of 6 “model” States, feedback from 10 “pilot” States, 

a panel review by related organizations, and the knowledge and experiences of subject 

matter experts. 

 Background 

To prevent the devastating human 

and economic consequences of traffic 

crashes, the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) published an 

SHSP (titled: AASHTO Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan) in 1997 and 

encouraged States to develop evidencebased SHSPs addressing the emphasis 

areas in the AASHTO plan. Some of 

the States had already produced an 

SHSP and others began work after the 

AASHTO plan was published. With 

passage of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act – A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA LU) in 2005, States were 

required to develop SHSPs, and today 

each State has completed an SHSP. 

1
 
 

The Essential Eight

The “Essential Eight” refer to the four fundamental 

elements and the four steps for successful SHSP 

implementation.

Fundamental Elements

• Leadership

• Collaboration

• Communication

• Data Collection and Analysis

Steps for Implementation

• Emphasis Area Action Plans

• Linkage to Other Plans

• Marketing

• Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback

The SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive, multidisciplinary plan integrating the “4E’s” 

of safety – engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services or 

emergency response. It establishes Statewide goals, objectives, performance measures, and 

emphasis areas and is developed in consultation with Federal, State, local, and private sector 

safety stakeholders. All States are implementing their SHSPs, and many are experiencing 

remarkable results. 

 Implementation Process Model (IPM) Methodology 

Successful SHSP implementation will result in transportation safety improvements that 

save lives and reduce injuries. The IPM identifies model practices and processes to support 

SHSP implementation. This is not to suggest that one size fits all; each State should 

review the model elements and determine which are useful for overcoming barriers and 

implementing its SHSP more effectively. 

The IPM is based on wisdom gained through developing and implementing The 

Champion’s Guide for Developing Strategic Highway Safety Plans and reviewing “model” 

State practices in implementing one or more elements of the SHSP. Extensive interviews 

with leaders and champions from model States, as well as in-depth examination of SHSPs 

and various transportation planning and programming documents, highlighted examples 

of approaches and noteworthy practices some States are using to implement their SHSPs. 

 IPM Elements 

Chapter 1 presents an overview of 

the essential eight components of the 

IPM — the four fundamental elements 

and the four steps for successful SHSP 

implementation. Chapters 2 through 

7 provide in-depth discussions of each 

component, including its description 

or definition, the rationale supporting 

its inclusion in the model, and a 

range of implementation strategies, 

actions, and process techniques. 

Specific roles and responsibilities of 

the various safety stakeholders, (i.e., 

transportation planners and engineers, 

law enforcement, educators, and 

emergency medical services personnel) 

are described where appropriate. 

2
 
 

SHSP implementation must be a 

consideration from the very start of 

the planning process. Data analysis, 

emphasis areas, action planning, and 

other activities should all be based on a 

solid understanding of implementation 

potential and requirements.

The IPM suggests successful implementation 

requires collabora¬tion, communication, and 

leadership (Chapter 2); data collection and 

analysis (Chapter 3); emphasis area action 

plans (Chapter 4); SHSP integration into 

other transportation plans and programs 

(Chapter 5); a marketing plan (Chapter 6); 

and monitoring, evaluation, and feedback 

to the planning and implementation process 

(Chapter 7). The chapters in this document provide an overall framework along with specific 

strategies and examples States may use to support and enhance implementation efforts. 

 Using the IPM 

Readers should review the first chapter to identify strengths and weaknesses in their own 

implementation activities. Subsequent chapters describe the fundamental elements and 

steps needed for successful SHSP implementation. 

Each chapter includes a summary list of key strategies and a series of questions for users 

to assess their implementation efforts. Helpful recommendations and procedures are 

identified throughout the guide; however, users can also turn immediately to the chapters 

relating to areas where their implementation efforts are stalled or have not yet started. 

For example, if users identify “disconnects” between the SHSP and the HSIP, they can 

refer directly to Chapter 5 to identify steps in the process where the most benefi cial and 

effective integration can occur. Becoming familiar with how the SHSP is integrated into 

the HSIP process is the first step to establishing collaboration among people working in 

both processes. 

To effectively manage transportation safety improvement efforts and attract safety funding 

and other resources, progress must be measured and tracked over time. The guidance 

within Chapter 7 can help develop methods to assess ongoing progress at the State and 

metropolitan planning organization (MPO) levels. Demonstrated progress based on crash 

and other safety data will help make the case for continuing and increasing fi nancial and 

institutional support for programs devoted to saving lives and reducing injuries. 

The IPM is designed to be helpful for well-established safety professionals as well as those 

new to the field. Together with the FHWA’s Strategic Highway Safety Plans: A Champion’s 

Guide to Saving Lives, the IPM provides practical guidance for engineers, planners, 

enforcement personnel, and other safety stakeholders. The IPM provides new executives 

and leaders representing critical stakeholder organizations with a concise overview of 

their roles in SHSP implementation. They can use the ideas and strategies in the IPM to 

help them sustain effective existing safety efforts and advance new ones. 

3
 
4
 
Chapter 1

Overview of the Essential Eight Components

Chapter 1
 

Overview of the Essential Eight Components
 

SHSP development and implementation break new ground in the safety arena because 

multidisciplinary, multimodal, and collaborative relationships have not been standard 

practice in the past. The pioneering efforts of States over the last few years have brought 

to light elements that consistently appear in effective implementation efforts. At least 

four fundamental elements support all SHSP implementation practices: leadership, 

collaboration, communication, and data collection and analysis. Effective use of these 

elements is essential for moving forward on the following steps: 

1. Developing emphasis area action plans; 

2. Integrating the SHSP into other transportation and safety plans; 

3. Developing a marketing strategy; and 

4. Monitoring progress, evaluating results, and establishing a feedback loop to ensure 

SHSP adjustments and updates are continually incorporating experiences and lessons 

learned. 

Figure 1.1 SHSP IPM Elements 

5
 
Chapter 1

Overview of the Essential Eight Components

 Fundamental Elements 

Leadership 

Sustained, visible, and committed leadership is fundamental to successful SHSP 

implementation. Leaders recognize that implementing an SHSP is a long-term, ongoing 

process that changes how safety partners interact and collaborate to create and manage 

effective safety programs. 

Leaders are responsible for influencing policy direction, setting priorities, and defining 

performance expectations for agency staff; affecting the way partner agencies respond 

to SHSP requirements; controlling time and resource allocation; managing interagency 

relationships; and establishing accountability for actions and outcomes. 

Leadership Roles 

SHSP development revealed three fundamental leadership roles important for SHSP 

implementation. As SHSP implementation becomes more far reaching and complex, these 

roles may be assumed by different people and agencies with varying levels of authority. 

Role 1 – These leaders have access to resources and the ability to implement change; in 

other words, they may not be involved in the day-to-day management responsibility 

for program development and implementation, but they are able to “move mountains” 

in terms of resource allocation and policy support. 

Role 2 – These leaders inspire others to follow their direction. They are often referred 

to as “Champions.” Champions are people who provide enthusiasm and support to 

SHSP implementation; have excellent interpersonal skills; are expediters; are credible 

and accountable; tend to be subject matter experts; and are highly respected within 

their own agencies and in the safety community. 

Role 3 – These leaders are often known as program managers, and their activities keep 

the implementation process on track. They manage the process and attend to the dayto-day tasks of arranging, facilitating, and documenting meetings, tracking progress, 

and moving discrete activities through to completion. 

In some cases, a single person may fulfill all these roles, but it is more often the case that 

these responsibilities are assumed by multiple people. 

Where possible, States should establish SHSP leadership through the Governor, the 

State’s highest executive office. This sends a clear message to all agencies regarding the 

importance of highway safety and the need to address it in State programs and policies. 

It establishes a basis for prioritizing available funding to support transportation safety 

among all partner agencies. Leadership can also be established through institutionalized 

partnerships between the Department of Transportation, the State Highway Safety 

Office, the Department of Public Safety, and other partner agencies. As the lead agencies 

6
 
Chapter 1

Overview of the Essential Eight Components

responsible for SHSP implementation, the partnership provides leadership and ensures 

that traditional safety-funded programs are driven by the SHSP. The partnership also 

institutionalizes the continuity necessary to sustain safety efforts through changes of 

administration and personnel. 

Collaboration 

The SHSP development process established broad-based collaboration among many 

agencies and organizations. Internal and external collaboration also is necessary for 

effective SHSP implementation. Collaborative relationships among safety partners are 

fundamental to the implementation process because the responsibility for addressing the 

wide range of programs and disciplines necessary for improving transportation safety 

falls upon many participants. States can facilitate internal collaboration through agency 

policies and procedures and support external collaboration through inter/intra-agency 

communication. Establishing collaborative arrangements where partners regularly work 

together builds trust and understanding. These collaborations help expand the initiative 

to the broader safety community and foster widespread understanding and support for 

safety priorities. 

Collaboration results in a wiser use of limited resources and may facilitate the 

leveraging of additional resources to achieve a broader range of program objectives. For 

example, multiple agencies may have responsibilities that require the use of crash data. 

Collaboration among these agencies and individuals is imperative to effectively support 

crash data collection and analysis and minimize duplication of effort. Solutions reached 

collaboratively among several agencies and data users result in improved processes, 

opportunities to apply innovative approaches, and cost-sharing among the agencies. 

Collaboration on SHSP strategies and/or projects also brings new partners and further 

expands resources to assist with SHSP implementation. 

Communication 

One of the challenges facing States as they move forward is that the majority of stakeholders 

already have full-time jobs requiring their time and attention. These stakeholders need 

to know “what’s in it for them” to sustain their interest and involvement and to enable 

effective ongoing communication. Describing the vital role each safety stakeholder plays 

in the SHSP implementation process, as well as the benefits they will receive through 

participation, builds buy-in and ownership. Conducting regular meetings where 

stakeholders report on progress, offer opinions on SHSP programs and activities, identify 

opportunities, solve problems, and celebrate successes builds transparency into the 

process and maintains communication. 

Effective communication within organizations and agencies responsible for SHSP 

implementation is essential. The existence of institutionalized communication mechanisms 

to support information sharing among technical and senior staff facilitates decisionmaking and enables agencies to be more effective. 

7
 
Chapter 1

Overview of the Essential Eight Components 

Emphasis Area Action Plans 

Data Collection and Analysis 

The purpose of a data-driven process is to direct resources to projects and programs with 

the greatest potential impact. The strength of the SHSP lies in a State’s ability to identify 

and analyze safety data. Just as data were analyzed to identify crash characteristics, 

trends and behaviors during the SHSP development phase, data analysis is critical for 

prioritizing countermeasures, evaluating results, and updating the plan. Data analysis 

reveals the reductions in fatalities and serious injuries resulting from effective safety 

programs and countermeasures. By comparing these benefits with other considerations 

such as cost and resource availability, projects, programs, and resources can be prioritized 

more effectively. 

 Steps for Implementation 

SHSPs are implemented through the objectives, strategies, and action plans developed for 

each emphasis area. Multidisciplinary emphasis area action planning teams that include 

various agencies and encourage differing perspectives result in more robust safety 

programs. They keep stakeholders involved, interested, and motivated. The needs and 

priorities of different agencies should be considered to ensure they have a stake in the 

SHSP and are committed to its implementation. 

An effective action plan describes in detail how each of the strategies will be accomplished 

through a series of action steps. It identifies the responsible persons and agencies and 

includes performance measures, deadlines, evaluation criteria, and resource requirements. 

Integrating into Other Transportation Plans 

Integrating the SHSP into Statewide and metropolitan LRTPs, S/TIPs, HSIPs, CVSPs, 

HSPs, and other plans and programs advances the safety agenda because they reflect 

Statewide priorities, provide a blueprint for action for key agencies, and influence 

resource distribution. A brief description of SHSP integration with each plan or program 

is provided below. 

Long-Range Transportation Plan – LRTPs identify transportation goals, objectives, needs, 

and performance measures over a 20- to 25-year horizon and provide policy and strategy 

recommendations for accommodating those needs. Integrate the SHSP into the LRTP by 

ensuring transportation safety is explicitly addressed within the scope of Statewide and 

MPO long-range transportation planning processes. 

Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program – S/TIPs, developed 

by the States and MPOs, are capital programming documents. These programs are 

resource constrained and identify projects and funding that refl ect society’s mobility, 

operational, and safety needs. Therefore, they should support the emphasis areas and 

strategies in the SHSP. 

8
 
Chapter 1

Overview of the Essential Eight Components

Highway Safety Improvement Program – The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a 

significant reduction in the occurrence of and the potential for fatalities and serious injuries 

resulting from crashes on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructurerelated highway safety improvements. This is accomplished through a data-driven 

program consisting of planning, implementation, and evaluation components. The HSIP 

also includes the Railway Highway Grade Crossing and High-Risk Rural Roads set-aside 

programs. SHSP emphasis areas, strategies, and actions can be used as tools for selecting 

and prioritizing HSIP investment decisions. 

Highway Safety Plan – HSPs address behavioral safety areas (e.g., occupant protection, 

impaired driving, police traffic services, emergency medical services, motorcycle safety, 

traffic records improvements, and other program areas). The HSP is an annual plan 

identifying program activities supported by Federal funds targeting identifi ed highway 

safety problems. These activities may support traffic safety law enforcement, media 

and public education, prosecution and adjudication, training and many other activities 

designed to reduce motor vehicle crash-related injuries and fatalities. The emphasis areas 

of the SHSP and HSP should be consistent. 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan – The CVSP is a performance-based plan which outlines 

a State’s commercial vehicle safety objectives, strategies, activities, and performance 

measures. The CVSP aims to reduce the number and severity of crashes and hazardous 

materials incidents involving commercial motor vehicles (CMV) through consistent, 

uniform, and effective CMV safety programs. CVSPs may also address some of the 

behavioral safety elements in the SHSP. 

Marketing 

A well-designed marketing strategy performs several functions, including informing 

the general public on transportation safety issues, educating key political leaders on 

their role in saving lives, and encouraging active participation in SHSP implementation 

activities among safety partners. Marketing to individuals both inside and outside of 

the transportation community and to nonparticipating partners helps build and maintain 

support for SHSP implementation. It also broadens the reach of the SHSP to those who 

may not participate in implementation activities on a regular basis. 

Effective SHSP marketing strategies include, among other things, news events, web sites, 

newsletters, and a branding theme that stakeholders and the public can identify with. 

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback 

Monitoring, evaluation, and feedback are essential steps for any strategic planning process. 

They are especially important because most SHSPs have been developed in the recent past 

and States currently are in the initial stages of implementation. Institutionalizing lessons 

learned in these early implementation efforts can improve the efficiency of future efforts. 

Comprehensive action plans identify the parties responsible for implementing action steps 

and include performance measures and deadlines. SHSP leadership should establish a 

9
 
Chapter 1

Overview of the Essential Eight Components

monitoring process and assign responsibilities for updating the information frequently. 

An evaluation process should be developed early to ensure appropriate data are collected 

for evaluating both the overall program and individual projects. Finally, a feedback 

loop should be incorporated into the plan to ensure 1) leadership and stakeholders are 

informed; 2) information is regularly used to make course corrections as implementation 

takes place; and 3) SHSP updates are based on solid evaluation results. 

The following chapters provide details and noteworthy practices on the Essential Eight 

elements of the SHSP IPM. States began addressing the fundamentals (e.g., leadership, 

collaboration, communication, and data collection and analysis) and directing efforts 

toward steps for implementation during the SHSP development process (e.g., developing 

emphasis area action plans; integrating the SHSP into other transportation plans; 

marketing the SHSP and related safety efforts; and monitoring, evaluation, and feedback). 

Continuing these practices throughout the implementation process will lead to sustainable, 

results-driven safety programs that work. 

Each State will implement the SHSP according to the available opportunities and resources. 

Models, such as this IPM, are representations or ideal States and therefore all parts of the 

model may not work or be necessary for all States. However, the IPM includes “takeaways” for everyone and States should use the pieces that work best for them. 

10
 
 

 

Chapter 2
 

Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication
 

Successful SHSP development and implementation requires leadership, collaboration, and 

communication. The interaction or synergy of these elements results in an outcome greater 

than would be accomplished by focusing efforts on just one element. In the complex, 

multidisciplinary world of the SHSP, leaders bring together the diverse interests and 

concerns of engineers, planners, law enforcement officers, education offi cials, emergency 

medical services personnel, and others. 

Inherent in the word “leader” is the idea of followers, i.e., a leader is someone capable 

of motivating others to follow. The word leader also implies direction, i.e., leaders 

inspire others to action or to do things differently. Some leaders hold formal positions 

of authority, but not all. All leaders have the ability to set direction and inspire others to 

follow them. Leaders are risk takers, problems solvers, and creative thinkers, committed 

to doing what is necessary to advance the cause, which sometimes means breaking 

traditional institutional barriers. These attributes are essential for SHSP implementation. 

Leaders are needed at the top and throughout all levels of the SHSP implementation effort. 

As noted in Chapter 1, at least three leadership roles are involved in SHSP implementation: 

leaders who have access to resources and “position power;” champions or individuals 

who inspire others to take action; and managers who focus on the nuts and bolts of dayto-day SHSP implementation. 

Leaders communicate the SHSP vision, goals, and objectives and support a collaborative 

framework that enables safety stakeholders to actively participate in implementation 

programs and activities. 

The essence of SHSP development and implementation lies in its multidisciplinary 

character. In their book, Quality or Else: The Revolution in the Business World, Lloyd Dobyns 

and Clare Crawford-Mason say, “It is not a question of how well each process works, the 

question is how well they all work together.” SHSP implementation is not about how 

well planners conceptualize the transportation system, engineers design the roadway, 

police officers enforce the law, drivers are educated about proper driving behavior, or 

emergency medical services personnel respond to crashes; it is about how well these 

groups work together to improve safety. 

The diversity of the safety field, the importance of coordination among disciplines, and the 

need to advance safety among a host of competing public sector priorities all contribute to 

the need for strong SHSP leadership. Leaders are important in every phase of the SHSP, 

but especially during implementation when maintaining momentum and interest is more 

difficult. 

SHSP implementation is a long-term process designed to change how safety partners 

conduct business, interact with each other, and manage safety programs — a tall order 

Chapter 2

Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication 

11
 
 

Chapter 2

Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication 

for any plan, but particularly in the safety arena where groups have traditionally worked 

together only in limited instances. These challenges can be met through effective 

leadership, a collaborative framework, and clear communication about expectations. 

SHSP implementation requires the effective application of the fundamental elements of 

leadership, collaboration, and communication. These elements, incorporated to some 

degree during the SHSP development process, should continue and be strengthened 

during the implementation process. 

Ensure Strong Leadership 

Leadership can be applied through an executive committee that meets periodically to 

solve problems, remove barriers, track progress, and recommend further action. Many 

States established this type of committee during the SHSP development process, and 

continue to utilize it during implementation. The role of the executive committee is to 

decide which projects or strategies are funded based on input from the emphasis area 

teams, and to prioritize them based on benefit/cost analysis, expected fatality reductions, 

and the extent to which they address SHSP goals and objectives. 

A working group or steering committee comprised of technical staff is often formed to 

support the executive committee and manage day-to-day implementation efforts. With 

the full support of the executive committee, the working group provides leadership by 

overseeing the implementation of SHSP strategies and action plans. The membership 

of the working group often includes leaders of the various SHSP emphasis area teams 

(see Chapter 4). These leaders represent the various disciplines within the transportation 

safety field and their participation in the working group expresses the multidisciplinary 

nature of the SHSP process. 

As with any committee or group, maintaining interest and activity is a challenge. Leaders 

want to feel their input is valued. They are decision-makers with an understanding of 

larger contexts, so the focus of executive committee and working group meetings should 

be on problem solving and on seeking advice and guidance. At least one State found 

that encouraging the various stakeholders to periodically chair executive committee 

or working group meetings raised the level of involvement and motivation among all 

committee members. 

SHSP champions provide leadership through their enthusiastic support of the SHSP and 

its implementation. Effective champions are credible, accountable, and have excellent 

interpersonal and organizational skills. They encourage commitment and participation 

from a diverse range of safety partners and may be appointed by the DOT leadership or by 

the primary sponsoring agency. To enhance leadership focus on improving transportation 

safety, consider incorporating transportation safety-related performance objectives into 

the position descriptions of champions, engineers, planners, and others involved in SHSP 

implementation. 

All agencies and organizations undergo staff changes, and it is essential to train the 

leaders of tomorrow to ensure that the focus on safety continues into the future. This can 

12
 
 

 

be done by assigning leadership responsibilities for program implementation to newer 

staff and by ensuring that all staff have opportunities to engage and lead during meetings 

and other activities. 

Establish a Collaborative Process 

Dramatic improvements in roadway safety are more likely to result from a collaborative 

effort among the 4E’s of safety (engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency 

medical services) than from efforts within a single discipline. The need for multidisciplinary 

solutions necessitates collaboration. Research suggests that the results of interdisciplinary 

team efforts are greater in scope and value than results from individual professionals 

working in isolation. 

SHSP partners typically include the DOT; the SHSO; departments of public safety (State 

police or patrol); emergency medical services; health and education; Motor Carrier Safety 

Assistance Program (MCSAP) managers; Federal partners (FHWA, FMCSA, and the 

NHTSA); MPOs; local agencies; Tribal governments; special interest groups; and others. 

To ensure continuity when an individual SHSP champion or committee member retires, 

takes a position in another organization, or moves out of State, a systematic approach to 

identifying their replacement is necessary. The selection process should be based both 

on individual skills and leadership traits as well as the position held within a stakeholder 

organization. One way to institutionalize the selection of safety committee members 

is to link their selection to the position they hold within the stakeholder organization, 

i.e., whoever assumes the previous safety champion or committee member’s position 

should also become the new SHSP committee member. Institutionalizing partnerships 

at the local and regional level helps to extend the reach of the SHSP to all public roads, 

which is mandated by SAFETEA-LU. MPOs are key partners at the regional level while 

associations representing county/city governments can provide support from the local 

level. Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP), which support local highway agencies 

by transferring highway technology from FHWA, the State DOT, and universities through 

workshops and other training mechanisms, can be particularly effective at providing 

safety education to individuals within local governments. 

The various agencies and organizations involved in the SHSP bring unique and valuable 

perspectives to bear on the roadway safety problem. Their competing philosophies, 

worldviews, and problem solving approaches, however, can make collaboration difficult. 

Creating a basic foundation for effective collaboration and establishing a process to support 

collaborative efforts are two ways to overcome these barriers. Incorporating SHSP goals, 

mission statements, and safety targets into the priorities of each stakeholder agency is one way 

to create a foundation for collaboration. This basic foundation can be further strengthened 

by identifying which agencies or organizations are responsible for implementing each of 

the strategies and action steps in the plan. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is 

a useful tool for institutionalizing the process. States with existing MOUs should review 

them periodically to determine if updates or changes are required. MOUs also help build 

sustainability. As stakeholders change and new partners come on board, commitment on 

the part of all agencies can be reaffirmed by updating the MOU. 

Chapter 2

Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication 

13
 
Chapter 2

Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication 

Finally, establishing collaborative relationships with other State DOTs through peer 

exchanges, conferences, meetings, and/or webinars can provide helpful insights. Learning 

from the experiences of others helps to identify and remove obstacles before they begin to 

hinder SHSP implementation efforts. 

Create Communications Mechanisms 

Collaboration is enabled when the vision, mission, and goals of the SHSP are clearly 

and continually communicated to all partners and stakeholders. Formal communication 

methods include meeting reports, media events, newsletters, presentations at safety 

conferences, etc. 

Communication can also be informal and involve blogs, listservs, chat rooms, web sites, 

and periodic e mail blasts to encourage greater interaction, provide progress updates, 

distribute information on recent research, or request assistance from fellow partners 

and stakeholders. The communication need not be lengthy or complicated, but regular 

updates remind all stakeholders of the SHSP effort and their role in ensuring success. 

Key Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication Strategies: 

• Assign leaders who are credible, accountable, and have excellent
 

interpersonal and organizational skills.
 

• Meet with new leaders to brief them on their role in supporting the SHSP and 

to persuade them to get involved. 

• Establish multidisciplinary collaborative efforts involving the 4E’s of safety. 

• Clearly and broadly communicate the SHSP vision, mission, and goals to all 

partners and stakeholders. 

• Use peer exchanges to learn from the experiences of other States. 

• Incorporate safety collaboration performance objectives into the position 

descriptions of those involved in SHSP implementation. 

• Establish a regime where the chairperson for the regularly scheduled highlevel safety meetings rotates among the various stakeholder groups. 

14
 
 

 Checklist 

Answering these questions will help stakeholders assess their SHSP leadership, 

collaboration, and communication processes and identify opportunities for improvement. 

Does your implementation process have a clearly defined leader with the 

commitment, ability, and institutional authority to move forward? Do the 

Governor, the DOT Director/Secretary/Commissioner, and the State Police 

Director/Commissioner support or facilitate SHSP implementation? 

Does your implementation process have an organizational structure to oversee the 

process and measure performance? 

Have formal agreements (e.g., MOUs) been established among agencies with 

respect to SHSP implementation? 

Do senior management and technical staff communicate and coordinate on SHSP 

implementation? 

Does your State hold regularly scheduled meetings on SHSP implementation and 

related safety programs? 

Are the DOT, the SHSO, and other safety stakeholders collaborating and sharing 

resources to implement the SHSP? 

Are MPOs and other regional and local agencies involved in SHSP implementation? 

Is SHSP implementation coordinated with both transportation and nontransportation 

agencies? 

Chapter 2

Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication 

15
 
Chapter 2

Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication 

16
 
 

Chapter 3
 

Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data
 

Using data to identify safety problems is fundamental to successful SHSP implementation. 

Just as development of the SHSP was a data-driven process, an effective implementation 

process also depends on appropriate use of data. These data enable managers to identify 

safety problems, select proper strategies and countermeasures, monitor progress toward 

achievement of SHSP goals and objectives, measure the effectiveness of SHSP strategies, 

identify needed improvements, and direct limited resources to where they have the 

highest potential for reducing fatalities and serious injuries. 

A variety of strategies can be employed to collect data, perform analysis, and ensure SHSP 

stakeholders can access the data and the analysis. NHTSA Section 408 grants, established 

in Title 23, United States Code, through SAFETEA LU, provide funding for States to 

improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility 

of safety data. In some States, multiple agencies provide funding for data collection 

and management through interagency agreements. Educating State legislatures on the 

benefits of data-driven decision-making has helped some States successfully make the 

case for additional safety funding. 

In many States, safety data are collected by several different organizations. It is common 

for data collection procedures within these organizations to be well-established and 

difficult to change. At the same time, advances in transportation safety research highlight 

new data needs and improvements in hardware capability and software applications 

change how data is collected. To help ensure that data collection procedures respond 

to evolving requirements, participation of Information Technology (IT) personnel from 

relevant stakeholder organizations should be encouraged. 

Collect Relevant Data 

Given the multidisciplinary nature of SHSP efforts, types of data relevant to implementation 

include the following: 

• Crash Data – Type of crash (lane-departure, intersection, rear-end, etc.), weather 

conditions, time of day, day of week, person type (driver, occupant, pedestrian, 

etc.), number and severity of injuries, traffic law violations, crash location, manner 

of collision, number of vehicles involved, alcohol or drug impairment, direction of 

travel, crash diagram, narrative description of the crash. 

• Injury Surveillance – EMS response time, hospital assessment of injury severity, 

hospital length of stay and cost, rehabilitation time and cost. 

• Roadway – Roadway classification, roadway inventory data, traffic control devices, 

location referencing system, rail grade crossings, structures (bridges, tunnels), traffic 

volume, vehicle types on the roadway. 

Chapter 3

Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data 

17
 
Chapter 3

Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data 

• Vehicle – Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), registration information and plate, 

age/model/year, weight, owner information, U.S. DOT number (commercial), carrier 

information (commercial), inspection/out-of-service records (commercial). 

• Driver – Age and date of birth, driver history (previous convictions), license status, 

gender and ethnicity, education/training. 

• Law Enforcement – Citation tracking, prosecution, conviction, sentencing, case 

tracking, adjudication. 

• Other – Statewide occupant protection use survey, insurance data (carrier, policy 

number, claims cost), demographic data. 

These data may be collected from a variety of sources, including State and local crash 

data systems and roadway inventory files, the National Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS), the General Estimates System (GES), the Motor Carrier Management 

Information System (MCMIS), the National Emergency Medical Services Information 

System (NEMSIS), the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES), and others. 

In many cases, important safety data are unavailable or unknown. Information in police 

crash reports may vary from location to location; medical records, insurance records, 

and licensing information may not be available or linked to the crash data; and roadway 

inventory information may be limited and difficult to link to the crash data system. 

These and other data quality problems inhibit the effectiveness of efforts to improve 

transportation safety. However, access to timely and accurate safety data is critical for 

successful SHSP implementation. The following strategies have proven successful for 

improving data collection, management, and analysis: 

• Include Information Technology (IT) personnel from relevant organizations on 

appropriate SHSP implementation teams. 

• Prepare a traffic records improvement strategic plan and link it to SHSP implementation. 

• Integrate the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) into the SHSP 

implementation team. The TRCC is responsible for identifying traffic records data 

system enhancement strategies to improve data access, accuracy, and timeliness. 

• Provide input to the TRCC on data collection and processing problems or on needed 

changes in crash report fields, roadway inventory data, traffic data, driver history 

data, or citation/adjudication data. 

• Establish data collection task forces or committees to promote collaboration among 

safety stakeholders. 

• Implement data collection technologies to reduce the number of errors and processing 

time for data. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 367: 

Technologies for Improving Safety Data provides a comprehensive summary of crash 

data collection innovations. 

18
 
 

 

• Provide continuous training for State and local police officers on the importance of 

high-quality crash data and collection techniques. 

• Provide continuous training for State and local crash report system administrators to 

properly handle reports with inaccurate or missing information. 

• Develop proper protocols to address crash reports that need additional investigation. 

• Develop a data standards manual that provides definitions of variables and identifies 

available data streams and the agencies responsible for collecting and maintaining 

the data. 

• Develop data submission protocols for agencies that provide data to the management 

system. 

• Provide training for data input personnel and analysts to understand how their efforts 

contribute to and are utilized by technical staff for safety program support. 

Analyze the Data 

Just as data were analyzed to identify emphasis areas and develop emphasis area goals, 

objectives, and strategies, they are analyzed to develop action plans, monitor, evaluate 

results, and provide feedback to update the SHSP. Analysis can involve simple statistical 

investigations of crash trends, types, and contributing factors. Analysis may also utilize 

sophisticated tools such as FHWA’s Safety Analyst and the Highway Safety Manual. As 

a foundation for SHSP implementation, data are the basis for the following: 

• Identification of systemic safety issues as well as high-crash corridors, road segments, 

and intersections. By describing safety problems quantitatively, an agency knows the 

magnitude of the problem and can focus its efforts on areas with the greatest potential 

to save lives. 

• Identification of crash type. Data analysis is used to discern trends in the frequency of 

certain types of crashes (e.g., rear-end collisions, lane departures, impaired driving, etc.). 

Crash type data are used to identify SHSP emphasis areas and develop action plans. 

• Performance-based program management. Analysis of safety data allows managers 

to determine the extent to which the SHSP is achieving its stated goals and objectives. 

• Project selection and prioritization. Analysis of safety data helps managers select 

and implement appropriate systemic improvements to the transportation network 

and identify projects to improve safety at high-crash locations. It helps identify highrisk groups such as young, elderly, and impaired drivers as well as motorcyclists and 

pedestrians. Managers use these data to select and prioritize countermeasures with 

the greatest potential for reducing death and injury. 

Chapter 3

Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data 

19
 
Chapter 3

Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data 

• Monitoring and evaluation. Data monitoring and evaluation helps managers make 

course corrections as the plan advances; develop new programs using more effective 

countermeasures and strategies; improve existing programs; and direct resources 

toward implementation of the most effective programs, policies, and projects. 

• Resource justification. Data-driven prioritized road safety projects provide 

transportation planners, engineers, law enforcement officers, and others with 

justification for additional resources. 

Share the Data 

Local governments, MPOs, advocacy groups, and private consultants require crash data 

to conduct safety planning and project-related activities; therefore access to the data is 

critical. Some agencies managing crash and other safety-related data provide raw data 

as well as filtered datasets that can be readily used by local agencies. Collaboration is 

fostered by providing stakeholders with direct access to safety data and the training 

needed to analyze them. In addition data quality may be improved because data sharing 

often promotes local efforts to improve data accuracy. 

Access to reliable data for all stakeholders enables them to more fully realize the benefits 

of integrating the SHSP with other transportation and safety plans (as discussed in 

Chapter 5). Adopting the following strategies will allow more effective and efficient 

data sharing practices. 

• Maintain a centralized data source accessible to all State and local agency partners 

ensuring everyone uses consistent information. 

• Provide training to State and local agency partners on how to gather and analyze 

safety data. 

• Develop policies to establish data dissemination schedules. 

• Develop a standard procedure for handling data requests that clearly identifies who 

will handle requests and how they will be addressed. 

• Host MPO forums to discuss data issues and enhancement strategies. 

• Employ university research centers to provide safety data analysis support to MPOs. 

• Encourage MPOs to conduct safety analysis for member jurisdictions, including crash 

location mapping. 

• Work with LTAPs and others to support safety planning efforts at the local level 

by providing data for non-State highways and developing a GIS-based integrated 

roadway management system. 

20
 
Key Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing Strategies: 

• Conduct initial research into a range of available data sources. 

• Collect relevant data necessary to define safety needs and support decisionmaking processes. 

• Prepare a traffic records improvement strategic plan and data collection task 

forces or committees. 

• Provide training in the collection, analysis, and use of safety data. 

• Use data to select and implement appropriate systemic improvements to the 

transportation network and identify projects to improve safety at high-crash 

locations. 

• Use data to monitor and evaluate the outcomes and results of safety projects 

and programs. 

• Use data to justify the need for resources to support implementation of safety 

projects and programs. 

• Establish data sharing protocols to ensure all stakeholders are working from 

the same data sets and have access to the data they need. 

• Allow State and local agency partners to query safety data directly. 

Chapter 3

Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data 

21
 
Chapter 3

Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data 

 Checklist 

Answering these questions will help stakeholders review their SHSP data collection and 

analysis process and identify opportunities for improvement. 

Does your State have a traffic records improvement strategic plan? 

Is the TRCC strategic plan integrated and/or coordinated with the SHSP? 

Is the TRCC integrated with SHSP implementation efforts? 

How is data collection funded? Do the agencies and organizations using the data 

provide funding support? Does your State make full use of all available funding 

(section 408, TRCC, etc.) for data collection? 

How is data collection coordinated at the regional/local level? 

Who provides/collects/processes/analyzes data? 

How are data shared at the Statewide level and with whom? 

How are data disseminated to and utilized by regional and local agencies? 

Are data uniform and coordinated among entities? 

Are transportation planning data utilized in SHSP implementation (i.e., travel 

demand models, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data, etc.)? 

Are GIS-based tools being utilized for analysis and visualization of roadway 

inventory and crash data? 

22
 
Chapter 4
 

Emphasis Area Action Plans
 

SHSP emphasis area action plans provide a road map to give stakeholders and partners 

direction. While emphasis areas may be defined differently, all can be supported by action 

plans that provide specifics such as performance measures, funding sources, project-level 

detail, and evaluation criteria for assessing outcomes. Action plans turn SHSP concepts 

and ideas into a reality that saves lives and prevents injuries. 

During SHSP development, States identified emphasis areas and developed strategies to 

improve safety by using data to focus on the most serious transportation safety problems. 

Action plans describe how the identified strategies will be implemented. For instance, if 

the objective is to reduce lane-departure crashes by 10 percent by the end of fi scal year 

2012, the strategies would detail how the State intends to meet the objective. One strategy 

could be to identify the top 10 hazardous lane-departure locations in the State and reduce 

lane-departure crashes at those locations while another strategy could be to install rumble 

strips on principal arterials throughout the entire State. The action plan details how each 

strategy will be achieved, i.e., obtain base line data; conduct road safety audits; etc. 

Action plans include data needs, resources (staff, equipment, materials, and training), a 

timeline, whether legislative action is required, what agency or organization is responsible, 

a budget, performance and process measures, and an evaluation plan. Decision-makers 

can use the information in the action plans to commit the resources and people needed 

for implementation. The level of detail required depends on the strategy’s complexity, 

size, scope, and the number of participating agencies. Process and performance measures 

form the basis for monitoring and evaluation. To promote accountability throughout the 

action planning process, some States assign agency/organization responsibilities for each 

emphasis area, objective, strategy, and action step. Some States define their action plans 

in terms of work tasks, inputs/outputs, and agency roles, using project management 

techniques, including Gantt charts, to manage the implementation process. 

After enduring the often challenging SHSP development process, some stakeholders 

experience strategic planning fatigue. Developing action plans may seem detailed and 

tedious, but the step cannot be ignored. The hard work and effort put forth during SHSP 

development becomes meaningless without the organizational and institutional framework 

of the action plan that cultivates and enhances the collaboration and cooperation essential 

to success. 

Action plans eliminate guesswork, prevent shot gun approaches, and focus resources 

where they are most needed. They create a link between the goals and objectives of 

the SHSP and the prioritization and selection of projects within existing transportation 

planning and programming activities (e.g., HSPs, HSIPs, CVSPs, S/TIPs, etc.). SHSP 

action plans can be posted on the Internet to promote transparency and offer opportunities 

for additional stakeholders to participate in or support SHSP implementation. 

Chapter 4

Emphasis Area Action Plans 

23
 
 

Chapter 4

Emphasis Area Action Plans 

The action planning process emphasizes collaboration, communication, cooperation, 

and agency coordination. Successful approaches to action planning may vary. Some 

States develop uniform processes across emphasis areas and others allow fl exibility in 

how individual emphasis areas teams are managed. Regardless of the approach, all have 

involved active participation from emphasis area team members and often a facilitator to 

assist the team in reaching consensus on the action plan elements. Emphasis area team 

leaders should work closely with the facilitators to ensure the process to develop action 

plans does not get bogged down. States should also consider developing a matrix or 

tool to focus the discussion and ensure the necessary information is collected. Figure 4.1 

illustrates an example action planning tool. 

Figure 4.1 Action Planning Matrix Steps 

Some States coordinate SHSP action plans with existing agency safety plans and programs 

(i.e., HSP, CVSP, HSIP). Emphasis area action plans can and should be incorporated into 

the work plans of existing task forces or committees. This approach avoids duplication, 

promotes buy-in from the implementing agencies, and provides an opportunity to 

leverage existing programs and resources. 

Action plans are living documents that should be revisited and amended as necessary. 

Teams can add, remove, or revise strategies and action steps over time to ensure the plan 

remains relevant. For instance, dramatic changes in data may warrant a fresh look at all 

SHSP elements, including action plans. Waiting for next SHSP update cycle to make these 

changes can result in losing the momentum needed for successful implementation. 

Some action plan steps are easier to implement than others. Advocating legislative 

strategies to advance road safety may be politically sensitive. Some States omit them 

completely, while others make attempts to address these strategies through appropriate 

channels. States successfully addressing legislative strategies involve key partners, 

such as legislative officials and private organizations in the effort. In some instances, a 

legislatively mandated task force is formed to examine laws pertaining to specifi c emphasis 

areas, such as impaired driving. In this case the task force can develop the strategies and 

24
 
 

action plans for the SHSP. Involving these parties up front ensures everyone is working 

from the same information and avoids conflicting programs and messages. 

Action plans involving changes to policy and design standards can be complicated as 

well. Incorporating standards for cable median barriers, rumble strips, etc., into a State’s 

design standards or policies, may be difficult to address in action planning. In these cases, 

the action plan may point to a series of steps leading to the development of new standards, 

without defining the specific standards or policies. Once again, involving the appropriate 

partners in the process provides greater opportunity for adoption of the strategies. 

The following guide can be used to develop action plans. The list can be tailored to 

individual State and local needs and conditions. 

Action Planning Guide 

Establish an Action Planning Framework and 

Evaluation Approach 

 Define the goals for the SHSP – the reasons for 

the plan. 

 Define the measurable objectives – what the plan 

will accomplish. 

 Determine the performance measures that will be 

used to evaluate the plan. 

 Determine the measurement method for each 

performance measure. 

Develop the Action Plan  Determine the strategies for achieving each of the 

objectives. 

 Determine the action steps for accomplishing each 

strategy. 

 Determine the process measure or performance 

indicator for measuring progress. 

Identify Resource Requirements 





Agencies whose cooperation and coordination is 

required. 

Funding and personnel. 

Data and information. 





Equipment, materials, and training. 

Schedule. 

 Steps that require legislative approval. 

Develop a Detailed Budget  Provide detailed budget information by task. 

(many States include this step as part of the specific 

 Separate information by funding source and plan/program processes described in Chapter 5) 

agency/office. 

Chapter 4

Emphasis Area Action Plans 

25
 
Chapter 4

Emphasis Area Action Plans 

Tracking and evaluation are discussed in Chapter 7; however, evaluation design is a 

critical element of an action plan and should be developed before the project starts to 

ensure activities are directly linked to expected outcomes and baseline data are collected. 

Key Emphasis Area Action Plan Strategies: 

• Develop detailed action plans for each strategy in your SHSP. 

• Identify a facilitator to assist emphasis area teams in achieving consensus on 

action plan elements. 

• Identify performance measures as a basis for monitoring and evaluation and 

assign responsibilities to support accountability. 

• Assign responsibilities to support accountability. 

• Review and amend action plans as you proceed with implementation. 

• Provide emphasis area team members with a copy of the IPM. 

 Checklist 

Answering these questions will help stakeholders review their SHSP action planning 

process and identify opportunities for improvement. 

Does your State have action plans for all SHSP emphasis areas and strategies? 

Does your State have multidisciplinary action planning teams? 

Is someone assigned to coordinate and document all the actions plans and track 

progress? 

Are the action plans available to all the stakeholders? 

Are projects and activities identified in the action plans? 

If your State’s SHSP includes strategies that require changes in legislation, policies, 

or design standards, are the proper legislative officials involved in the action 

planning process? 

26
 
Chapter 5
 

Integration into Other
 

Transportation Plans and Programs
 

Effective SHSP implementation leverages the resources of other transportation planning 

and programming activities. This chapter describes how the SHSP can be integrated into 

existing transportation and safety planning processes. Many such plans and programs 

exist, but this chapter focuses on LRTPs, S/TIPs, HSIPs, HSPs, and CVSPs. Figure 5.1 

illustrates the relationships among these plans and programs. 

Figure 5.1 Coordinated Transportation Safety Planning

 Source: FHWA, revised by Cambridge Systematics. 

The five planning processes are examined from an SHSP integration perspective. Each 

section provides a brief description of the plan or program and identifies both general 

and specific integration opportunities. These opportunities are gathered from reviews 

of existing practices in the model States and from conversations with Federal, State, 

and local officials. Many planning and programming processes have a long history and 

are managed by different agencies such as DOTs, State Police, SHSOs, MPOs, etc., and 

changing the institutional structures associated with them may be the most diffi cult aspect 

of SHSP integration. 

Strategic planning, whether long-range, short-term, safety, or transportation-focused, 

follows a relatively similar process. The steps include: collect and analyze data; identify 

problems or issues; select relevant and appropriate projects, programs, policies, and 

countermeasures; prioritize the elements; implement the plans; monitor implementation 

Chapter 5

Integration into Other Transportation

Plans and Programs 

27
 
Chapter 5.1

Long-Range Transportation Plans and

Transportation Improvement Programs 

progress; evaluate outcomes; and use the monitoring and evaluation results to inform 

process and program improvements. Bringing these various plans and programs into 

alignment with the SHSP reduces administrative burden, ensures the use of consistent 

data and analysis methods, and allocates resources to more effectively produce safety 

improvements. 

 5.1 Long-Range Transportation Plans and State/ 

Transportation Improvement Programs 

LRTPs and S/TIPs prepared at both the State and MPO levels provide guidance for 

improvements to transportation facilities and systems. They typically present a multimodal 

set of capital, operations, and systems management strategies for transportation facilities 

within their geographic areas. LRTPs may include policies, strategies, and future 

projects; projected demand for transportation services over periods of 20 years or more; 

a systems-level approach that considers roadways, transit, nonmotorized transportation, 

and intermodal connectors; Statewide and regional land use, development, housing, 

environmental and employment goals and plans; cost estimates and reasonably available 

financial sources for operations, maintenance, and capital investments; and strategies to 

preserve existing facilities and make efficient use of the current transportation system. 

TIPs and STIPs are short-range (covering a period no less than four years and updated, at 

minimum, every 4 years), fiscally constrained programs of transportation improvements. 

Programs and projects included in S/TIPs must have identified funding sources. TIPs 

from each MPO are incorporated directly, without change, into the State STIP. Through 

an established process, the State DOT identifies projects from rural areas, smaller urban 

jurisdictions, and areas of the State outside of its MPOs for inclusion in the STIP. Development 

of a transportation plan sensitive to safety issues creates opportunities to improve the 

strategies used by agencies to design and operate the transportation system. For example, 

incorporating the SHSP into the S/TIP development process can lead to implementing 

additional strategies that positively affect crash rates and increase focus on safety by 

incorporating safety evaluations of project alternatives prior to final design selection. 

Figure 5.2 illustrates the relationship between the SHSP and the transportation planning 

process. The SHSP should influence the transportation plan’s visions and goals, alternative 

improvement techniques, and evaluation and prioritization strategies. Systems operations 

and project implementation activities should provide feedback to the SHSP. This feedback 

enables SHSP managers to improve future transportation planning efforts. 

28
 
Figure 5.2 Relationship Between SHSP and the Transportation Planning Process

 Establish Regional Vision Statements and Goals 

Transportation planning begins with a vision, which typically consists of general Statements 

describing desired end-states. For example, most planning visions highlight the need for 

a safe and secure transportation system that provides mobility and accessibility. 

The LRTP vision is important to SHSP implementation efforts because it sets the tone 

for the overall planning process and outlines the needs considered when evaluating 

alternative transportation options. Since the S/TIP and LRTP must be consistent, the 

vision from the LRTP is carried forwarded into the S/TIP. Visions for LRTPs and S/ 

TIPs should include statements about the importance of safety. To make this happen, the 

SHSP stakeholder group should be engaged in these planning processes early to promote 

consideration of safety during the visioning process. Prototype vision statements that 

include safety language should be presented to raise awareness at public meetings, board 

meetings, or in other forums where the visioning process is taking place. 

SHSP stakeholders can attend monthly meetings of the State MPO association and 

encourage them to include safety on the agenda at every meeting. Some MPOs involve 

the DOT traffic safety division during development of the LRTP to coordinate safety 

Chapter 5.1

Long-Range Transportation Plans and

Transportation Improvement Programs 

29
 
Chapter 5.1

Long-Range Transportation Plans and

Transportation Improvement Programs 

planning. MPO personnel serve as regional safety ambassadors to local governments 

and increase awareness by incorporating safety pages on their Web sites. Transportation 

Safety Planning (TSP) activities at the State and regional level will improve the safety 

component in MPO transportation planning efforts. Peer exchanges with other States can 

provide valuable feedback and encouragement to MPO and DOT personnel working to 

integrate the SHSP with LRTPs and S/TIPS. 

Goals and objectives provide guidance to subsequent planning efforts and help assess 

the relative contribution of alternatives toward achieving desired safety improvements. 

Properly developed goals and objectives also lead to the identification of criteria for 

evaluating options and alternatives. SHSP goals and emphasis area objectives set 

quantifiable targets for Statewide priorities and should be adopted into the LRTP verbatim 

or, at a minimum, should be clearly reflected in the transportation planning process based 

on safety data and analysis. 

Involving MPOs in SHSP implementation efforts provides critical local and regional 

input. In turn, some MPOs are beginning to institutionalize safety by establishing safety 

committees and adopting safety resolutions that support the SHSP. Some MPOs are 

developing Regional Safety Action Plans in conjunction with the SHSP. 

Identify Alternate Improvement Strategies 

The next step in the transportation planning process is to identify the strategies needed 

to achieve the desired safety improvements. Safety strategies and projects within both 

the LRTP and the S/TIP should be consistent with SHSP goals and objectives. The 

adoption of these strategies and projects improves the effectiveness of the LRTP and S/ 

TIP development processes and ensures consistency among them with respect to safety. 

Evaluate and Prioritize Alternative Strategies 

Evaluation is the process of synthesizing information on benefits, costs, and impacts 

so judgments can be made concerning the relative merits of alternative actions. In the 

same way that including safety in the vision statement is important for setting planning 

priorities, including safety in evaluation criteria is essential for ensuring real action is 

taken to address safety problems. Most evaluation efforts use one of three methods: 

1. List the evaluation criteria and show how the alternatives compare. 

2. Assign weights or scores to the evaluation factors. 

3. Conduct benefi t/cost analyses. 

It can be worthwhile to meet with planning officials at both the DOT and MPO levels 

to discuss how safety considerations are best incorporated into project selection and 

prioritization activities. One way to do this is to establish a project prioritization process 

that takes the safety benefits of a project into account and assigns weighting or scoring 

in the selection of projects. Weighting may attempt to account for the value of lives 

saved and/or crashes reduced within the context of other prioritization factors, such as 

30
 
 

 

congestion relief and air quality improvement. Ranking can be based on comparison of 

crash rates or crash severity at proposed project locations. 

Develop Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs 

The statewide LRTP can range from a relatively simple statement of investment policies, 

and strategies to a detailed master plan outlining specific investments to be made over the 

plan’s life (usually 20 years). The metropolitan LRTP typically identifi es specifi c projects 

and transportation corridors where improvements are necessary. 

The STIP and TIP are connected to the LRTPs through a process called programming. 

Programming matches desired actions with available funding through a priority-setting 

process. This S/TIP priority-setting process is undertaken with contributions from a 

multitude of stakeholders interested in a wide variety of issues. To ensure safety is part of 

the prioritization effort, SHSP stakeholders need to be part of the priority setting process. 

Incorporating the SHSP into the LRTP and S/TIP impacts the degree to which SHSP goals, 

objectives, and strategies are implemented. LRTP and S/TIP projects should be aligned 

with SHSP strategies and action plans. LRTPs and S/TIPS may signifi cantly impact 

transportation safety by targeting appropriate groups for education efforts, enhancing 

traffic enforcement activities, providing improved data collection and management 

efforts, conducting studies on corridors or areas where safety is of particular concern, and 

considering additional regulations to promote transportation safety. 

Some MPOs use SHSP emphasis areas as an input in the development of their annual 

Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWP), and some are developing their own safety 

work plans. These work plans identify specific programs, activities, or tasks to encourage 

local involvement in safety planning. Some States require documentation that explicitly 

shows that STIP projects utilizing HSIP funds are directly linked to the SHSP, either as a 

specific project or countermeasure. Some States fund safety projects through the use of 

funds from other sources, such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program 

(CMAQ). 

Once projects reach the last three phases of the transportation planning process (project 

development, operations, and monitoring), the SHSP is used as a tool to ensure resources 

are aligned with safety priorities and as a benchmark for monitoring system performance. 

The strategies in the SHSP should guide the safety elements that are incorporated in the 

project development phase of a project. In the operation phase the SHSP strategies should 

help to ensure safety movement of traffic during and after construction. 

Chapter 5.1

Long-Range Transportation Plans and

Transportation Improvement Programs 

31
 
 

Chapter 5.1

Long-Range Transportation Plans and

Transportation Improvement Programs 

Key Integration Strategies – LRTP and S/TIP 

• Meet with planning officials at the DOT and MPO levels to discuss how to 

incorporate safety considerations into project selection and prioritization 

activities. 

• Participate in DOT and MPO visioning exercises to ensure safety is explicitly 

addressed. 

• Develop prototype vision statements that include safety language for 

presentation at DOT and MPO visioning exercises, MPO board meetings, 

public involvement meetings, and other forums to raise awareness. 

• Encourage the adoption of SHSP goals, objectives, and performance
 

measures.
 

• Provide the results of research and analysis conducted during the SHSP 

development process to identify strategies and projects for inclusion in 

LRTPs and S/TIPs. 

• Offer to serve on committees and teams that prepare and influence
 

transportation plans.
 

• Support MPO transportation safety planning forums to review crash data, 

introduce the SHSP, and discuss how safety can be integrated into their 

planning documents. 

• Attend statewide and local MPO board meetings to encourage a focus on 

safety. 

• Encourage MPOs to establish safety committees, adopt safety resolutions 

in support of the SHSP, and develop regional safety action plans reflecting 

appropriate elements from the SHSP. 

• Encourage and participate in the establishment of project prioritization 

weighting or ranking schemes that explicitly address safety considerations. 

• Encourage MPOs to use the SHSP emphasis areas as a source for programs in 

their annual Unified Planning Work Programs. 

• Ask the DOT and MPOs to require explicit documentation showing how 

S/TIP projects utilizing HSIP funds are directly linked to the SHSP. 

• Use peer exchanges to learn from the experiences of other States. 

32
 
 5.2 Highway Safety Improvement Programs 

HSIP is a “core” Federal funding program with the objective of achieving a significant 

reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. It includes the State 

HSIP, the High-Risk Rural Roads Program, and the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing 

Program. 

HSIPs emphasize data-driven approaches to improving highway safety. States focus 

attention on relevant emphasis areas and implement a range of SHSP strategies and 

countermeasures, including: 

• An intersection safety improvement. 

• Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an 

unsafe condition). 

• Installation of rumble strips or other warning devices, if the rumble strips or other 

warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians, 

and persons with disabilities. 

• Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high 

frequency of crashes. 

• An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or for the safety of persons with 

disabilities. 

• Construction of any project for the elimination of hazards at a railway-highway 

crossing that is eligible for funding under 23 U.S.C. 130, including the separation or 

protection of grades at railway-highway crossings. 

• Construction of a railway-highway crossing safety feature, including installation of 

highway-rail grade crossing protective devices. 

• The conduct of an effective traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing. 

• Construction of a traffic calming feature. 

• Elimination of a roadside obstacle or roadside hazard. 

• Improvement of highway signage and pavement markings. 

• Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized 

intersections. 

• Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high-crash 

potential. 

• Transportation safety planning. 

Chapter 5.2

Highway Safety Improvement Programs 

33
 
Chapter 5.2

Highway Safety Improvement Programs 

• Improvement in the collection and analysis of safety data. 

• Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational 

activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including law enforcement assistance) 

relating to work zone safety. 

• Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work 

zones and traffic lanes for the safety of road users and workers), and crash attenuators. 

• The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce 

crashes involving vehicles and wildlife. 

• Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent yellow-green signs) at 

pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones. 

• Construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads. 

• Conducting road safety audits. 

Figure 5.3 illustrates the relationship between the SHSP and the HSIP. The SHSP should 

be used to influence decisions made during the planning phase of the HSIP process. 

Implementation and monitoring of highway safety improvement projects provides 

information for updating both the SHSP and the HSIP. 

34
 
Figure 5.3 Relationship Between SHSP and HSIP 

Identify Problems 

HSIP problem identification should be based on the same data and analysis used to 

develop the SHSP emphasis areas. Network screening identifies crash types to address 

systemic improvements as well as specific locations with potential for safety improvement 

(various network screening methodologies are defined and fully described in FHWA’s 

newly released HSIP Manual). The process may vary among States but typically involves 

the following steps: 

1. Identify the crash types to address (e.g., run-off-the-road, median crossover). This 

process is similar to that used to select emphasis areas in the SHSP. Typically the 

crash types are selected based on frequency of occurrence. 

2. Identify the characteristics of the crash types (e.g., rural versus urban, two-lane versus 

four-lane, divided versus undivided, on curve versus on tangent, type of intersection 

control, etc.). Some SHSPs identify characteristics such as rural crashes as emphasis 

areas. Others address them as strategies within SHSP emphasis areas. 

Chapter 5.2

Highway Safety Improvement Programs 

35
 
 

 

Chapter 5.2

Highway Safety Improvement Programs 

The network screening process identifies sites with potential to benefit from a safety 

improvement and involves a comprehensive review of the roadway network to identify 

locations with safety problems. Several problem identification methodologies, based on 

factors such as crash frequency, crash rate, severity index, etc., can be used in this process 

and should be supported by the SHSP. For example, if States identify unsignalized 

intersections as an SHSP emphasis area, they may focus on just those types of intersections 

when applying a problem identification method. Also, some SHSPs recommend problem 

identification methodologies and criteria (i.e., fatality frequency, injury severity, etc.). 

Identify Countermeasures 

The next step in the HSIP process is to identify contributing crash factors and effective 

countermeasures. This involves developing a “problem diagnosis” or a comprehensive 

description of the crash site or road segment; identifying several alternate countermeasures 

to address the crash factors; and assessing the countermeasures’ practical limitations and 

constraints. 

Countermeasures can be identified during a field study, a road safety audit (RSA), a 

literature search, by agency policy, etc., and assessed using concepts and tools such as the 

Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse, and the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). 

HSIP countermeasures should be consistent with corresponding SHSP countermeasures. 

For example, a State that has identified run-off-the-road crashes as an emphasis area 

in their SHSP may have identified median cable barriers as the preferred systematic 

improvement to address this crash type. This decision should be reflected in the HSIP 

through the inclusion of median cable barrier projects. 

Furthermore, the SHSP process engages safety stakeholders and other partners to provide 

a wide range of perspectives when selecting potential solutions. Involving these safety 

partners results in comprehensive and effective multidisciplinary solutions. To ensure 

local stakeholders are well-equipped to conduct safety studies, one State developed a 

Safety Study Guidelines course to train local governments, MPOs, and consultants to 

systematically determine crash contributing factors and identify strategies for improving 

safety at high-crash frequency locations. 

Prioritize Projects 

Project prioritization is typically accomplished using ranking, incremental benefit/cost 

analysis, or optimization methods. The SHSP should guide prioritization decisions so the 

selection of projects reflects the strategies and action plans identified in the SHSP. This 

can be accomplished by developing policies and procedures to ensure consideration of 

the SHSP during project prioritization. One State requires district safety review teams to 

evaluate projects based on several safety-related criteria. Another State, recognizing the 

importance of working with local stakeholders, dedicates resources to off-system safety 

projects and provides technical assistance for local efforts. 

36
 
Prioritization is required because resources are limited and not all benefi cial projects 

can be funded. However, funding can be increased for HSIP projects to implement 

SHSP strategies. For example, one State has committed additional State funds for safety 

projects aligned with the SHSP. Some States also leverage funds beyond Section 148 (i.e., 

mainstream safety features such as rumble strips into general construction projects) to free 

up HSIP resources for dedicated safety work. Project sharing and the use of cooperative 

agreements to fund projects also can be used. 

Key Integration Strategies – HSIP 

• Program HSIP funding to implement strategies aligned with the SHSP
 

emphasis areas.
 

• Familiarize the SHSP team with the HSIP Manual. 

• Participate in FHWA’s HSIP Assessment Toolbox. 

• Identify the infrastructure-related emphasis areas in the SHSP. 

• Develop policies and procedures to ensure the SHSP is considered during 

project prioritization. 

• Encourage a systems approach for implementing proven effective
 

countermeasures.
 

• Engage safety stakeholders and other partners to ensure more comprehensive 

and effective multidisciplinary solutions. 

• Train local governments, MPOs, and consultants in safety analysis techniques 

and countermeasure selection. 

• Use the SHSP process to review and evaluate the safety impacts of projects 

proposed by DOT Districts. 

• Reserve funds specifically for projects that align with the SHSP. 

• Mainstream safety features (i.e., rumble strips, etc.) into the scope of general 

construction projects to conserve scarce safety funds. 

• Provide technical assistance and traffic engineering expertise to locals. 

Chapter 5.2

Highway Safety Improvement Programs 

37
 
 5.3 Highway Safety Plans 

HSPs are designed to reduce crashes, fatalities, injuries, and property damage by addressing 

road user target groups (e.g., young and elderly drivers), behavioral issues (e.g., impaired 

driving, occupant protection, speeding, and aggressive driving), police traffi c services, 

emergency medical services, motorcycle safety, and traffic records improvements. 

SHSOs (State Highway Safety Office) engage a wide range of State, local, nonprofit, 

and private sector partners. Through the HSP, States can focus attention on relevant 

SHSP emphasis areas to implement the corresponding range of SHSP strategies and 

countermeasures. Common grant programs focus on law enforcement, community 

traffic safety programs (CTSP), occupant protection programs, etc. HSPs also implement 

Statewide campaigns and initiatives to increase public recognition of safety issues. 

Figure 5.4 illustrates the relationship between the SHSP and the HSP. The SHSP influences 

problem identification, goals and objectives, countermeasure identification, and project 

development within the HSP process. After the development and approval of the HSP, 

project implementation and evaluation activities provide feedback to both the SHSP and 

the HSP planning processes. 

Chapter 5.3

Highway Safety Plans 

38
 
 

Figure 5.4 Relationship Between SHSP and the HSP 

Identify Problems 

The first step in developing the HSP is problem identification. States are required to 

produce a data-driven document that identifies highway safety problems using crash 

data. Other information, such as demographic, roadway, travel, and medical data also 

are included in the analysis. SHSP emphasis areas should be included in the HSP since 

the same data are used in both analyses. States can align HSP focus areas with SHSP 

emphasis areas by including the same team members during the development of both. 

Develop Goals and Objectives 

After determining the nature, extent, and location of the State’s traffic safety problems, 

goals and measurable objectives for each program area are established by SHSO staff. 

While the goals and objectives of the SHSP and HSP may not be identical, they are based 

on consistent data and should complement each other and jointly support the State’s 

safety priorities. 

Chapter 5.3

Highway Safety Plans 

39
 
Chapter 5.3

Highway Safety Plans 

Performance measures are required in the HSP. The purpose of measuring performance 

is to determine effectiveness. Selecting performance measures need not be arduous. It 

is important, however, to ensure the data are available and the performance measure 

will actually demonstrate the effects of the goal, objective, or project being measured. 

Reliable resources for performance measures, including guidance on the development 

and implementation of behavioral plans and programs by NHTSA and the Governors 

Highway Safety Association (GHSA) are available. States should consider adopting the 

objectives and performance measures identified in the SHSP within the HSP. 

Identify Countermeasures 

The next step is to identify countermeasures. Certain programs and initiatives are 

predefined by NHTSA in the Certification Statement, such as participation in National 

“Click It or Ticket” campaigns. Countermeasures are selected from the National Priority 

Program Areas and other program areas based on data analysis. The countermeasures 

selected by SHSOs should be consistent with SHSP countermeasures identifi ed through 

analysis of the same data and review of the wide range of noteworthy practices available. 

Develop and Select Projects 

The process for selecting grant projects varies among States based on their data and 

identified problems. Bringing together multiple agencies during the programming 

process improves project selection and is consistent with the SHSP. Some SHSOs 

release a grant solicitation announcement detailing the State’s traffic safety problems, 

the countermeasures selected, and information for submitting a grant proposal. After 

proposals are received a selection process determines who will be awarded grants. Other 

SHSOs identify entities they feel can implement specific countermeasures and work with 

them to develop grants. SHSOs should emphasize SHSP emphasis areas, strategies, and 

action plans in their grant development and application processes. 

Many SHSOs provide grants to local coalitions, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, and 

Community Traffic Safety Programs (CTSP) to address issues specific to their areas of 

expertise or jurisdictions. Grant applications for these programs should be aligned with 

the SHSP goals, objectives, performance measures, emphasis area strategies, and action 

plans. 

SHSOs may provide assistance to law enforcement partners to facilitate the grant 

application process and ensure consistency with the SHSP. Other effective strategies 

include: establishing safety outreach programs throughout the State through a partnership 

with the health department; conducting data analysis for grant applications to ensure 

proposed projects are aligned with safety problems; educating HSP grant recipients on the 

SHSP to improve grant application alignment with the emphasis areas; and developing 

a template for grant applications to improve efficiency for both grant recipients and the 

SHSO. 

40
 
Key Integration Strategies – HSP 

• Ensure personnel working on SHSP and related programs and projects are 

familiar with HSP performance measures. 

• Conduct data analysis to focus on the greatest problem areas consistent with 

the SHSP emphasis area identifi cation process. 

• Focus the grant development and selection process on priority problem 

areas consistent with SHSP emphasis areas and strategies, e.g., revise grant 

solicitation announcements to include SHSP priorities. 

• Bring multiple agencies together during the programming process to 

improve project selection and ensure consistency with SHSP priorities and 

strategies. 

• Provide grant funds to local coalitions, nonprofits, and advocacy 

organizations to address issues specific to their jurisdictions and areas of 

expertise. 

• Use peer exchanges to learn from the experiences of other States. 

Chapter 5.3

Highway Safety Plans 

41
 
Chapter 5.4

Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans 

 5.4 Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans 

The performance-based Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSP) is designed to reduce 

the number and severity of crashes and hazardous materials incidents involving CMVs. 

FMCSA directs Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) lead agencies to 

coordinate with the SHSO and other safety partners on data collection and information 

systems, participate in the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC), and align 

their safety activities with the SHSP. 

Figure 5.5 illustrates the relationship between the SHSP and the CVSP. The SHSP should 

influence the development of the CVSP mission and goal statements, the identifi cation of 

CMV safety problems, and the development of State-specific objectives, strategies, and 

activities. After the approval of the CVSP, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation 

activities provide feedback to the SHSP. 

Collaboration and communication should be encouraged by engaging the SHSP 

stakeholder group throughout the CVSP development process to facilitate the integration 

of the two processes and programs. 

Figure 5.5 Relationship Between SHSP and the CVSP 

42
 
Prepare a Mission and Goal Statement 

The first step in developing the CVSP is to prepare a mission and goal statement. The 

inclusion of a CMV fatality reduction goal, including annual performance targets, is 

required. The goal must be compatible with the National CMV fatality reduction goal 

(currently, “reducing the rate of truck-related fatalities to no more than 0.16 per 100 

million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2011 from a baseline rate of 0.184 per 100 million 

VMT in 2005”). While having a State goal consistent with the National goal does not 

mean they must be identical, they must both aim to reduce CMV crashes and fatalities in a 

measurable and repeatable manner. States that have identified CMV crashes as a separate 

SHSP emphasis area should consider using that emphasis area objective within the CVSP 

mission and goal statement. 

Analyze Data and Identify Problems 

As part of their CVSPs, States are required to address the five MCSAP National Program 

Elements: driver/vehicle inspections, traffic enforcement, compliance reviews, public 

education and awareness, and data collection. States also are strongly encouraged to 

define one or more State-specific CMV safety objectives where they intend to focus both 

their attention and MCSAP resources during the next year, such as passenger carrier 

safety, or improving CMV safety data quality. The State should look to the SHSP for 

emphasis areas and/or strategies that relate to CMVs and include them in the CVSP. At a 

minimum, CVSP planning should use the same data to identify problems as was used to 

identify SHSP emphasis areas. 

Develop State-Specifi c Objectives 

Each State-specific problem in a CVSP must describe the expected outcome or result (i.e., 

reduction in the number/percentage of crashes, serious hazardous materials incidents, 

fatalities, injuries) anticipated as a result of the strategies and activities undertaken. These 

objectives must be quantifiable and include an explicit timeframe (number of months/ 

years) within which the outcome or result is expected. States should look to SHSP 

emphasis area action plans to identify relevant objectives with this level of detail. 

Develop Strategies and Activities 

States must next describe the program strategies it intends to employ to achieve the 

objectives and the program activities it will deploy to support the strategies. Some States 

include CMVs in SHSPs as emphasis areas and draw heavily from existing truck safety 

plans to identify SHSP strategies and actions. Other States incorporate SHSP education, 

and enforcement strategies into their CVSPs (i.e., safety belts, impaired driving, work 

zones, etc.). These strategies and activities must be accompanied in the CVSP by specific, 

quantitative performance measures, whereby the MCSAP agency can periodically monitor 

and evaluate its progress toward its CMV safety objective. State MCSAP agencies must 

report quarterly on their progress toward goals and they are encouraged to shift the mix 

of strategies when monitoring and evaluation indicates revisions are warranted. 

Chapter 5.4

Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans 

43
 
 

States that have successfully integrated CVSP and SHSP strategies and action plans have 

included CMV stakeholders at the table and built upon existing CMV safety efforts. State 

MCSAP personnel and representatives from State trucking associations bring a valuable 

perspective to the SHSP process and contribute ideas on how CMV safety efforts can 

support the Statewide goals. This process encourages collaboration between CMV and 

other safety stakeholders, and provides new partnership opportunities. 

MCSAP’s partners include among others, motor vehicle administrations, law enforcement 

agencies, and engineers. In one State, MCSAP, in partnership with the Association of 

Chiefs of Police, developed an Award for Excellence in Commercial Vehicle Safety to 

acknowledge local law enforcement agencies. In another State, MCSAP personnel are 

involved in freight planning processes thereby providing greater opportunities to 

incorporate SHSP elements into broader CMV efforts. 

As with all other safety efforts, reaching out to local stakeholders provides greater 

opportunities to improve safety. Some State police agencies have engaged local law 

enforcement in CMV inspections, and in at least one State, they have trained and certified 

local agency personnel to conduct truck inspections. 

Preparing the CVSP 

Priority activities are selected based on available funding and State spending authority. 

Emphasis should be placed on activities contributing to SHSP implementation as they 

relate to CMV safety specifically and to support the broader safety goals and objectives 

established as part of the SHSP. 

Chapter 5.4

Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans 

44
 
Key Integration Strategies – CVSP 

• Ensure personnel working on SHSP and related programs and projects are 

familiar with MCSAP requirements. 

• Identify SHSP emphasis areas and/or strategies related to CMVs and include 

them as State-specific objectives within the CVSP. 

• Use data for problem identification consistent with the SHSP. 

• Incorporate SHSP education and enforcement strategies into the CVSP (i.e., 

safety belts, aggressive driving, work zones, etc.). 

• Encourage State trucking associations and commissions to collaborate with a 

broad range of safety stakeholders. 

• Collaborate with law enforcement, motor vehicle administrators, and
 

engineers to develop joint training and campaign programs.
 

• Develop an Award for Excellence in Commercial Vehicle Safety, in 

collaboration with the State Association of Chiefs of Police to acknowledge 

local law enforcement agencies. 

• Integrate safety and SHSP elements into the State and local freight planning 

processes. 

• Reach out to local stakeholders by training, certifying, and collaborating with 

them on CMV inspection programs. 

Chapter 5.4

Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans 

45
 
Chapter 5.5

Plan and Program Integration

Checklist and Timeline 

 5.5 Plan and Program Integration Checklist and Timeline 

 Checklist 

The following series of questions will help stakeholders identify opportunities for 

integrating the SHSP into the other transportation plans and programs and help identify 

areas for improvement. 

Do SHSP stakeholders participate in the plan/program development process? 

Do all safety agencies use the same database and analysis strategies to identify 

problems and program funding? 

Do the plan/program visions, goals, and objectives reflect SHSP goals? 

Are plan/program strategies and countermeasures consistent with SHSP 

strategies? 

Do plan/programs target funding to implement strategies associated with SHSP 

emphasis areas? 

Do SHSP stakeholders participate in the establishment of project prioritization 

weighting or ranking schemes? 

Do plan/program managers engage SHSP stakeholders in project selection? 

Are safety criteria included in agency performance reviews? 

Have SHSP stakeholders met with DOT and MPO planners to learn how safety 

data, analysis, and strategies are incorporated into their planning process? 

Do DOT and MPO planners have access to SHSP safety data and analysis? 

Do SHSP stakeholders participate in MPO board meetings? 

Do the MPOs have safety committees and regional safety action plans? 

Is safety mainstreamed into the scope of general construction projects? 

Is safety integrated into the State and local freight planning processes? 

Do HSP grant solicitation documents contain SHSP criteria? 

Do MCSAP officers and managers collaborate with local law enforcement, motor 

vehicle administrators, and engineers? 

Does local law enforcement participate in CMV inspections and enforcement? 

46
 
 Timeline 

Figure 5.6 provides an annual schedule for the different transportation plans and 

programs discussed. Federally required plan submission and reporting dates are noted; 

however, the timelines are presented only as a general guide because States follow 

different schedules. States are encouraged to develop similar timelines consistent with 

their specific planning schedules. Understanding when phases of the different planning 

processes occur is helpful to collaborative integration efforts. 

Chapter 5.5

Plan and Program Integration

Checklist and Timeline 

47
 
48 

Chapter 5.5

Plan and Program Integration

Checklist and Timeline 

Figure 5.6 Safety and Transportation Planning Timeline 
 

 

Chapter 6
 

Marketing
 

“Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, 

delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and 

society at large” (American Marketing Association). In the SHSP context, marketing is 

the process for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging information about 

transportation safety to the public, to safety stakeholders, and to elected officials. 

Marketing benefits SHSP implementation efforts in several ways: it increases awareness 

of the SHSP goal to reduce traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries; educates key 

political leaders on their role in saving lives; and helps address those SHSP elements that 

require behavior change. 

Marketing is a necessary component of transportation safety because the reduction of 

crashes and fatalities depends on attitude and behavior changes in the individuals who 

use the transportation system, not just modifications to the roadway and surrounding 

environment. SHSPs address both infrastructure and behavioral emphasis areas, and the 

techniques and approaches used to connect with road users and modify their behavior, 

i.e., branding, information dissemination, awareness, etc., can be applied to marketing 

transportation safety overall. While the SHSP is an important vehicle or process for 

improving safety, marketing efforts should be focused on education and reducing fatalities 

and serious injuries. States spent a great deal of time and effort developing SHSPs in hopes 

of improving safety. Effective marketing can persuade stakeholders, officials, and the 

public to support the goals of the SHSP and become more involved in its implementation. 

Facilitating involvement among all stakeholders is important because without active and 

committed supporters, implementation does not happen. 

When thinking of stakeholders it is important to consider involving as many individuals 

and groups as possible. Keeping the SHSP as a purview of a small group of stakeholders 

defeats another goal of the SHSP which is to change the way engineers, planners, law 

enforcement, educators, and emergency medical services do business, and persuade them 

to work collaboratively. Marketing helps stakeholders understand that “business as 

usual” is ineffective and no longer acceptable. 

Marketing helps safety stakeholders understand the vital role they play in saving lives 

and why their continued involvement in SHSP implementation is important. Previous 

chapters noted the difficulty in maintaining interest in the SHSP once it is developed. 

Marketing is one way to keep interest and activity levels high. People want to be a part 

of something bigger than themselves; educating stakeholders about life saving programs 

and activities generates ongoing commitment. 

Marketing 

Chapter 6

49
 
Develop and Implement a Marketing Plan 

Chapter 6

Marketing 

It is recommended that States develop and implement a marketing plan. A successful 

marketing plan should include clear goals and objectives. Listed below are some strategies 

and dissemination techniques that should be developed as part of a marketing plan. 

Marketing Strategies 

• Define the target audience(s) for the marketing effort. 

• Gain support and involvement from new safety stakeholders. 

• Keep current safety stakeholders interested and actively involved in implementation. 

• Educate the public about the SHSP and the State’s most serious transportation safety 

problems. 

• Raise awareness of the SHSP goals and objectives among elected officials. 

• Coordinate media and communications messaging among all the partners involved in 

the SHSP. 

• Provide opportunities to highlight different aspects of transportation safety. 

Marketing Dissemination Techniques 

• Unique branding that includes a logo and slogan. 

• Brochures. 

• Newsletters. 

• Web sites. 

• Public service announcements. 

• Paid radio and television advertising. 

• News media events (earned media). 

• New media (e.g., blogs, podcasts, Facebook pages, etc.). 

• Presentations at safety and community meetings. 

• Safety summits. 

50
 
Marketing Elements 

The marketing strategies and dissemination techniques listed above can be organized in 

many ways. Each of them can be used to reach nearly any audience, but due to their 

different characteristics, some are better suited to address stakeholders and elected officials 

while others naturally focus on reaching the general public. Here they are organized 

according to how well they support the five elements of a safety marketing plan. These 

elements are 1) educate the public; 2) gain stakeholder support; 3) raise awareness; 4) 

highlight different aspects of the SHSP; and 5) coordinate media and communications 

messaging. 

Establishing a branding strategy is particularly important when attempting to reach 

the general public. Because efforts to engage the public are broad-based and focus on 

raising awareness and modifying behavior, it is important to reach as many people as 

possible. Techniques to support this type of marketing effort include radio and television 

advertising, public service announcements, blogs, podcasts, news conferences, etc. 

When attempting to engage stakeholders and elected officials, on the other hand, marketing 

efforts tend to be “outreach” based and focused on the particular ways a given stakeholder 

or official can help to improve transportation safety. For example, practitioners may be in 

a position to implement policy and allocate resources and elected officials have the ability 

to strengthen laws and appropriate funding. To reach these people requires a marketing 

approach customized to each stakeholder. Techniques to support this type of marketing 

effort include meetings, presentations, safety summits, SHSP newsletters, etc. The five 

marketing elements together with the dissemination techniques best suited to each of 

them are described below. 

Educate the public about the SHSP and the State’s most serious transportation safety 

problems. 

Branding Almost anyone in America knows the golden arches represent McDonald’s. 

Large corporations spend millions of dollars branding their products and 

their companies so people will recognize and remember them. The same 

can be true for the SHSP. When members of the public see the SHSP 

branding, they know the product, activity, or information they see is related 

to improving transportation safety. For instance, if the State is conducting a 

traffic safety campaign on impaired driving, such as “Over the Limit, Under 

Arrest,” the SHSP logo can be included on all print and broadcast materials. 

Branding usually includes a logo and a slogan. The graphics in Figure 6.1 

illustrate branding examples for several State SHSPs. 

Marketing 

Chapter 6

51
 
Figure 6.1 SHSP Logos and Slogans 

Chapter 6

Marketing 

News Events News media events educate the public and involve safety stakeholders 

in a stimulating and fun activity. These events are usually centered on a 

specific issue coordinated with the SHSP emphasis areas. Invite the SHSP 

champion to attend and participate in the event and distribute brochures 

and other materials to the news media representatives. Changes in the 

number of fatalities and serious injuries are a good topic for a news media 

event centered on the SHSP. 

Gain support from new safety stakeholders and keep current stakeholders active and 

involved. 

Web Sites Web sites generate interest in safety, particularly if an interactive function 

allows people to sign up, ask questions, and obtain additional information. 

Some States post the SHSP on the DOT Web site, while others create a 

unique site to support the SHSP. Web sites also serve the practical function 

of allowing emphasis area team members and other stakeholders to gain 

information on the latest research, review meeting reports, obtain updated 

data, etc. 

52
 
Newsletters One way to gain support and keep current stakeholders interested and 

involved is to let them know how different groups and individuals are 

implementing the plan. Quarterly newsletters could be sent to stakeholders 

throughout the State. The newsletter features quick updates on each of 

the emphasis areas team activities. In addition to the update information, 

a feature recognizing a stakeholder who stands out as a safety champion 

could be included. 

Presentations States interested in gaining support for the SHSP from new stakeholders 

can conduct outreach activities. For example, presentations by SHSP 

champions can be made to the State association of counties or to the State 

police chiefs association to spread the word about the SHSP. Many States 

also have State or local engineering chapters that may welcome SHSP 

presentations at their meetings. The key to effective presentations in these 

cases is to leave the participants with strategies for getting involved and 

specific activities to implement. 

Summits Safety summits generate enthusiasm. They are used to educate stakeholders 

on implementation progress, stimulate networking, suggest ideas for best 

practices, etc. To obtain buy-in and support, however, the best approach 

is to give participants something to do. This can involve a review of the 

SHSP to determine what is working and where additional help is needed or 

organizing participants into regional teams that select the emphasis areas 

they feel are most pressing and determine what they will do to address 

them. 

Raise awareness about the SHSP goals and objectives among elected officials. 

Brochures Concise, well-written brochures that outline the purpose of the SHSP 

and its importance to the State’s residents can be especially effective in 

educating elected officials. Whenever possible, include information that 

shows how the SHSP not only saves lives and prevents injury, but also 

improves the State’s financial bottom line. Providing this information to 

State legislators helps pave the way for legislative changes identifi ed in the 

SHSP implementation plan. 

Presentations Presenting the SHSP to legislators is an effective way to raise their level 

of awareness. Providing elected officials with a presentation they can use 

to talk about safety also is helpful. Elected officials are often called upon 

to address community and business groups. A tailored presentation on 

transportation safety demonstrates to constituents that officials are well 

informed and concerned. States may want to conduct symposiums to 

educate legislators about the State’s safety needs and the SHSP. 

Marketing 

Chapter 6

53
 
Provide opportunities to highlight different aspects of the SHSP. 

In many States marketing traffic safety focuses on behavior such as impaired driving 

(the “Over the Limit, Under Arrest” campaign), safety belt use (the “Click It or Ticket” 

campaign), etc.; however, marketing campaigns can effectively address infrastructure 

issues as well. For instance, a number of infrastructure improvements could be of interest 

to the news media, which is one of the marketing dissemination tools. In one State 

installing rumble strips on 1,400 miles of roadway resulted in a 42 percent reduction in 

the number of vehicles driving off the road. The effort caught the attention of the news 

media which traveled to one of the rumble strip sites to interview the DOT program 

coordinator. During the interview, the coordinator highlighted the benefits of the rumble 

strip program and tied the strategy back to the SHSP. 

Coordinate media and communication messaging among all the partners involved in 

the SHSP. 

A review of the number of agencies and organizations that promote transportation 

safety messages in any State may reveal a surprising level of activity and interest, (e.g., 

community groups promoting pedestrian safety for children walking to and from school, 

the annual “Click It or Ticket” campaign sponsored by the SHSO, etc.). While this level of 

activity is appreciated, it can create problems particularly when messages compete for the 

same audience. Rules of marketing include consistency and repetition – tell people what 

you are going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you told them. 

To address the issue of message consistency and repetition, one State formed a Strategic 

Communications Alliance made up of public information officers and media professionals 

from government agencies, MPOs, private sector organizations, public relations firms, 

and community groups. The purpose of the Alliance is to bring together traffi c safety 

communications experts; coordinate messaging; develop a communications calendar that 

includes the major high-visibility enforcement initiatives; and support implementation of 

the SHSP. The State believes the group is needed to prevent competing messages from 

different agencies and coordinate efforts. 

The Alliance meets quarterly and approves all marketing materials for the SHSP, including 

the branding and logo, newsletter design and contents, and information for the SHSP Web 

site. Recently the group developed a traffic safety survey to determine how each agency 

or organization currently provides or could provide support to existing safety campaigns.

Chapter 6

Marketing 

54
 
Key Marketing Strategies 

• Develop a Statewide strategic marketing plan. 

• Address overall transportation safety rather than just the SHSP document. 

• Brand the effort with a unique identity. 

• Gain support from new safety stakeholders. 

• Use newsletters and safety summits to keep stakeholders interested and 

active. 

• Educate the public and elected officials about the SHSP and safety issues. 

• Provide opportunities to highlight different aspects of the SHSP through 

news media. 

• Coordinate media and communications messaging among all SHSP partners. 

• Prepare materials to distribute through public relations channels and earned 

media. 

 Checklist 

Answering these questions will help stakeholders assess their SHSP marketing processes 

and identify opportunities for improvement. 

Has your State developed a marketing plan? 

What agencies are involved? 

What groups are targeted in the marketing plan? 

Has your State developed a specific branding for the SHSP? 

Have marketing and communications materials been developed? 

Does your State have an SHSP Web site; is the number of hits tracked? 

What outreach activities have been conducted to gain more interest and support 

for the SHSP? 

Has the State held any news media events related to the SHSP? 

Does your State conduct safety summits? 

Marketing 

Chapter 6

55
 
Chapter 6

Marketing 

56
 
Chapter 7
 

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback
 

Monitoring, evaluation, and feedback are methods for measuring SHSP progress, 

understanding its impact on safety, identifying and institutionalizing lessons learned, 

improving decision-making, and providing the information necessary to make course 

corrections and update the SHSP. Some States have already updated or begun the process 

of updating their SHSP based on the experience they have acquired to date. Effective 

monitoring and evaluation requires an engaged SHSP management team, action plan 

implementers who provide regular status updates, and a procedure or system to collect, 

organize, and display progress. 

Monitor SHSP Implementation 

Establishing a formalized reporting system with standard elements provides timely 

and consistent information to SHSP managers and stakeholders to improve decisionmaking and accountability. In some States, emphasis area teams provide quarterly, 

annual, or semiannual reports to a Statewide highway safety commission or coalition. 

While reporting of progress is typically done on a periodic basis, the internal process 

of monitoring implementation and results is continuous and ongoing. Several States 

have developed tools to formalize and streamline the monitoring and reporting process. 

Tracking tools range from relatively simple spreadsheets showing fatalities by emphasis 

area to customized Web-based tools and programs identifying location-specific crashes by 

emphasis area. One State is developing a formalized process to update action plans: who 

is responsible for emphasis area updates; when are updates required; what information is 

provided; and how will the updates drive the SHSP decision-making process? 

Evaluate SHSP Implementation Efforts 

Evaluation depends on collecting baseline data reflecting the situation prior to 

implementation, as well as continued data collection during the implementation period 

and after project completion. Waiting until after the project has started to develop an 

evaluation plan can result in missed opportunities to collect data that are critical to 

evaluating the impact of a project. To avoid this, establish an evaluation plan to track 

progress and evaluate effectiveness as an integral part of the process. Defi ne what 

constitutes “success” prior to implementation to ensure appropriate data are collected for 

the evaluation. 

SHSP evaluations determine project effectiveness in terms of fatality and serious injury 

reductions. The data to collect may include: 

• Costs of safety countermeasures. 

• Benefits of safety countermeasures. 

57
 

Chapter 7

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback 
Chapter 7

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback 

• Incidence of crashes before and after strategy implementation. 

• Expected incidence of crashes without strategy implementation. 

While it may take several years to develop valid conclusions about the effectiveness of a 

complex project, preliminary judgments can often be made more quickly when based upon 

suitable data. These may provide an early indication of likely success or failure and enable 

managers to react accordingly. Some engineering and behavioral countermeasures (e.g., 

low-cost safety improvements, enforcement) tend to generate early or interim results that 

are accurate predictors of longer-term effects. Other countermeasures (e.g., graduated 

driver licensing) may take several years of performance monitoring and reporting cycles 

to begin to reveal their actual effectiveness in a particular implementation. 

Develop SHSP Performance Measures 

Many States develop action plans with measurable objectives and track quarterly progress 

on them. Performance measures or indicators are used to streamline the tracking and 

evaluation process by defining consistent data, metrics, and reporting methods from one 

period to the next. Performance measurement provides quantifiable evidence of progress 

and helps managers determine whether the project met its stated objectives or needs to 

be modified. Even “permanent” installations (e.g., rumble strips) require decisions about 

future maintenance investments. An evaluation plan should specify the measures that 

will be used to track progress in each emphasis area, and the data required to support 

those measures. Evaluation results should be retained to improve future estimates of 

effectiveness as well as to identify trends over longer-time periods. 

Evaluation of performance can use measures of “output” or “outcome,” and preferably 

will include both. Output measures indicate the level of activity or effort that was put 

into a particular countermeasure, for example, miles of rumble strip installed or guardrail 

replaced. These are appropriate to track the cost and productivity of SHSP implementation. 

Outcome measures are direct indicators of the effectiveness of a countermeasure in 

meeting the fundamental objectives of the SHSP, for example, crash rates or fatality rates. 

These require different types of data than output measures, and professional judgment 

must be exercised before concluding there is causality between the countermeasure and 

the outcome. 

Evaluate Projects and Programs 

Evaluation can take place at the project level (e.g., a specific implementation of a 

countermeasure) or at the program level. Project-level evaluation focuses on the impacts, 

benefits, and cost-effectiveness of a particular project or set of projects, and therefore 

requires data that is specific to the project location(s). Project-level information is most 

useful in determining whether the appropriate countermeasures have been selected and 

effectively implemented. This should also inform the review of, and decisions about, 

strategies and countermeasures identified in the SHSP. In contrast, program-level 

evaluation provides managers and stakeholders with a broad picture of the effi ciency and 

58
 
effectiveness of the SHSP implementation effort. Program-level performance measures 

may include evaluation of administrative aspects such as whether the programmed 

projects have been implemented in a timely fashion according to budget. Programlevel evaluations can also include qualitative analysis of decision-making processes 

and consistency in the application of policies or procedures. Some strategies (e.g., data 

improvements) are best evaluated only at the program level as their direct impact and 

effectiveness on reducing fatalities and serious injuries cannot be measured. 

Provide Feedback to the Planning and Implementation Process 

The working group meets periodically to review the SHSP, examine progress toward goals, 

suggest changes or modifications, and brief the leadership. By regularly reexamining its 

data, evaluating the effectiveness of its countermeasures and strategies, and monitoring 

its progress in accomplishing the SHSP goals, they can better determine which elements of 

the plan, if any, should be updated or revised. The review process is accomplished at least 

annually, but in reality, it is a continuous process. Treat the SHSP as a living document 

that evolves and progresses as goals, strategies, and safety data change. Measuring the 

success of the overall SHSP effort is the key to maintaining momentum and advancing 

implementation to higher levels. 

Key Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback Strategies 

• Establish a timeline for reviewing and updating the SHSP, identifying key 

data inputs, reporting cycles, and other schedules (e.g., STIP) with which the 

review should be coordinated. 

• Monitor the implementation effort and issue periodic, standardized progress 

reports for each emphasis area. 

• Use a tracking tool, at least a spreadsheet, to organize and manage the 

monitoring process and to formalize reporting and sharing of information. 

• Use data-driven evaluation techniques and collect baseline data prior to 

implementation; consult standard data collection and analysis references as 

necessary to ensure credible results. 

• Define performance objectives that determine what constitutes “success” 

prior to countermeasure selection and implementation. 

• Select suitable performance measures that are clearly related to performance 

objectives to make sure the appropriate data are collected pre-and postimplementation. 

• Make sure the SHSP implementation team is familiar with safety-related 

performance measuring tools. 

• Use the results of monitoring and evaluation to identify opportunities to 

update or revise the SHSP. 

59
 

Chapter 7

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback 
 

 Checklist
 

Answering these questions will help stakeholders review their current SHSP monitoring, 

evaluation, and feedback processes and identify opportunities for improvement. 

Does your State have procedures for monitoring and evaluating the SHSP? Who 

is responsible? 

What tools do you use to assemble and analyze data? To create reports? 

Do you utilize performance measures? Are they clearly linked to or derived from 

SHSP objectives? 

Are performance measures tied to future program funding? If so, how? 

What procedures are in place for ongoing SHSP update and revision? Who is 

responsible for leading the effort? Who participates? 

What data are used to update or revise the SHSP? 

Chapter 7

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback 

60
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources
 

The resources below provide additional tools and references for the concepts presented 

in the IPM. 

 Federal Web Sites 

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety Web Site:
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov
 

Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty Web Site: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/index.htm 

Federal Highway Administration Resource Center Web Site:
 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/
 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Web Site:
 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/
 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Web Site:
 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/
 

 Chapter 2 – Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication 

SHSP Champion’s Guide to Saving Lives:
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/guides/guideshsp040506/
 

Supporting the Establishment of Safe Transportation Networks:
 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scp/ec041scp.htm
 

 Chapter 3 – Collecting, Analyzing, and Sharing Data 

FHWA Office of Safety Link to Data and Analysis Tools:
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/
 

State Traffic Safety Information:
 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/
 

USA%20WEB%20REPORT.HTM
 

Using Data for Better Decision-Making (SEMCOG):
 

http://tsp.trb.org/assets/BP18_SEMCOG.pdf
 

61
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bahar, G., et al. (September 2008). Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors. 

Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-08-011. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

tools/crf/resources/desk_ref_sept2008/. 

Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) Web Site:
 

http://www.nhtsa. dot.gov/people/ncsa/codes/
 

FARS Web Site:
 

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
 

Harper, Ogle, J. (2007). NCHRP Synthesis 367: Technologies for Improving Safety 

Data. Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ 

onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_367.pdf. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Records Improvement Program 

Reporting System (TRIPRS). http://www.nhtsa-tsis.net/TRIPRS/. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (January 2009). National Model for 

the Statewide Application of Data Collection and Management Technology to Improve 

Highway Safety Web Site: http://www.tracsinfo.us/. 

NEMSIS Web Site:
 

http://www.nemsis.org/
 

 Chapter 4 – Emphasis Area Action Plans 

Strategic Intersection Safety Program Guide:
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09004/
 

FHWA Office of Safety Informational Web Site on Intersections:
 

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

Roadway Departure Strategic Action Plan (Sample Plan):
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/strat_approach/lanedeparture/
 

FHWA Office of Safety Informational Web Site on Roadway Departure Safety:
 

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

How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (FHWA-SA-05-12; March 2009):
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/docs/fhwasa0512.pdf
 

FHWA Office of Safety Informational Web Site on Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety:
 

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

FHWA Office of Safety Informational Web Site on Speed Management:
 

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

62
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Countermeasures That Work: A 

Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, Fifth Edition 

(2010), DOT HS 811 258. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/enforcement/pdf/ 

Countermeasures_HS811258.pdf. 

Transportation Research Board. (2003-2009). NCHRP 500: Implementation Guides, 

Volumes 1-23. http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx. 

 Chapter 5 – Integration into Other Transportation Plans and 

Programs 

Implementing the Strategic Highway Safety Plan:
 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scp/impstrhwsp.htm
 

Long-Range Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs 

(LRTP and S/TIP) 

Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty TSP Web Site:
 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scp/
 

Office of Safety TSP Web Site:
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/tsp/
 

The Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues, A Briefing Books for Transportation 

Decision-makers, Official, and Staff: http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/ 

briefingbook/bbook.htm. 

NCHRP 546: Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning:
 

http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=5906
 

The Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference:
 

http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=7259
 

Highway Safety Improvement Programs (HSIP) 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual:
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/fhwasa09029.pdf
 

Highway Safety Manual:
 

http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org
 

SafetyAnalyst:
 

http://www.safetyanalyst.org
 

Crash Reduction Factors:
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/
 

63
 
 

 

 

 

 

Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Web Site:
 

http://www.cmfclearing house.org/
 

Highway Safety Peer-to-Peer Program:
 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/p2p/
 

Highway Safety Plans (HSP) 

Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies (DOT HS 811 025; 

August 2008): http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/ 

Articles/Associated%20Files/811025.pdf 

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State 

Highway Safety Offices: 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/enforcement/pdf/Countermeasures_HS811258.pdf 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSP) 

FMCSA Analysis and Information On-Line:
 

http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/
 

MCSAP Forms: 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/safety-initiatives/mcsap/mcsapforms.htm 

 Chapter 7 – Monitoring, Evaluation, and Feedback 

The Art of Appropriate Evaluation: A Guide for Highway Safety Program Managers 

(DOT HS 811 061; December 2008): 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/ArtofAppEvWeb/ 

64
 
Glossary
 

4E’s – The four disciplines that contribute to transportation safety: engineering,
 

enforcement, education, and emergency medical services (or emergency response).
 

AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
 

CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program.
 

CMV – Commercial Motor Vehicles.
 

CODES – Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System.
 

Countermeasure – A strategy designed to address a specific safety problem defi ned by
 

crash data. For example, to prevent roadway departure crashes, rumble strips are often
 

installed along roadways to alert drivers when they are leaving the traveled way.
 

CMF – Crash Modifi cation Factor.
 

CTSP – Community Traffic Safety Program.
 

CVSP – Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan.
 

DOT – Department of Transportation.
 

DPS – Department of Public Safety.
 

Emphasis Area – Emphasis areas are usually divided into 22 categories based on extensive
 

research by the AASHTO and National Cooperative Highway Research Program in their 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (NCHRP). These include infrastructure (e.g., utility pole 

collisions), crash types (e.g., head–on collisions, lane departures), behavior (e.g., alcohol, 

speeding, occupant protection), vehicle types (e.g., bicycles, motorcycles, heavy trucks), 

and at risk populations (e.g., young drivers, older drivers). Implementation guides have 

been developed for these emphasis areas and are available as 22 volumes of the NCHRP 

Report 500. 

FARS – Fatality Analysis Reporting System. National database of fatal crashes since 1975 

that allows detailed analysis of the driver, vehicle, involved persons, and crash. 

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration. 

65
 
FMCSA – Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Focuses on reducing crashes 

involving large trucks and buses. 

GES – General Estimates System. 

GHSA – Governors Highway Safety Association. 

HRRRP – High-Risk Rural Roads Program. 

HPMS – Highway Performance Monitoring System. 

HSIP – Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

HSM – Highway Safety Manual. 

HSP – Highway Safety Plan. 

IPM – Implementation Process Model. 

IT – Information Technology. 

LRTP – Long–Range Transportation Plan. 

LTAP – Local Technical Assistance Program. 

MCMIS – Motor Carrier Management Information System. 

MCSAP – Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. 

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding.
 

MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization. Required in all metropolitan areas with a
 

population of 50,000 or more, these agencies conduct regional transportation and other
 

planning activities and are required to develop the region’s Metropolitan Transportation
 

Plan.
 

NEMSIS – National Emergency Medical Services Information System.
 

NHTSA – National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Provides National and State
 

research and analysis on all aspects of transportation safety and funds many behavioral
 

efforts.
 

66
 
RHGX – Railway–Highway Grade Crossing Program.
 

RSA – Road Safety Audit. A formal safety performance examination of a roadway or
 

intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary audit team to identify the elements of 

the road that present safety concerns and opportunities for mitigation. 

SAFETEA–LU – Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A 

Legacy for Users.
 

SHSO – State Highway Safety Office.
 

SHSP – Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Required by SAFETEA–LU, these State
 

transportation safety plans include analysis of crash data to identify emphasis areas where 

a reduction in fatal and injury crashes is needed, as well as strategies for improvement. 

Plans must be developed via the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders representing 

the 4E’s of safety. 

STIP – State Transportation Improvement Program. Identifies projects from the State’s 

long–range transportation plan that are funded and will be implemented in the short 

term. 

TIP – Transportation Improvement Program. Identifies funded projects to be implemented 

in the short term from the MPOs regional transportation plan.
 

Traffic Records – System containing crash report data to enable safety problem
 

identification.
 

TRCC – Traffic Records Coordinating Committee.
 

TSP – Transportation Safety Planning.
 

UPWP – Unified Planning Work Program.
 

VIN – Vehicle Identifi cation Number.
 

VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled.
 

67