Fall 2019, Volume 13, Issue 3

 Message from the Associate Administrator for Safety, Cheryl Walker

Hello from the New Associate Administrator!

A big hello to the safety community! At the time that I am writing these words, it is my very first day as 

FHWA’s new Associate Administrator for Safety.

I have spent the last 8 months as the Director, Office of Safety Programs, at FHWA. In that role, I have 

met with a number of different people throughout the safety community. A common thread throughout 

these meetings is the level of passion and energy. When we are gathered as a group focused on 

reducing the fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways, that passion and energy is contagious. 

One recent example of this was at the National Safety Engineers Peer Exchange in Minneapolis in 

July, where almost 200 people came together to learn from one another by sharing information and 

experiences. (See page 3.) Among many other great topics in this issue, you’ll read about a lot of great 

things happening with our pedestrian safety program. You’ll find some state-specific examples, as well 

as the latest on assessing vehicle-to-pedestrian technologies. (See page 9.)

I hope that as you read through these articles, you will find helpful tips and references to online tools and resources FHWA 

offers on a variety of topics. I invite you to take a look at our Office of Safety web page https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ for many 

online tools and resources.

By working together, sharing information, and focusing our unstoppable passions and energy, we all can make a big difference 

in saving lives.

Risk and Safety

For those who do not know me, I was on detail to the Office of Safety this summer from the Office of 

Bridges and Structures where I have a 30-year career in bridge engineering. It is from that perspective 

I wanted to share what I, from my view as an outsider, have observed as to how risk is considered in 

the safety community. 

Most definitions quantify risk as a product of (1) the impact of consequence, and (2) the likelihood of 

occurrence. From an engineering perspective, this creates a two-dimensional area of solutions. Events 

of high impact or high likelihood may not necessarily be high risk. However, events of both high impact 

and high likelihood are high risk. However, events of both high impact and high likelihood are high risk.

Unlike engineering perspectives that typically consider probability when evaluating likelihood, political 

perspectives often consider possibility when evaluating likelihood. The political perspective reduces the 

engineer’s area of solutions to a line of solutions (isn’t math great?!).

While not all impacts are high impacts, any event of high impact, regardless of likelihood, is high risk.

Cheryl Walker

Associate Administrator 

for Safety

Joey Hartmann

Former Acting Associate 

Administrator for Safety
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 2 –

Unlike engineering perspectives that typically consider probability when evaluating likelihood, political perspectives often 

consider possibility when evaluating likelihood. The political perspective reduces the engineer’s area of solutions to a line of 

solutions (isn’t math great?!). While not all impacts are high impacts, any event of high impact, regardless of likelihood, is high 

risk.

The morality perspective is introduced into the risk evaluation when considering highway fatalities. Morality solely effects the 

evaluation of impact for highway fatalities; therefore, all impacts are high impacts, and all risks are high risks. Morality reduces 

the politician’s line of solutions to a single solution, a single point...a single life.

It is reasonable to rely on sound engineering. It is politically sensible to recognize that there are currently no absolutes in safety. 

It is morally sound to treat every fatality as unacceptable. What I have observed is that the safety community recognizes and 

employs all three defendable solutions when considering the context of the question being asked. 

At the recent National Safety Engineers Peer Exchange (see page 3 to learn more), I listened to several presentations and 

discussions about safety performance target setting. There were States that indicated that they set targets based on a 

reasonable expectation of what their programs could achieve based on the measured impact of strategies and countermeasures 

on fatalities. This is an engineering solution. There were also States that preferred to establish ambitious safety targets that were 

not reasonably achievable in the timeframe represented by the target, demonstrating a political decision. Lastly, there were the 

States that argued the moral solution—that the target should always be zero.

Finally, paraphrasing Mel Gibson just a little, if you focus your aim on a small part of your target, the single life, you have a better 

chance of hitting the overall target, all lives. I think that line works for moral, political, and engineering solutions. (Or, integrating 

a single point [a single life] results in a line. Integrating a line results in an area [all lives]...again, isn’t math great?!).

in this issue...

 Moving Toward Zero......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Getting to Zero Together: A National Safety Engineers Peer Exchange ............................................................................................................ 3

Partnerships...a Simple Word but Critical to Achieving Zero Deaths on our Roadways ............................................................................. 5

 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Is it a Plan? Is it a Policy? Is it a Program? Yes! It’s STEP Integration .................................................................................................................. 7

Bikeway Selection Guide: Accelerating the Delivery of Bicycle Networks ......................................................................................................... 8

ScRAM: Proactively Improving Safety............................................................................................................................................................................... 8

CV Program Studies Effectiveness of Emerging Pedestrian Technologies........................................................................................................ 9

 Assessment and Analysis.................................................................................................................................................10

Geometric Design Laboratory Uses IHSDM to Assist in Freeway Safety Analysis........................................................................................10

Assessing State Safety Data Capabilities.......................................................................................................................................................................10

A Holistic Approach to Roadway Safety Management ...........................................................................................................................................13

 Awards News ......................................................................................................................................................................15

Florida International University Student Receives 2019 Excellence in Highway Safety Data Award ....................................................15

Seven States Awarded ASAP Funding for Fiscal Year 2019...................................................................................................................................16

 Announcements.................................................................................................................................................................17

TPCB Offers New RSP Certification! ................................................................................................................................................................................17

Upcoming Conferences and Events ................................................................................................................................................................................18
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 3 –

MOVING TOWARD ZERO

Getting to Zero Together: A 

National Safety Engineers 

Peer Exchange

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

Safety, and Kim Eccles, P.E., VHB

On July 9, 10, and 11, nearly 200 

State Safety Engineers, FHWA, and 

American Association of State 

Highway Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) staff, and guests 

gathered together in Minneapolis, 

Minnesota, for a National Safety 

Engineers Peer Exchange. The peer 

exchange was jointly hosted by 

FHWA and AASHTO with the theme, 

Getting to Zero Together. The 

purpose of the peer exchange was 

to provide a forum for States to 

discuss and share ideas on various 

highway safety topics. 

Representatives from 48 States, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

attended the peer exchange. The 

peer exchange provided an 

opportunity for these safety 

practitioners to: 

• Advance the current state-of-thepractice for the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) 

and related safety programs.

• Increase technical capacity in 

FHWA safety priority areas.

• Provide support to States 

working to improve HSIP 

management, strategies, and 

countermeasure selections. 

The opening plenary session set the 

stage for the peer exchange by 

providing an overview of the three 

national zero initiatives – Road to 

Zero, Towards Zero Deaths, and 

Vision Zero, as well as a State 

perspective on the relationship 

between these initiatives and the 

State’s Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP) and HSIP. Jane Terry 

from the National Safety Council 

presented Road to Zero, and 

Michelle May from the Ohio 

Department of Transportation 

(ODOT) discussed AASHTO’s 

Towards Zero Deaths program, both 

providing a national perspective. 

Jane encouraged the audience to 

“double down on what works,” and 

Michelle challenged the audience to 

work toward zero with an innovative 

mindset by remembering that, “Good 

ideas are crazy—until they’re not.” 

Ryan Anderson from the City of 

Minneapolis provided a local 

perspective and discussed 

Minneapolis’s efforts to implement 

Vision Zero. Brad Estochen from the 

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation (MnDOT) drew 

together the themes from the other 

three presentations and discussed 

how Minnesota has made progress 

in the last few years through working 

with local agencies and using the 

SHSP to drive change. He also 

challenged the audience to try new 

approaches to improving highway 

safety and noted that, “There is no 

failure, only feedback.”

Following the plenary session, the 

participants broke out into discussion 

sessions that followed four technical 

tracks: safety management, 

countermeasure success stories, 

measuring and communicating the 

impact of the safety program, and 

data-driven safety analysis. State 

DOT participants presented on 

efforts in their States to begin each 

discussion session. Across each 

track, many themes emerged from 

these discussions, including 

obligation limits and authority, 

improving the project application and 

selection process for the HSIP, 

working with partners to turn 

strategic plans into actionable 

projects, data access and the role of 

transparency in increasing 

collaboration, communicating and 

educating the public and partners in 

highway safety efforts, and the 

relationship between the HSIP and 

the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program. 

A major theme of the conference 

was the importance of 

communication—particularly with 

Four Technical Tracks at the National Safety

Engineers Peer Exchange (Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 4 –

stakeholders without technical 

backgrounds. In the breakout 

session on intersections, Robert 

Miles, Utah DOT’s Director of Traffic 

Safety, counseled the audience, 

“You must engage with the public—

early, often, and more than you are 

comfortable doing. If you specifically 

choose to serve people, you will 

need to talk to them, hold their 

hands, and bring them along.”

The day two plenary session 

featured the safe systems approach 

to highway safety. Invited speaker 

Dr. Blair Turner, the Chief 

Technology Leader for Transport 

Safety at the Australian Road 

Research Board, discussed the Safe 

System and Vision Zero approach in 

Australia. He discussed the key 

principles of the safe systems 

approach and provided his insights 

on the supporting activities needed 

to ensure successful 

implementation. He noted that, “To 

get to zero deaths and serious 

injuries, we have to acknowledge 

that people make mistakes and 

embrace the shared responsibility 

and cultural shift needed to make 

real change.” He discussed the 

opportunities created by working 

across all “pillars” (i.e., safe roads, 

safe road users, safe vehicles, safe 

speed, and post-crash care) and 

allowing innovation in approaches 

and policies. This cultural shift 

means moving from blaming the 

drivers to accepting the shared 

responsibility, focusing on 

elimination of fatal and serious injury 

crashes instead of all crashes, 

proactively identifying risk instead of 

reacting to crashes, and 

approaching our work from a 

systems approach instead of within 

individual pillars. Following Blair’s 

presentation, John Milton, the 

Washington State Safety Engineer, 

and Brian Mayhew, the North 

Carolina State Traffic Safety 

Engineer, provided their 

perspectives on the application of 

the safe systems approach in the 

United States. Brian discussed the 

importance of speed management 

and kinetic energy management in 

preventing fatal crashes, which is 

particularly a concern on the rural 

roadways in North Carolina. He 

encouraged his peers to include the 

whole zero in their approach, noting 

that many zero deaths efforts in the 

United States today have focused on 

primarily pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes and have missed an 

opportunity to make progress across 

all fatal crash types. John shared 

that Washington was the first State 

to develop an SHSP with a zero 

fatality vision in 2000. At the time, he 

was heavily criticized for setting an 

“unattainable” vision but he noted, “I 

would rather have failed at trying to 

achieve zero than to never have 

tried.”

After the plenary panel, the 

participants broke out into more 

discussion sessions following the 

four technical tracks. In the 

afternoon of day two, the participants 

met with other States in their 

geographic regions, dividing into four 

regions—South, North, West, and 

Mid-America. During these regional 

discussions, the States posed 

questions to one another sharing 

best practices and discussing 

approaches to overcome shared

challenges. Examples of topics 

discussed included preparing for 

automated vehicles, data concerns 

in network screening, addressing 

wrong-way driving crashes, using 

specific strategies (e.g., rumble 

strips, safety edge, wider pavement 

markings, or high-friction surface 

treatment), and the project letting 

process. All of the regions expressed 

sincere interest in finding more ways 

to connect, share best practices, and 

meet regularly as a region. 

Beyond the discussion session, 

participants also exchanged 

information in the Collaboration 

Corner. States and FHWA brought 

publications and materials to share 

with their peers. The Collaboration 

Corner also included a selfie station 

and an interactive roundabout 

display. In addition to exchanging 

information with one another, the 

State representatives provided input 

to FHWA staff on topics such as 

marketing and communication, 

training, the FHWA Focused 

Approach to Safety, and the 

Railway-Highway Crossing Program. 

Peer Exchange Speaker, Dr. Blair. 

(Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 5 –

The closing session for day two 

looked to the future. What will the 

challenges be in five years, ten 

years, and beyond and what actions 

do we need to take today to prepare 

for those challenges? Three 

panelists—Joey Hartmann, the 

acting FHWA Associate 

Administrator for Safety; Mike 

Tooley, the Director of the Montana 

DOT and Chair of the AASHTO 

Committee on Safety; and Mike 

Griffith, the Director of the FHWA 

Office of Safety Technologies—

shared their thoughts on the future 

and how States can prepare for what 

will come. Joey stressed the 

importance of safety efforts reaching 

to local roads, noting that we cannot 

reach zero if we do not work with 

local agencies. He saw promise for 

the future in automation and noted 

that FHWA and others will work to 

determine the impacts of automated 

vehicles on existing roadways. Mike 

Tooley reminded his peers about 

Michelle May’s challenge for the 

audience the day before and 

encouraged everyone to “Do 

something crazy, do something 

different. We have the biggest 

responsibilities in the world —

saving lives.” Mike Griffith 

discussed the challenges and 

opportunities that he saw across 

road users, infrastructure, and 

technology. He compared the United 

States fatality rate of 12 fatalities per 

100,000 population to Australia and 

Western Europe’s fatality rates of 5 

and 3, respectively. He noted that, if 

we can reach these rates, we can 

save approximately 25,000 lives a 

year.

On the third day of the peer 

exchange, the participants 

participated in workshops and 

technical visits. The workshops 

included Driving FoRRRwD (Focus 

on Reducing Rural Roadway 

Departures), Performance Based 

Intersection Design and Operations, 

and Safe Transportation for Every 

Pedestrian. The technical visits 

included a tour of the University of 

Minnesota’s HumanFirst Lab, a 

guided walking tour of Minneapolis’s 

pedestrian and bicycle 

improvements, and a tour of 3M’s 

Innovation Center.

To close out the conference, the 

participants at the National Safety 

Engineers Peer Exchange 

participated in the first ever National 

Traffic Safety Bowl. Four 

contestants, one from each of the 

regions, faced off in a 25-question 

jeopardy-style quiz game. The 

contestants were selected for each 

region by winning a qualifying State 

transportation trivia game. Sean 

Raymond from the Rhode Island 

DOT represented the North region; 

Michael Vaughn from the Kentucky 

Transportation Cabinet represented 

the South region; Sonja Piper from 

the host State of Minnesota 

represented the Mid-America region; 

and Jeff Mills from the Utah DOT 

represented the West Region. In a 

very close finish, Michael Vaughn 

came from second place in the final 

round to win the title of National 

Champion Traffic Safety Bowler 

when he correctly answered that 

2005 was the year the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program was 

established as a core Federal-aid 

program by the SAFETEA-LU 

legislation. The other contestants 

congratulated Michael but looked 

forward to a future opportunity to 

challenge him for the title. 

For more information about the peer 

exchange, please contact Karen 

Scurry at karen.scurry@dot.gov. 

Partnerships...a Simple 

Word but Critical to 

Achieving Zero Deaths on 

our Roadways

By Norah Ocel, P.E., FHWA Office of Safety

In looking towards our transportation 

future, we emphasize innovation, 

what’s next, and what will 

revolutionize roadway safety. 

Innovation is crucial, but the tried 

and true impact of working together 

toward a common goal is also 

important. That is what partnerships 

are all about. 

FHWA’s Office of Safety has always 

recognized the critical role of 

partnerships in advancing roadway 

safety. With the advent of the 

Towards Zero Deaths vision that is 

Technical visits with participants.

(Source: FHWA)

Traffic Safety Bowl. (Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 6 –

gaining momentum across the 

United States, working together 

across the 4 ‘E’s of transportation 

safety (engineering, enforcement, 

education, and emergency 

response) is more important than 

ever. It is a fundamental element to 

reaching zero deaths and serious 

injuries on our roadways.

One collaborative approach to 

reaching the zero goal is the safe 

systems approach, which 

acknowledges human fallibility and 

the shared responsibility we all have 

as part of the system (highway 

designers, users, and vehicles). 

While we move towards a safe 

systems approach, we continue to 

use data to make informed 

decisions, develop policies and 

regulations, and implement safety 

countermeasures to save lives. We 

also focus on maintaining and 

broadening our partnerships through 

a variety of venues in the 

transportation community.

For instance, FHWA is partnering 

with the National Safety Council to 

assist with its Road to Zero 

Coalition. Many agencies and private 

sector organizations are part of this 

coalition, whose goal is zero road 

fatalities by the year 2050. The 

FHWA Office of Safety continues to 

support this coalition by being an 

integral part of promoting and 

implementing its three core 

strategies—double down on what 

works, accelerate advanced 

technology, and prioritize safety—

and providing technical support for 

each one of them.

Through the years, the Office of 

Safety has met with non-profit 

organizations to discuss topics 

related to safety on our roadways. 

These interactions serve as a 

platform to share information and 

best practices, but also to spark 

innovative ways to improve safety. 

The Office of Safety also 

collaborates with other Federal 

agencies, such as the National 

Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration and Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration to 

discuss how we can be better 

partners across the 4Es of highway 

safety.

The importance of our partners is 

celebrated through the National 

Roadway Safety Awards, which is 

co-sponsored by FHWA’s Office of 

Safety and the Roadway Safety 

Foundation. These awards honor 

agencies/organizations in the 

transportation community that have 

made significant strides towards 

zero deaths and serious injuries on 

our nation's roadways. 

Every two years, this prestigious 

awards program examines the “best 

of the best” projects based on 

criteria including effectiveness, 

innovation, and efficient use of 

resources. For more than two 

decades, this program has provided 

the winning teams with welldeserved top industry honors and 

helped shine a spotlight on these 

heroes of highway safety. Selected 

projects are included in a noteworthy 

practices guide so they can be 

replicated nationwide.

In closing, partnership is sometimes 

defined as a contractual relationship 

between two or more persons 

associated as joint principals in a 

business. In our case, we are all joint 

principals in the business of saving 

lives. It takes the right personalities, 

energy, and purpose to make 

partnerships last through the years 

to achieve a common goal. Once 

formed, strong partnerships are a 

simple yet critical tool in safety, and 

what better outcome than getting to 

zero together.

For more information about the 

partnership initiatives, please contact 

Norah Ocel at norah.ocel@dot.gov.

Road to Zero. (Source: National 

Safety Coalition)

Meeting with stakeholders to discuss 

latest headlight research and testing.

(Source: FHWA)

National Roadway Safety Awards. 

(Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 7 –

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY

Is it a Plan? Is it a Policy? Is 

it a Program? Yes! It’s STEP 

Integration

By Becky Crowe, FHWA Office of Safety

As part of the FHWA Safe 

Transportation for Every Pedestrian 

(STEP) program, 22 State 

Departments of Transportation 

(DOTs) have been working with 

FHWA representatives to develop 

action plans aimed at improving 

pedestrian safety at uncontrolled 

locations. FHWA staff conducted a 

series of one-day, in-person 

meetings with State agency staff to 

discuss current State DOT plans, 

policies, designs, and programs to 

identify strengths and weaknesses, a 

precursor to determining the types of

recommendations that would be 

included in the action plans. It was 

during this phase of the planning 

process that several State DOTs 

shared noteworthy practices on how 

they integrate STEP into existing 

State plans, policies, and programs. 

FHWA developed one-page 

summaries to briefly highlight these 

practices and how they improve 

pedestrian safety at uncontrolled 

locations.

During the STEP Action Plan 

meetings, officials discussed the 

extent to which agency design 

manuals include pedestrian crossing 

features (e.g., refuge islands or 

raised crosswalks). Most of the State 

DOT design manuals reviewed 

either missed guidance related to 

one or more recommended STEP 

countermeasures or included out-ofdate design guidance. The 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) Design 

Manual emerged as being one of the 

strongest pedestrian-safety State 

DOT design manuals reviewed 

because of its emphasis on 

pedestrian safety countermeasures. 

The WSDOT Design Manual 

provides flexible and contextsensitive design policies and 

guidance that provide engineers the 

tools they need to design for 

multimodal needs and safety.

Several States have Complete 

Streets policies or design guides that 

were reviewed during the in-person 

meetings. The New Jersey 

Department of Transportation 

(NJDOT) Complete Streets Design 

Guide stood out as an exemplary 

resource for engineers and planners. 

The guide includes a toolbox with 

pedestrian safety improvements 

tailored to meet multimodal and 

community needs. NJDOT’s 

Complete Streets Design Guide pulls 

from a variety of national design 

guides, emphasizes the role of 

context and flexibility during the 

design process, and describes the 

benefits and applications of 

numerous design options. The guide 

provides detailed recommendations 

on most of the STEP 

countermeasures and includes 

public education and programmatic 

recommendations. 

Several State DOTs leverage 

Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) funding to focus on 

pedestrian safety improvements. For 

example, the Tennessee 

Department of Transportation 

(TDOT) reserves HSIP funding for 

the implementation of pedestrian 

safety countermeasures—a 

percentage of HSIP funding that is 

roughly proportionate to the 

percentage of serious and fatal 

crashes involving pedestrians. TDOT 

has also committed to including 

pedestrian safety countermeasures 

in all HSIP-funded projects (where 

applicable), including those mostly 

directed toward improving motorist 

safety. 

The Connecticut Department of 

Transportation (CTDOT) has taken a 

more programmatic approach. By 

updating every crosswalk on the 

State highway system with highvisibility crosswalk markings and 

warning signs, CTDOT has 

surpassed spending 10 percent of 

HSIP funds. Pedestrian safety is 

included in many of Connecticut’s 

plans and policies, such as its 

Complete Streets Policy, Statewide 

Pedestrian Plan, and the Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The 

engineering and design efforts 

included in those policies and plans 

are largely funded as initiatives 

through HSIP. 

The following list includes the 

participating State DOTs and the 

22 State Departments of 

Transportation (DOTs) have been 

working with FHWA representatives to 

develop action plans aimed at 

improving pedestrian safety at 

uncontrolled locations.

- Becky Crowe, FHWA Office of Safety
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 8 –

topics that were included in the eight 

best practices summaries

• Alabama DOT: Statewide Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Plan.

• Arizona DOT: Pedestrian Safety 

Action Plan.

• CTDOT and TDOT: HSIPs.

• Louisiana Department of 

Development: Complete Streets 

Policy Update.

• Maine DOT: Rectangular Rapid 

Flash Beacons.

• NJDOT: Complete Streets 

Design Guide.

• Virginia DOT: 2017-2021.

• WSDOT: Design Manual.

For more information about how 

STEP is integrated into DOT policy, 

and to view the STEP one-page 

summaries, visit the FHWA Office of 

Safety STEP Program page or 

contact Becky Crowe at 

rebecca.crowe@dot.gov. 

Bikeway Selection Guide: 

Accelerating the Delivery of 

Bicycle Networks

By Tamara Redmon, FHWA Office of Safety

FHWA recently released its Bikeway 

Selection Guide, a resource to help 

transportation practitioners make 

decisions that accelerate the delivery 

of high-quality bicycle networks. 

As part of the project, FHWA hosted 

a webinar on March 26, 2019. The 

webinar’s strong attendance of 

around 600 demonstrated the 

interest of State and localities in 

better accommodating bicyclists. 

The webinar shared details about 

the guide, related FHWA resources, 

and technical assistance and training 

available to local and State 

agencies. The webinar was recorded 

and can be viewed at the Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Information Center 

website. Copies of the presentations 

can also be downloaded from that 

website.

As a result of the webinar, FHWA 

received 245 requests from those 

interested in more information about 

a workshop. These requests were 

narrowed down and formed the 

basis for a summer schedule of 

workshops in Northeast and 

Northwest Arkansas; El Paso, 

Texas; Hampton Roads, Virginia; 

Ohio; Pennsylvania; and North 

Carolina. Several other technical 

assistance sessions will be 

scheduled for later in the year.

FHWA discovered that States and 

localities are already starting to use 

the guide to update their own guides 

and plans, enhance training courses, 

and justify street re-configurations. 

For example:

• The Minnesota Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used the 

guide to update its bikeway 

design manual.

• East Baton Rouge Parish, 

Louisiana, is developing a 

Bike/Pedestrian Masterplan.

• The City of La Crosse, 

Wisconsin, when meeting 

opposition, cited the guide as a 

reason for deciding to put bike 

lanes on a busy street.

• The city of Arlington, Virginia, 

referenced the guide in its 

Transportation Master Plan 

adopted on April 23, 2019.

• The Michigan DOT is 

incorporating information from 

the guide into its Training Wheels 

3.0 Course, being developed.

Is your State or locality using the 

new guide? If so, please let us know. 

Contact tamara.redmon@dot.gov.

ScRAM: Proactively 

Improving Safety

By Tamara Redmon, FHWA Office of Safety

The FHWA recently published the 

Guide for Scalable Risk Assessment 

Methods for Pedestrians and 

Bicyclists (ScRAM), which outlines 

eight sequential steps to develop risk 

values. Practitioners can use this 

easy-to-follow, step-by-step scalable 

risk assessment method to evaluate 

pedestrian and bicyclist risk at 

different geographic scales to inform 

program and project funding 

decisions. 

The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning 

Commission (MORPC) recently 

completed a pilot project that tested 

the processes and methodologies 

outlined in the ScRAM Guide. With a 

Bikeway selection guide.

(Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 9 –

network of over 200 miles of trails, 

the Central Ohio Greenways (COG) 

comprises a significant portion of the 

region's pedestrian and bicycle 

network. COG trails are mostly 

separated from road rights-of-way, 

but trail users have the potential to 

come into conflict with motorized 

vehicles at trail access points and atgrade roadway crossings. While 

MORPC was aware of the risk, it had 

not developed a method to 

understand, quantify, and address it 

prior to this study. The team followed 

the ScRAM Guide to develop a 

numeric index quantifying the risk 

experienced by non-motorized users 

of the COG trail network within the 

metropolitan planning organizations 

boundary. The risk index establishes 

a methodology for prioritizing trail 

crossings and access points in need 

of advanced facilities and 

treatments. 

MORPC calculated risk experienced 

by non-motorized users at 110 

regional trail crossings and access 

points based on extrapolated trail 

count data and roadway user 

volumes. Staff estimated volumes on 

roadways without count data using 

Statewide averages by roadway 

functional classification. The risk 

index will allow MORPC to prioritize 

locations for safety investments, 

allowing the organization to engage 

in a more proactive approach to 

improving the safety of the nonmotorized users. 

Training sessions were held in Ft. 

Lauderdale, Florida (October 2018); 

Denver, Colorado (November 2018); 

Reno, Nevada (December 2018); 

Augusta, Maine (April 2019); Hawaii 

(April 2019); and Tulsa, Oklahoma 

(June 2019). Technical assistance is 

available for the next year. Please 

contact tamara.redmon@dot.gov if 

you are interested in learning more.

CV Program Studies 

Effectiveness of Emerging 

Pedestrian Technologies

By Karen Timpone, FHWA Office of Safety

For the past decade, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

Connected Vehicle (CV) Research 

Program has paid special attention 

to mitigating conflicts between 

vehicles and pedestrians. The 

purpose of the vehicle-to-pedestrian 

(V2P) component of the CV research 

program is to address the safety 

issues that arise between vulnerable 

users and vehicles.

However, given that V2P 

technologies are relatively new and 

not yet widespread, it is necessary to 

assess the effectiveness of V2P 

technologies. As a result, DOT has 

developed a Pedestrian Technology 

Test Bed at the Turner-Fairbank 

Highway Research Center (TFHRC) 

in McLean, Virginia, to test available 

technologies for market readiness 

and real-world implementation.

The objectives of this research 

include:

• Developing a standardized and 

flexible assessment plan strategy 

and establishing a robust 

Pedestrian Technology Test Bed 

at TFHRC in McLean, Virginia.

• Acquiring and assessing a variety 

of market-ready V2P systems 

and documenting their safety 

effectiveness.

• Communicating to stakeholders 

the potential value of the 

Pedestrian Technology Test Bed 

and assessment plan for 

evaluating the safety 

effectiveness of market-ready 

V2P technologies, as well as 

associated research findings, to 

stakeholders.

In March of this year, FHWA 

conducted a webinar to present the 

findings of this study to an array of 

agency safety, policy and planning 

staff; equipment and technology 

developers, manufacturers, and 

vendors; and other groups that 

represent the interests of vulnerable 

road users. During this webinar, 

presenters provided an overview of 

V2P systems and the establishment 

of the TFHRC V2P Technology Test 

Bed, presented preliminary results 

from the safety effectiveness 

evaluation of market-ready V2P 

systems, shared an overall 

assessment of the evaluated V2P 

technologies, discussed future 

directions, and solicited feedback 

from attendees.

V2P technologies are able to detect 

pedestrians and alert the vehicle 

drivers through visual, audible, or 

haptic feedback, enabling them to act 

(applying brakes, slowing down, etc.) 

to prevent a collision. These 

technologies use an array of system 

types for identifying and 

communicating pedestrian presence, 

including:

• Direct wireless 

communications.

• Optical camera-based 

image processing.

• Infrared sensors.

• Infrastructure-based 

sensors.

• Laser-based sensors.

• Mobile phone networks.

• Motion sensors.
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 10 –

FHWA also held a panel discussion 

on the topic at ITS America 2019 in 

June and developed a poster that 

was presented at the 2019 

Automated Vehicle Symposium in 

July. 

The results of this research, which 

will be published in early fall 2019 in 

the Pedestrian Technology Test Bed 

Phase II Final Report, represent an 

important step in evaluating the 

strengths and weaknesses of highly 

diverse pedestrian safety and V2P 

implementations. Framing the safety 

effectiveness of technologies within 

a common perspective of 

accessibility, functionality, and 

applicability to known high-risk 

scenarios enables researchers to 

advance the development and 

effectiveness of safety technology 

for vulnerable road users.

The assessment plan developed 

under this project will be further 

enhanced as more commercial V2P 

technologies become available for 

testing. In the meantime, FHWA will 

continue to increase the capabilities 

of the FHWA V2P Technology Test 

Bed to improve its reliability and 

enhance its capacity to test more 

advanced V2P technologies.

To learn more about the Pedestrian 

Technology Test Bed or this 

research effort, please contact Karen 

Timpone at karen.timpone@dot.gov.

ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

Geometric Design 

Laboratory Uses IHSDM to 

Assist in Freeway Safety 

Analysis

By Abdul Zineddin, FHWA Office of Safety 

Research and Development

The Geometric Design Laboratory 

(GDL) at the FHWA Turner-Fairbank 

Highway Research Center and 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) are 

teaming to perform a study that 

could demonstrate the usefulness of 

the Interactive Highway Safety 

Design Model (IHSDM) safety and 

analysis tool. The study applies 

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Part 

C crash prediction methods to 

examine existing conditions along a 

4 mile section of the Interstate 5 (I-5) 

freeway in Bellingham, Washington, 

including mainline freeway segments 

and ramps at five interchanges. The 

goal of the IHSDM analysis is to 

provide input to WSDOT for 

evaluating the safety of the existing 

I-5 corridor, and potentially for 

developing future design 

alternatives.

The GDL is using data provided by 

WSDOT to build and evaluate 

highway models using the IHSDM. 

WSDOT collected the required data 

(e.g., curve data; cross-sections of 

lanes, shoulders, and medians; 

median and barriers; traffic volumes; 

crash data, etc.) with technical 

support from the GDL. The GDL 

then used WSDOT’s data to build 

highway models in IHSDM for the I-5 

freeway section and interchanges. 

WSDOT chose this portion of I-5 

after performing a qualitative 

collision analysis of the surrounding 

corridor. The WSDOT planning team 

recognizes that issues on I-5 are 

interconnected with the surrounding 

State route and local road network. 

To examine the results of the 

analysis, the GDL team conducted a 

webinar on May 15, 2019, with key 

WSDOT staff. WSDOT will use the 

results of the safety analysis to 

determine if there are any safety 

issues that warrant further 

investigation. The results will help 

WSDOT evaluate how the subject 

location is performing in comparison 

with other stretches of similar 

freeways. 

Other States can learn from the 

process used to perform the safety 

analysis and the research conducted 

by WSDOT. The results may also be 

used to identify potential safety 

countermeasures and to develop 

alternative designs. The GDL could 

assist WSDOT in conducting a 

safety analysis of any future 

proposed alternative designs.

For more information, contact Abdul 

Zineddin, 202-493-3288, 

Abdul.Zineddin@dot.gov. 

Assessing State Safety Data 

Capabilities

By Esther Strawder, FHWA Office of Safety, 

and Bob Scopaz and Catherine Chestnutt, 

VHB

Highway safety practice is constantly 

evolving. Access to timely, accurate, 

complete, uniform, and integrated 

data has never been more crucial to 

States’ safety decision making. 

Every State is working toward an allpublic roads database that contains 

information on roadway attributes, 
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 11 –

traffic volumes, and crashes. When 

these core data sets are merged 

together, they support advanced 

methods and tools for safety 

analysis. The resulting analyses 

support decision makers’ efforts in 

reducing crashes, injuries, and 

fatalities. 

In 2012, FHWA conducted the first 

capabilities assessment program 

with every State, plus Washington 

D.C. and Puerto Rico. The 

assessment helped States and the 

FHWA Office of Safety plan data 

improvements. The FHWA Office of 

Safety used the results to establish 

the Roadway Safety Data Program. 

This program features a one-stop 

website where practitioners can 

access training, guidance 

documents, noteworthy practices, 

case studies, tool descriptions, and 

technical assistance for data 

improvement efforts. 

FHWA repeated the process—

referred to as the second United 

States roadway safety data 

capabilities assessment (CAP2)—

with States over the course of 2017 

and 2018. The purpose of the new 

assessment was to review progress 

and identify needs in the key focus 

areas of: 

• Roadway safety data 

collection/technical standards.

• Data analysis tools and uses.

• Data management and 

governance.

• Data integration.

• Performance management.

Methodology Behind the CAP2 

Assessment

Each State capability assessment 

consisted of three meetings (kickoff, 

assessment, and action plan) with 

each of the 50 States, Puerto Rico, 

and Washington, D.C.

Contractor assessment teams were 

trained on the assessment process, 

gathered information on existing 

sources, and provided their pre-filled 

questionnaires before meeting with 

their assigned States. Next, the 

assessment team worked with the 

State to review and complete the 

entire questionnaire. Each State was 

scored using a five-level capability 

maturity model (CMM) to describe 

the current capabilities of each State 

in the five key focus areas. 

Following the assessment, the 

teams scheduled a final meeting with 

their States to review the CMM 

scores and discuss goals and 

possible actions that the State could 

take to improve capabilities over the 

next several years. The teams then 

created an action plan for each State 

providing them with their agreedupon scores, goals, and priority 

actions. States also used the final 

meeting as an opportunity to suggest 

topics for peer exchanges scheduled 

for completion in Summer 2019.

CAP2 Findings

The project final report provides an 

overview of key findings based on 

the CAP2 assessment. While each 

State is unique, there are some 

commonalities in the final results. 

Data quality management and data 

governance are not formal parts of 

how agencies do business. Local 

data completeness and safety 

analysis for local roads continue to 

lag behind the same attributes for 

the State-maintained system. States 

found value in assembling multiple 

agencies and professionals together 

to respond to the assessment 

questions and set goals. The State 

meetings and peer exchanges 

provided valuable discussions of 

plans and goals.

The chart below shows a side-byside comparison of the national 

average capability scores for all 

sections of the assessment, making 

it easy to spot gaps in State 

capabilities. The inverted triangles in 

the chart show the corresponding 

results reported in the 2012 

capabilities assessment. For Area I, 

the triangles show the single score 

for each data quality attribute 

because these were not separately 

scored for data and CMM, as was 

done in this assessment. The 

performance management scores 

(Area 5) were not collected in the 

first round; therefore, no prior scores 

are indicated. On average, States 

scored high in data quality 

(timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 

and uniformity), but noticeably lower 

in formally managing these data 

quality attributes. Nationally, States 

also achieved relatively high scores 

in network screening methods and 

data, safety diagnosis and safety 

evaluation, spatial data integration 

and expandability, and performance 

management coordination and data. 

States scored relatively lower in data 

“Access to timely, accurate, 

complete, uniform, and 

integrated data has never been 

more crucial to States’ safety 

decision making.”

- Esther Strawder, FHWA Office 

of Safety 
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 12 –

quality management, 

countermeasure selection, data 

management and governance roles 

and responsibilities, and 

performance management analysis 

capabilities. These comparisons 

suggest areas for increased focus by 

States and FHWA.

Advancing Data Capability

States used the CAP2 process to 

plan data capability improvements 

and provide recommendations for

the Office of Safety. Ultimately, 

FHWA can use the results of the 

CAP2 project to identify common 

needs among the States and to see 

how best to tailor assistance to the 

needs of specific States. States can 

use their action plans when they 

develop their safety- and datarelated strategic plans (e.g., the 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan and 

Traffic Records Strategic Plan). The 

2019 peer exchanges help FHWA 

and States set priorities and identify 

the most needed types of assistance 

and preferred delivery mechanisms.

For more information, please contact 

Esther Strawder at 

esther.strawder@dot.gov. 

National average baseline for State data capability. (Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 13 –

A Holistic Approach to 

Roadway Safety 

Management 

By Stuart Thompson, FHWA Office of Safety, 

and Frank Gross and Tim Harmon, VHB

The intent of a roadway safety 

management program is to identify 

and improve sites expected to 

benefit the most from targeted, costeffective treatments. The following 

are two complementary approaches 

that together represent a holistic 

approach to managing roadway 

safety:

1. Spot approach: select and 

treat sites based on site-specific 

crashes.

2. Systemic approach: select 

and treat sites based on sitespecific geometric and 

operational attributes known to 

increase crash risk.

The spot approach allows for highercost and higher-effectiveness 

projects, particularly when targeting 

high-crash locations. The systemic 

approach provides an opportunity to 

address many locations through 

relatively lower-cost projects. While 

spot projects have the potential to 

produce large crash reductions at 

the treated locations, these projects 

also carry a higher investment risk 

due to the higher cost. Systemic 

projects are typically less effective 

(i.e., reduce fewer crashes) per site 

compared to the spot approach; 

however, systemic projects have the 

potential for large crash reductions 

at the network level. The figure at 

right illustrates the differences and 

the need to find an appropriate 

balance between the two 

approaches.

The Challenge

Safety program managers are 

challenged with selecting projects 

and allocating resources to 

maximize the program’s return on 

investment. Agencies can address a 

few higher-crash locations with 

higher-cost improvements, address 

many lower-crash locations with 

lower-cost improvements, or some 

combination of the two. A common 

question is how to allocate funding 

between spot and systemic projects 

to achieve the maximum return on 

investment, improve safety 

performance, and make progress 

toward strategic objectives.

The figure on the next page

illustrates a typical distribution for 

expected fatal and injury crashes 

across a State highway network. All 

sites are predicted to have some 

level of crash frequency, but 

relatively few sites have many 

expected crashes, and many sites 

have few expected crashes. The 

goal of a highway safety program is 

to reduce the area under the curve—

by basic calculus, this area reflects 

the overall safety performance of the 

network, represented here by the 

expected fatal and injury crashes.

Agencies have many options for 

achieving the goal of reducing fatal 

and serious injury crashes. Each 

option (i.e., portfolio of projects) will 

vary in terms of the cost and 

expected effectiveness. High-cost 

projects may be a sound investment 

at sites with the highest expected 

crashes, particularly when there is a 

clear opportunity for a large crash 

reduction. High-cost investments do 

not present the same potential return 

at sites with lower expected crash 

frequencies, however. Instead, an 

investment strategy focused on lowcost improvements with a modest 

return on investment per site may be 

more appropriate to address sites 

with lower expected crash 

frequencies. This helps to gain some 

economies of scale with respect to 

mobilization, preliminary 

engineering, and other planning 

costs.

In either case, a program based 

solely on spot projects or solely on 

systemic projects will not achieve the 

goal of significantly reducing traffic 

Framework for identifying breaking point for

high-cost and low-cost projects. (Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 14 –

fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads. While spot projects 

have the potential to substantially 

reduce crashes at a given location, 

this will have limited impact on the 

safety performance of the entire 

system. Lower-cost projects can 

produce a substantial impact on the 

safety performance of the system; 

however, there may be a need for 

higher-cost improvements to 

effectively address the underlying 

crash contributing factors at 

locations with the highest expected 

crashes.

The Opportunity

To implement the holistic approach, 

agencies need to apply a benefitcost framework based on estimated 

project costs, historical project 

effectiveness, and average crash 

costs. This framework can be 

applied at the project level (e.g., 

identifying the most cost-effective 

countermeasure for a given location) 

or program level (e.g., identifying the 

most cost-effective group of projects 

within a program budget). 

As an example, consider different 

investment options for a $3 million 

safety program. The table below

provides project costs, estimated 

benefits, and benefit-cost ratios for 

several proposed projects. Proposed 

projects A, B, and C are based on 

the spot approach, while proposed 

projects 1, 2, and 3 are based on the 

systemic approach. There are 

numerous combinations of 

investment options for a $3 million 

budget, and different options provide 

different returns on investment. 

Investing completely in the spot 

projects (A, B, and C), the total cost 

is $3 million, the total benefit is $30 

million, and the benefit-cost ratio is 

10:1. Investing completely in the 

systemic projects (1, 2, and 3), the 

total cost is $3 million, the total 

benefit is $30 million, and the 

benefit-cost ratio is 10:1. However, 

given this level of information for 

each proposed project, an agency

could select the most cost-effective 

projects that fit within the budget to 

maximize the return on investment. 

In this case, the agency would select 

spot project A, systemic project 1, 

and systemic project 2, resulting in a 

total cost of $3 million, total benefit 

of $37 million, and benefit-cost ratio 

of 37:1. 

This type of framework is possible 

within the current capabilities of 

many transportation agencies. 

Agencies commonly estimate 

construction and maintenance costs 

as part of the project development 

process. Historical crash data and 

tools such as the Highway Safety 

Manual also make it possible to 

estimate the future safety 

performance of the no-build 

scenario. If an agency can determine 

the average project effectiveness 

and average crash costs, it is 

possible to estimate the future safety 

performance and monetary benefit of 

the proposed project. With this 

information, analysts can compare 

spot and systemic projects based on 

the benefit-cost ratio.

Statewide distribution of expected fatal and injury crashes. (Source: FHWA)

Proposed Projects Coverage Project Cost Estimated 

Benefit

BenefitCost Ratio

Spot Project A 1 intersection $1,000,000 $11,000,000 11:1

Spot Project B 1 intersection $1,000,000 $10,000,000 10:1

Spot Project C 1 intersection $1,000,000 $9,000,000 9:1

Systemic Project 1 100 intersections $1,000,000 $14,000,000 14:1

Systemic Project 2 100 intersections $1,000,000 $12,000,000 12:1

Systemic Project 3 100 intersections $1,000,000 $4,000,000 4:1

Example investment options.
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 15 –

Summary

A holistic approach to managing 

roadway safety includes both spot 

and systemic projects. The spot 

approach helps agencies select 

projects that potentially cost more 

but also have greater potential 

effectiveness, particularly when 

targeting high-crash locations. The 

systemic approach enables agencies 

to address many locations through 

relatively lower-cost projects. Both 

approaches focus on preventing 

future crashes and reducing fatalities 

and injuries. Another commonality is 

focusing on sites with the greatest 

potential for safety improvement.

Regardless of which approach an 

agency uses, it is important to use 

reliable, data-driven methods to 

inform decisions and identify the 

optimal combination of projects to 

achieve a significant reduction in 

fatal and serious injury crashes.

For more information about how to 

implement a holistic, data-driven 

approach to managing roadway 

safety, contact Stuart Thompson at 

stuart.thompson@dot.gov.

AWARDS NEWS

Florida International 

University Student Receives 

2019 Excellence in Highway 

Safety Data Award

By Caroline Mozingo, UNC Highway Safety 

Research Center

Congratulations to Florida 

International University Ph.D. 

candidate Seyedmirsajad 

Mokhtarimousavi, who received first 

place for the 2019 Highway Safety 

Information System (HSIS) 

Excellence in Highway Safety Data 

Award competition. The winning 

paper, “A Time of Day Analysis of 

Pedestrian-Involved Crashes in 

California: Investigation of Injury 

Severity, a Logistic Regression and 

Machine Learning Approach Using 

HSIS Data,” explores the 

contributing factors for pedestrianinvolved crashes in California. 

Mokhtarimousavi was recognized 

during the Award Luncheon at the 

2019 Joint Institute of Transportation 

Engineers (ITE) International and 

Texas District Annual Meeting and 

Exhibit in Austin, Texas.

The HSIS Excellence in Highway 

Safety Data Award is part of the 

Highway Data Analysis Excellence 

Awards Program, which is jointly 

administered by the FHWA and ITE. 

It was created to introduce future 

highway safety professionals to the 

HSIS safety database, which 

contains crash, roadway inventory,

and traffic volume data for a select 

group of States and cities. FHWA 

uses the HSIS to support the FHWA 

safety research program and 

To Learn More, Check Out These Resources!

FHWA’s Roadway Safety Data Program Toolbox contains a number of resources to support the holistic approach to safety management. The 

following are select tools to support benefit-cost analysis, which is a cornerstone of a data-driven holistic approach to roadway safety 

management.

Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide and Tool (FHWA-SA-18-001). This guide can assist transportation agencies in making consistent 

and sound investment decisions. The companion software tool is an Excel-based application that supports implementation of the methods 

described and demonstrated in the guide. The guide and tool will help users to quantify the costs and direct and indirect safety-related benefits 

of project alternatives. The tool is intended for project-level analysis of single or multiple improvements at a given location. It can also support 

network-level economic analysis for projects that include multiple locations (e.g., systemic improvements).

Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis (FHWA-SA-17-071). This guide describes the various sources of crash costs, current practices and 

crash costs used by States, and critical considerations when modifying and applying crash unit costs, and explores the feasibility of 

establishing national crash unit cost values.

Excellence in Highway Safety Data 

Award winners. (Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 16 –

provides input for program policy 

decisions.

“This year’s winning paper is a great 

illustration of how the HSIS database 

allows young researchers to gain 

insights into and explore 

transportation safety topics of 

interest to them,” said Brian Cronin, 

FHWA’s Director, Office of Safety 

and Operations Research and 

Development (R&D). “The goal of 

the awards program is to inspire 

university students to use HSIS data 

to investigate a topic that advances 

highway safety, and we hope these 

young researchers will continue 

exploring important transportation 

safety challenges in the future.”

“I used the HSIS database to 

investigate pedestrian-involved 

crashes in California by time-of-day,” 

explained Mokhtarimousavi, “which 

was interesting and important to me 

because, in recent years, California 

has ranked among the States with 

the highest pedestrian fatalities in 

traffic crashes across the country.” 

Congratulations also go out to 

Alyssa Ryan, University of 

Massachusetts Amherst, for the 

paper “Evaluating Crash Type 

Likelihood at Various Control 

Devices: A Multinomial Logistic 

Regression Using HSIS Data,” which 

took second place, and Jianqing Wu, 

University of Nevada, Reno, who 

received third-place honors for the 

paper “Analysis of Crash Severity for 

Hazard Material Transportation 

Using Highway Safety Information 

System Data.”

This year’s HSIS Excellence in 

Highway Safety Data winning paper 

will be published in the October 2019 

issue of ITE Journal.

More information about the HSIS 

Excellence in Highway Safety Data 

Award is available at 

https://www.hsisinfo.org/award.

Seven States Awarded ASAP 

Funding for Fiscal Year 2019

By Esther Strawder, FHWA Office of Safety

The Accelerating Safety Activities 

Program (ASAP) specifically 

supports the goal of promoting 

safety innovation through training, 

outreach, and education focusing on 

roadway departure, intersection, and 

pedestrian and bicycle safety. 

The program also promotes 

partnerships between FHWA, State 

Departments of Transportation, local 

and Tribal technical assistance 

programs, and local transportation 

agencies. 

Currently, ASAP funding is only 

available to the 23 States eligible to 

participate in the Focused Approach 

to Safety. 

The Office of Safety awarded nine 

projects from seven States with 

Fiscal Year 2019 ASAP funding 

totaling $140,487.00. States 

submitted a total of 19 proposals 

evaluated by a technical panel, 

which ranked the projects based on 

their merit. The States that received 

awards also invested at least 20 

percent of their own funds, bringing 

the total investment for the projects 

to $258,856.00. The selected 2019 

ASAP projects are:

• AL: Pelzer Avenue HFST Project 

• AZ: Pedestrian Safety Forum

• FL: Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Safety Best Practices 

Symposium 

• FL: Roadway Departure Safety 

Workshops 

“This year’s winning paper is a 

great illustration of how the HSIS 

database allows young 

researchers to gain insights into 

and explore transportation safety 

topics of interest to them,” 

- Brian Cronin, FHWA Office of 

Safety Operations R&D

ASAP Focus States. (Source: FHWA)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 17 –

• FL: Intersection Control 

Evaluation Workshop: 

Roundabouts 

• KY: Safety Improvements for 

Rural Roads Courses 

• MO: Missouri Systemic 

Countermeasure to Improve 

Pedestrian Safety (MoSCIPS)

• NJ: Proven Safety 

Countermeasures Workshop 

• NY: Walk Bike Symposium, 

Pedestrian Action 

Implementation Plan

This is the thirteenth consecutive 

year ASAP has assisted States with 

implementing innovations in safety. 

For more information, please visit 

the ASAP web page at 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/asap/.

Please direct additional questions 

about ASAP to Esther Strawder at 

esther.strawder@dot.gov. 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

TPCB Offers New RSP 

Certification!

By Mike Griffith, FHWA Office of Safety

The Transportation Professional 

Certification Board (TPCB), a 

certification body associated with the 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 

inaugurated the Road Safety 

Professional (RSP) Level 1 

Certification program in October 

2018. Developed in collaboration 

with a wide array of transportationand safety-related organizations in 

the United States and Canada, this 

certification is designed to support 

professionals in highway disciplines 

to establish their competency in 

providing for the safety of the 

traveling public. 

Those achieving Level 1 certification 

will have demonstrated proficiency in 

the foundations of road safety 

principles. The exam is for a broad 

audience of professionals who in the 

performance of their work make 

decisions or take actions that

potentially impact the safety of the 

traveling public. This includes those 

in the engineering, motor vehicle, 

behavioral, law enforcement, and 

emergency response communities.

This year, the program continues to 

grow, with the TPCB announcing the 

availability of a follow-on RSP Level 

2 Certification. While the RSP Level 

1 Certified Safety Professional 

demonstrates expertise in road 

safety’s multidisciplinary dimensions, 

those who hold a Level 1 

Certification, possess the necessary 

years of experience, and pass the 

Level 2 examination will have 

demonstrated a deeper level of 

understanding and proficiency in 

road safety science. The Level 2 

certification is geared toward 

professionals whose primary job 

functions are directed at improving 

the safety performance of the 

surface transportation system. It is 

for professionals responsible for 

developing and implementing 

engineering or behavioral programs 

aimed at reducing the number of 

fatalities and injuries due to road 

crashes. Those seeking certification 

will select between a Level 2 

certification with a “behavioral 

specialty” or Level 2 certification with 

an “infrastructure specialty.”

For those wishing to become Level 

1-certified, the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers is offering 

an RSP Level 1 Refresher Course, 

which is an overview of topics, key 

references, and independent study 

materials by topic for individuals in 

the transportation, safety, and public 

health professions who intend to 

take the RSP Level 1 certification 

exam. This course includes a suite 

of five (5) 90-minute, on-demand 

webinars on foundational elements 

of road safety, the collection and 

application of crash data and 

associated safety measures, human 

factors and their impact on roadway

safety, safety management and the 

use of countermeasures, and the 

development and implementation of 

strategic safety plans. A different 

refresher course will be available for 

the Level 2 certification.

Computer-based exams for RSP, as 

well as other professional 

certifications (Professional Traffic 

Operations Engineer® [PTOE] and 

Professional Transportation 

Planner® [PTP]), may be taken at 

approved testing sites during the 

following upcoming timeframes:

• February 1 to 28, 2020 

(Applications must be received 

by midnight, December 5, 2019.)

• June 1 to 30, 2020 (Applications 

must be received by midnight, 

April 2, 2020.)
SAFETY COMPASS NEWSLETTER · Fall 2019: Volume 13 Issue 3

– 18 –

For a list of available exam cities, 

please visit: 

http://castleworldwide.com/mainsite/i

btsites/default.aspx. For more 

information about this training or to 

submit an application, please visit 

the TPCB Road Safety Professional 

web page.

Upcoming Conferences and

Events

2019 American Association of 

State Highway Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) Annual 

Meeting, October 5 – 9, 2019, St. 

Louis, Missouri. This annual weeklong meeting addresses various 

transportation issues. The meeting 

offers opportunities for professionals 

and executives to network and share 

innovative ideas. 

American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE) 2019 

International Conference on 

Transportation and Development, 

October 10 – 13, 2019, Miami, 

Florida. This annual conference 

offers an opportunity for public 

agencies, private industry, and 

researchers to exchange ideas, 

share experiences, collaborate on 

innovations and developments, and 

showcase latest transportation 

solutions. 

National League of Cities (NLC) 

City Summit, November 20 – 23, 

2019, San Antonio, Texas. The 

annual summit is a conference for 

local leaders to meet and collaborate 

about challenges faced in their cities. 

Topics include finance, advocacy, 

civic engagement, communications, 

community and housing, economic 

development, education, energy, city 

government, and many more! 

Transportation Research Board 

(TRB) 2020 Annual Meeting, 

January 12 – 16, 2020, 

Washington, D.C. The annual 

meeting features expositions and 

speakers presenting the most 

cutting-edge transportation 

strategies. The meeting will cover all 

transportation modes and will feature 

more than 5,000 presentations and 

800 sessions. The theme for 2020 is 

“A Century of Progress: Foundation 

for the Future.”

The Safety Compass Newsletter is a publication of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

FHWA publishes the Safety Compass Newsletter three times a year. We can be reached at:

FHWA Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Room E71-320

Washington, DC 20590

The Safety Compass Newsletter is available online at the FHWA Office of Safety website at: 

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

We welcome your comments and highway safety-related articles. The purpose of this newsletter is to increase highway safety awareness and 

information and to provide resources to help save lives.

We encourage readers to submit highway safety articles that might be of value to the highway safety community. Send your comments, 

questions, and articles for review electronically to Tara McLoughlin at: tara.mcloughlin@dot.gov.