U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
The HSIP Quality Assessment includes ten primary questions related to the HSIP. In the past, the HSIP Quality Assessment was conducted annually by FHWA through input from Division Safety Engineers. The questions are related to SHSP stakeholders; SHSP priorities driving the HSIP; Highway Safety Plan and Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan expenditures; crash data; HSIP effectiveness; HSIP evaluation process; and HSIP obligation rates. In some instances, additional "sub-questions" are included to clarify the status of the various HSIP elements.
The responses to each primary question were structured such that, in general, "E" is the "best" scenario or ideal status for each element. However, this philosophy may not be applicable to each State. For example, question six would indicate that it is best to use fatality and serious injury crash data to identify HSIP projects. This may or may not be appropriate for the small or rural States that fortunately do not experience a large number of motor-vehicle related fatalities.
The HSIP Quality Assessment was first conducted in 2007 to establish a benchmark to measure progress in implementing the HSIP as part of the FHWA Strategic Implementation Plan. For four years, FHWA used the HSIP Quality Assessment to measure the effectiveness of the HSIP at the national level and to shape the future direction of the program, including the development of products to support HSIP implementation efforts.
The 2010 HSIP Quality Assessment is provided below.
Which FHWA Division Office are you responding for?
(State)
Please provide your contact information
(Name and phone number)
Based on the stakeholders list in the SHSP guidance the SHSP development process included significant input (other than review and concurrence) from what percentage of the stakeholders?
[Note: This question refers to SHSP development and should be answered based on the eight stakeholders required under 23 U.S.C. 148 NOT the guidance as indicated. Additional sub-questions related to SHSP implementation are provided below.]
3a. How is SHSP implementation occurring?
[Note: An emphasis area action plan contains action steps (i.e., what to do) to accomplish the goal of the emphasis area, whereas the implementation plan would outline how to accomplish that goal (i.e., responsible party, timeline, resources needed). Some states combine both action steps and implementation steps into one plan.]
3b. What percentage of your SHSP strategies are being implemented?
3c. Has the SHSP been updated to reflect current needs?
[Note: Please indicate when and how often in the comments section below. Additional insights as to what triggered the update are also welcome.]
What percentage of project expenditures in your HSIP are driven by strategies and priorities in your SHSP?
What percentage of projects in your HSP and CVSP are driven by strategies and priorities in your SHSP?
[Note: Please answer question 5 to the best of your ability in reference to both the HSP AND CVSP. As we recognize that these answers could vary significantly, sub-questions have been added so that you have the opportunity to respond individually for each program.]
5a. What percentage of projects in your HSP are driven by strategies and priorities in your SHSP?
5b. What percentage of projects in your CVSP are driven by strategies and priorities in your SHSP?
What types of crash data are used to identify projects in your HSIP?
How effective do you believe HSIP projects have been in reducing fatalities and serious injuries in your state?
What percentage of all public roads are covered by your crash and roadway databases?
[Note: Please answer question 8 to the best of your ability in reference to both the crash AND roadway database. As we recognize that these answers could vary significantly, sub-questions have been added so that you have the opportunity to respond individually for each database.]
8a. What percentage of public roads is covered by your crash database?
8b. What percentage of public roads is covered by your roadway database?
[Note: For the purposes of the HSIP Quality Assessment, a roadway database refers to geometric characteristics.]
Have HSIP funds addressed "off state" system needs adequately?
[Note: If your state maintains all public roads, answer "D."]
9a. What percentage of HSIP funds have been spent off the State system?
Typically how long does it take for crash data from all public roads to be entered into your Statewide crash database and available for analysis?
[Note: We recognize that the times can vary greatly from when the data is entered into the Statewide database and the time that the data is available for analysis. Please answer question 10 based on the "and" condition, specifically, "how long does it take for crash data from all public roads to be available for analysis?" A new sub-question gives you the opportunity to answer the first part of the question individually.]
10a. Typically how long does it take for crash data from all public roads to be entered into your Statewide crash database?
To what extent does the State use the HSIP evaluation process to refine project selection for future HSIP projects and modify strategies and programs in future SHSP revisions?
Is the percentage of HSIP funds obligated at or above the obligation rate for other core programs?
[Note: "Other core programs" are defined as STP, NHS, IM, CMAQ and Bridge. The obligations rate for other core programs should reflect the sum of all the other core programs and not each one individually.]
The purpose of the Program Delivery Improvement Tool (PDIT) is to assist agencies seeking ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of the Federal-aid highway program in the face of increasing challenges. The PDIT provides a consistent approach for identifying opportunities to improve program delivery and successful practices that can be shared among the transportation community.
FHWA, State practitioners, and program specialists developed PDIT. PDIT includes a listing of processes, procedures, and actions that, if implemented, should result in high performing programs. PDIT will assist agencies in identifying strategies and initiatives to improve program delivery; facilitates discussion between Federal and State partners; and may identify successful practices that can be shared at the national level.
The tool provides a common inventory of activities within the ten major program areas of the project development process, one of which is safety. The PDIT safety activity statements can be used to guide an assessment of the HSIP. Each activity statement can be reviewed to determine the current status of each activity, identify strengths and weaknesses, successful practices, and potential risks. Specific details are outlined below.
It is envisioned that the utilization of PDIT will be a joint effort between the SDOT, FHWA Division office, and other safety partners as appropriate. While the users of PDIT can determine how to best use the tool to meet their needs, the intended process is outlined below.
Step 1: The partners in each State should review each activity statement and determine if the process, procedure, or action is being implemented, in progress, no action taken to date, or not applicable to their program.
Step 2: The object of the tool is not to have full implementation of each activity, but to evaluate the importance of the activity in your State (as determined in Step 1). Each activity deemed important to your State could be assigned a high, medium, or low priority.
Step 3: For future reference, it may be beneficial to record any key points discussed regarding the current status and future of each activity.
Step 4: Identify and record current strengths and weaknesses regarding implementation of this activity. [Note: This information can be helpful as a reference when conducting a risk assessment.]
Step 5: Strengths can be noted as successful practices that can be shared at the national level, while weaknesses may be identified as a potential risk to be considered during risk assessment.
The PDIT results could be considered in combination with other information such as program reviews, risk assessment, or performance measures to develop strategic plans, stewardship agreements, or allocate resources.
Activity #170:
A quality control process is utilized to monitor the identification and development of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) projects to assess compliance with HSIP procedures and best practices.
Activity #171:
The methodology to identify and rank hazardous locations has a focus on fatalities and serious injuries (frequencies and/or rates).
Activity #172:
The HSIP process include coverage of all public roads.
Activity #173:
The HSIP process leads to identification and implementation of cost effective projects in all of the 4 E (engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services) areas.
Activity #174:
The HSIP project identification process includes coordination with the Governor"s Highway Safety Office on identified non-infrastructure countermeasures.
Activity #175:
The Strategic Highway Safety Plan drives the HSIP project selection process.
Activity #176:
Projects are developed and implemented at locations on the State"s "5 percent Report."
Activity #177:
A project evaluation process is in place which provides feedback on countermeasure effectiveness (crash severity reductions, crash reduction factors, etc.) back to the project selection process.
Activity #178:
The 10 percent funding flexibility option in SAFETEA-LU is used.
Activity #179:
Key processes, procedures, and/or activities are in place that guides strategic highway safety planning.
Activity #180:
A broad range of multidisciplinary stakeholders is actively involved in the overall safety program.
Activity #181:
The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) drives the highway safety improvement program, highway safety plan, and commercial vehicle safety plan.
Activity #182:
Funds provided for safety are prioritized for highest impact.
Activity #183:
Funding flexibility from all sources is used in safety project selection.
Activity #184:
Implementation of strategies identified in SHSP has begun.
Activity #185:
A process is in place to monitor the effectiveness of the SHSP.
Activity #186:
A Statewide Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) is active and working to improve the Traffic Records Systems (TRS).
Activity #187:
Membership on the TRCC represents the vehicle, driver, roadway, injury and citation stakeholder groups at the local, State, and Federal level.
Activity #188:
A Traffic Records Assessment has been performed.
Activity #189:
The TRCC has developed a Traffic Records Strategic Plan to address traffic records needs.
Activity #190:
Accuracy of the data contained in the electronic Statewide traffic records databases is assessed on an annual basis and actions are being taken to improve accuracy.
Activity #191:
The Statewide crash database contains data from all reportable crashes on all public roads.
Activity #192:
All Statewide crash data is entered into an electronic database within 60 days of crash.
Activity #193:
The Statewide TRS is substantially consistent with the nationally accepted and published guidelines and standards for data elements (NEMSIS, MMUCC, etc.) – obtained either from the crash report data and/or from other database linkages.
Activity #194:
All crashes are located using GIS, geo-coding, etc., and can be analyzed/summarized on electronic maps.
Activity #195:
The TRS is used in a systematic approach (weighing both crash severity and frequency) to identify potential safety improvements, set safety funding priorities and project decisions.
Activity #196:
All traffic records related databases (crash, roadway, driver, hospital, EMS) are linked and shared between appropriate agencies.
Activity #197:
Technical assistance is provided to local agencies in locating crashes on locally owned routs and in crash/safety analysis capabilities.
Activity #198:
A process is in place to maintain current inventory information on the public rail-highway grade crossings in the national inventory database maintained by the Federal Railroad Administration.
Activity #199:
There is a process for ranking the relative hazardousness of railroad-highway grade crossings that result in annual projects that have a positive cumulative impact on eliminating hazards at rail-highway grade crossings.
Activity #200:
There is a process in place to satisfactorily determine the fatality and incapacitating injury rates on rural major and minor collectors and rural locals roads and compare them to Statewide average rates to identify locations above the Statewide rates, or likely to exceed the Statewide rates, that would be eligible for funding under the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP).
Activity #201:
The HRRRP process leads to selection of countermeasures that result in implementation of cost effective HRRRP projects.
Activity #202:
A HRRRP project evaluation process is in place which provides feedback on countermeasure effectiveness (i.e., fatal and incapacitating injury crash reductions) back to the project selection process.
Activity #203:
The Safe Routes to School application process is competitive and results in infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects that meet the intent of the program as described in SAFETEA-LU Section 1404.
Activity #204:
Planning documents (Unified Planning Work Program, Transportation Improvement Program, Long Range Transportation Plan, etc.) highlight tasks and projects to specifically address State and region critical elements of the SHSP.
Activity #205:
A Statewide safety and mobility policy is developed and implemented regarding the systematic consideration of safety throughout the various stages of the project development and implementation process.
Activity #206:
Low cost safety features and strategies are promoted extensively to State and local officials.
Activity #207:
Statewide safety enhancements are identified, considered, implemented as appropriate, and evaluated for all projects.
Activity #208:
Safety is a primary consideration in all facets of the environmental process.
Activity #209:
Planning process provides for systematic consideration of projects and strategies that will increase safety.
Activity #210:
Environmental documents address safety for each alternative to satisfy the Purpose and Need statement.
Activity #211:
An analysis of crash records is used to improve policies, procedures, specifications, and standards.
Activity #212:
Project plans include provisions for enhanced enforcement during construction when appropriate.
Activity #213:
Innovative techniques are routinely used to improve project safety and reduce work zone crashes.
Activity #214:
General and seasonal work zone safety campaigns are implemented.
Activity #215:
Night reviews on work zones are conducted on projects.
Activity #216:
Senior managers, district engineers, county engineers, etc. are evaluated on the quality of their work zone(s).
Activity #217:
Designers participate in final project inspections to identify safety improvements on future projects.
Activity #218:
Design exception process includes safety analysis of the corridor to ensure safety is not compromised.
Activity #219:
Plans are reviewed for safe movement of all users (Bike and Pedestrian) during the design process.
Activity #220:
There is a policy in place to routinely incorporate safety enhancements into 3R projects.
Activity #221:
A process is in place to adopt the most current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) issued by the FHWA.
Activity #222:
A Statewide MUTCD Committee is in place, including representatives of local highway agencies, to develop Statewide plans for the implementation of new editions of or major revisions to the MUTCD.
Activity #223:
Annual budget plans for operations and maintenance programs include processes to consider and integrate highway safety strategies/enhancements into the operations and maintenance (O&M) program areas where appropriate.
Activity #224:
Procedures are in place to evaluate the effectiveness of O&M safety initiatives.
Activity #225:
The development of preventative maintenance projects (10/08/04 FHWA Memorandum) includes procedures to identify and implement safety improvements to the highway infrastructure.
Activity #226:
A process is in place to share O&M strategies with all highway agencies.
Activity #227:
Agency leadership receives quarterly briefings on the status of attaining safety goals.
Activity #228:
Agency leadership regularly uses the media to convey safety messages.
Activity #229:
The transportation budget has a category for safety in which safety transportation projects are proposed, selected, and prioritized separately from other transportation projects.
Activity #230:
Appropriate policy and guidance is developed, updated, and made available in this program area.
Activity #231:
Continuous improvement is supported through mechanisms such as program and process reviews.
Activity #232:
Training and development opportunities are provided to key internal and external partners and stakeholders.
Activity #233:
Processes are in place to ensure that key vacancies are filled.
Activity #234:
New technologies are considered and implemented to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this program area.
Activity #235:
Processes are in place for the selection and administration of consultant support to ensure these resources are used efficiently and effectively.
The following pages outline a series of questions that address the various elements of the safety-related programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Safety under the auspices of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) [23 U.S.C. 148]. These include the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the Railway-Highway Crossing Program (RHCP) and the resulting program of highway safety improvement projects or State HSIP.
[Note: The Data portion of this assessment tool will focus on how data is utilized to support the various programs under the HSIP. An assessment of your State’s crash data can be accomplished through the Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP). An assessment of your State’s roadway data can be accomplished through the Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP). Lastly, an assessment of your State’s entire traffic records system can be achieved through a Traffic Records Assessment sponsored by NHTSA.]
These questions encompass the range of information that can be gathered during your peer review or program review. Your review may focus on only one element of the HSIP (i.e., SHSP, RHCP, and Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects) or on one specific program process (i.e., planning, implementation, or evaluation). Therefore, the questions have been organized by program, and within each program, by process, as noted on the following page.
It will be up to the individual review teams to identify those questions that are most pertinent to your review. You are encouraged to add or delete questions to best suit your needs.
Many of these questions will be asked of the agency representatives (i.e., program managers) that administer the programs under the HSIP. It is also beneficial to conduct outreach to agency leaders to gain an understanding of their views on the benefits and challenges associated with the HSIP. The questions under the "general" section would be appropriate for this audience.
Remember, the intent of the program review or peer review is to identify noteworthy practices as well as opportunities for improvement.
General
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Railway-Highway Crossings Program
Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects (State HSIP)
Briefly describe the HSIP.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the HSIP process?
Describe any unique or innovative activities (i.e., time saving procedures) employed to administer the HSIP.
What reviews or evaluations have you done on safety or the HSIP? What were the significant findings and recommendations?
What objectives for safety and the HSIP are documented in current Department highway safety plans, Department strategic or annual work plans, or other Department plans?
How is safety staffed in the Department?
How has the development and implementation of your HSIP changed under current legislation?
How are other agencies (i.e., Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Local Government Agencies, and Governor"s Highway Safety Office) and the general public involved in your safety programs?
How are local roads (i.e., non-State system) addressed in the State HSIP?
How does the HSIP support the goals, objectives, and strategies of the SHSP?
[Note: The SHSP Champion’s Guidebook, Implementation Process Model, and Evaluation Process Model will provide additional information to support an SHSP Program Review or Peer Review. For States wishing to assess the SHSP development process, the SHSP Process Checklist may be helpful.]
Describe the SHSP organizational structure?
Describe top-level manager’s participation in executive committees or leadership structures/groups established for the SHSP.
Describe the membership of the executive or leadership group, the steering committee, the emphasis area teams, and other groups.
Explain the make-up of the SHSP steering committee or working group?
Do members of the executive committee or leadership group assign persons?
Do these people have decision-making authority?
Are multiple transportation modes represented, and do they actively participate on the steering committee/working group and emphasis area teams?
Explain the management structure of the SHSP.
Has an SHSP program coordinator or manager been assigned?
What percentage of this person’s time is dedicated to the SHSP?
Describe the support structure of SHSP emphasis areas?
Are they supported by teams with engaged leaders?
How do you ensure the necessary disciplines, modes, and agencies (representing the 4 E’s) are engaged in SHSP decision-making and implementation?
Explain how stakeholders regularly collaborate on decisions that affect SHSP updates and implementation.
Describe how the necessary stakeholders collaborate and jointly decide on SHSP goal and objective setting methods.
How are data-driven methods, such as trend analysis, used to establish goals and set aggressive, yet achievable, objectives?
Are objectives specific, measurable, time bound, and realistic?
How is data analysis used to select the emphasis areas?
Describe how emphasis area strategies are selected.
Describe coordination on SHSP implementation and related safety programs.
Does your State hold regularly scheduled meetings?
How are the DOT, the SHSO, and other safety stakeholders collaborating and sharing resources to implement the SHSP?
How are MPOs and other regional and local agencies involved in SHSP implementation?
Describe how action plans are used to support SHSP emphasis areas and strategies.
Explain how multidisciplinary emphasis area action planning teams support your SHSP.
Is someone assigned to coordinate and document all the actions plans and track progress?
Are the action plans available to all the stakeholders?
How have the various agencies and safety partners incorporated elements of the SHSP into their planning documents? (HSPs, HSIPs, CVSPs, LRTPs, S/TIPs, etc.)
Are plan/program strategies and countermeasures consistent with SHSP strategies?
Do plan/programs target funding to implement strategies associated with SHSP emphasis areas?
Describe senior management and technical staff communication and coordination on SHSP implementation?
Describe any formal agreements (e.g., MOUs) that have been established among agencies with respect to SHSP implementation.
Describe how you utilize performance measures? Are they clearly linked to or derived from SHSP objectives?
Are the numbers and rates of fatalities and serious injuries used as general statistical measures?
How do you track and report the numbers and rates of fatalities and serious injuries by emphasis area and compared to set objectives?
How do you monitor and evaluate the SHSP? Who is responsible?
How do you gather and review the status of output and outcome performance measures?
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?
How have evaluation results been interpreted and documented?
How are evaluation results used to identify lessons learned and improve SHSP process and performance?
Who (i.e., State agency, public utility) leads the RHCP planning process?
How is the RHCP planning process coordinated between agencies?
Explain the process to update your State’s crossing inventory? How is it funded?
How frequently does your State conduct inspections of railway-highway crossings?
Are new technologies (i.e., GIS) for RHCP data collection and analysis being used?
Does your Statewide crash database contain information related to crashes that occur near or associated with highway railway grade crossings?
How are RHCP project data and information collected and maintained?
How are highway-rail grade crossing projects prioritized?
Is it based on a hazard index formula?
How frequently is the hazard index updated?
To what extent is consideration given to highway-rail grade crossing exposure to large number of people, passenger trains, school buses, transit buses, pedestrians, bicyclists, and hazardous materials?
How are larger projects such as grade separations considered in the project prioritization process?
Are there projects for Statewide improvements?
Explain the process for obtaining consensus or approval of the priority project listing.
How, and to what extent, are non-State DOT entities (i.e., legislature, elected officials) involved in providing input to project priorities or special emphasis topics?
Does your State have criteria for using section 130 funds to upgrade aging active devices (flashing lights/gates)?
State have a process or policy for crossing consolidation and/or closure?
Are there incentives for closing crossings?
On average, how many crossings are closed each year?
Has your State incorporated, or does your State plan to incorporate RSA techniques to identify railway-highway crossing safety problems and select safety treatments?
Are all public RR crossings signed in accordance with the MUTCD? If not, explain the procedure used to accomplish this.
Describe the design process for railway-highway crossing projects.
How are railway-highway crossing projects prioritized for implementation?
Explain how railway-highway crossing projects are incorporated into S/TIP.
How many railway-highway crossing projects are completed annually?
What is the average timeframe for railway-highway crossing projects from identification to implementation?
Describe the construction process for railway-highway crossing projects.
What is the policy/process for improving railway-highway crossings that are either within or near the terminus of capital projects?
Are railway-highway crossing projects funded with sources other than the set-aside funding?
What additional funding sources (i.e., HSIP, other Federal-aid programs, 402 program, State, local) are utilized to support RHCP implementation?
How much funding is directed towards RHCP projects each year by category?
Explain how your State evaluates the effectiveness of grade crossing improvements.
Is an evaluation method other than "before-and-after" crash data comparison used? Has another method been considered given that relatively few crashes occur at railway-highway crossings?
What data (i.e., crash, roadway, EMS) is used to support the HSIP planning process?
How is the data analyzed to identify highway locations, sections, and elements determined to be hazardous based on accident experience or potential?
What methodology is used?
How is exposure (i.e., vehicle miles traveled) considered?
How many years of crash data are used?
Is any special consideration given to special vehicles (i.e., large trucks and buses) or other crash characteristics?
What are the strengths and benefits of the HSIP problem identification process as described in Question 2 above?
Where could improvements be made to the HSIP problem identification process?
What do you consider to be your best practices related to the HSIP problem identification process?
How is crash potential analyzed as part of the HSIP project identification process?
How are high-risk rural roads addressed in the state HSIP?
What other factors are considered in the HSIP project identification process? Explain.
How are local roads addressed in the HSIP?
What is the balance between crash-reducing and crash potential projects, as well as infrastructure vs. non-infrastructure projects?
Explain the process for conducting engineering studies of the identified hazardous locations, sections, and elements.
Are field investigations done at all locations? At some?
How are local government agencies involved in the engineering study process?
Once recommendations are made, what is the next step?
How are engineering studies used to establish highway safety improvement projects?
What are the strengths and benefits of the process used to conduct and implement the results of engineering studies?
Are there opportunities to improve the process for conducting and implementing the results of engineering studies?
How is the engineering study process coordinated with other offices within the State DOT (i.e., districts) and other agencies?
To what extent are driver or vehicle factors considered in countermeasure development?
How are crash modification factors used to support the engineering study process?
Are some solutions delegated to other sections?
How are SHSP strategies considered when determining appropriate treatments for priority locations?
What is the process for determining priorities for implementation of HSIP projects?
What do you consider to be opportunities to improve your HSIP project prioritization process?
What do you consider to be your best practices in establishing HSIP priorities?
Explain the criteria for establishing priorities for both spot and systemic safety improvements.
Are priorities established on a Statewide, district, system, or other basis?
How are priorities for 402 Programs coordinated with those of the HSIP?
Is there a process for obtaining consensus or approval of the priority project listing? Explain.
How, and to what extent, are non-State DOT entities (i.e., MPOs, legislature, elected officials) involved in providing input to priorities or special emphasis topics?
Are lower priority projects selected for construction/implementation before higher priority projects? If so, why, and what is the criteria for doing it?
How are local road projects considered in the project prioritization process?
Is the location prioritization process different for on and off the State system?
How is your State leveraging HSIP funds?
What additional funding sources (i.e., other Federal aid programs, 402 program, State, local) are utilized to support HSIP implementation?
How much funding is directed towards HSIP projects each year by category?
Has there been an increase in the level of HSIP and non-HSIP funds spent on infrastructure-related safety projects since MAP-21?
Are there dollar limits for safety projects?
What proportion of funding is provided for HSIP projects on State system roads vs. non-system roads?
Is the "off-system" funding adequate (proportional to crash experience)?
Has there been a change in how funds are allocated since MAP-21?
Are funds allocated to districts/regions, or do all districts apply for funds from the same pot?
How are the planning and evaluation components of your HSIP funded?
If HSIP funds are used, please describe the process.
In 23 U.S.C. section 120 it allows 100 percent Federal funding for "Certain Safety Projects." Does your State take advantage of this provision? Please describe.
How are identified priority HSIP projects included in the S/TIP?
Has your State developed any timesaving procedures to advance safety projects (i.e., Statewide categorical exclusions for safety projects, streamlined public involvement process, expedited programming steps, or other project development and delivery efficiencies)? Please describe.
How do you ensure that projects funded with HSIP funding directly support the State’s goals and objectives in the SHSP?
How do other units within the DOT or from outside initiate HSIP or other safety projects?
What are the concerns of locals in pursuing Federal-aid?
Are there programmatic environmental documents/procedures (i.e., categorical exclusion) in place for HSIP projects?
To what extent are HSIP projects subject to the environmental process beyond categorical exclusions?
Explain how HSIP projects are scheduled for construction/implementation.
What is the average timeframe for HSIP project identification to implementation?
What is the average timeframe for obligation of funds for HSIP projects to implementation?
How are small-scale safety improvement projects implemented (i.e., bid individual projects, in-house State forces, bundle projects for bid, on call ID/IQ)? Please describe the process and any approvals that were necessary to make this happen.
How many projects are completed annually (including local road projects)?
Explain the evaluation component, both project and program evaluation, of the HSIP.
How do you measure success for your HSIP?
How is the evaluation process funded?
Are their opportunities to improve the HSIP evaluation process?
What do you consider to be the best practices associated with the HSIP evaluation process?
What do you consider to be the challenges associated with the HSIP evaluation process?
How are the results of the evaluation component of HSIP incorporated back into the data collection, analysis prioritization, and scheduling (i.e., planning) procedures?
Describe how the outcomes of implemented safety projects are used to develop AMFs or CRFs.
What are the methodology/guidelines used to develop the CRFs/AMFs?
Is this information shared with your peers? How?
Explain how the HSIP evaluation results are being used to refine planning, design, operational or maintenance standards, policies, practices, and procedures for application of the successful outcomes in future projects?
To what extent does the State use the HSIP evaluation process to modify strategies and programs in future SHSP revisions?
MAP-21 requires States to have an updated, approved Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). A State will be considered to have an approved, updated SHSP if: 1) the SHSP is consistent with the requirements for updates and approval under section 148(d) and the requirements for an SHSP defined in section 148(a)(12); and 2) the process the State used to update the SHSP is consistent with the requirements of section 148. (23 U.S.C. 148 (d)(2)(B)). The updated SHSP must be submitted to the FHWA Division Administrator, who will ensure that the State has followed a process that is consistent with the requirements outlined in Sections 148 (a)(1)(12),148(d)(1)(2)(3),and 148(g)(2). The Division Administrator will notify the State that the updated SHSP process has been reviewed and approved.
This SHSP Process Approval Checklist is a tool to help Division Offices assess the process and completeness of a State’s SHSP update. It is meant for your internal use and records. The factors outlined represent the required process elements of a State-developed SHSP. SHSP MAP-21 Interim Guidance contains additional information on these elements and should be used as a reference document for this checklist.
The checklist consists of five columns:
SHSP Publication Date:
Period Covered by SHSP:
| MAP-21 Requirements | Indicator that State Meets Requirements | Considerations | Requirement Status (Did the State Meet the MAP-21 Requirement?) | Support for Status Determination |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consultation | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(A) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that is developed after consultation with:
|
The State has conferred with stakeholders early in the SHSP update process, considered their input prior to decision-making, and routinely informed them about actions taken regarding SHSP development. |
How was consultation accomplished? Was it a onetime event (e.g., meeting, workshop, summit, etc.)? Was it written comments on the plan? Was it ongoing participation in a working group, task group or steering committee? What was the level of local involvement? Were representatives from all 4 Es involved in the development? Were stakeholders’ concerns given adequate consideration? If a stakeholder was not consulted with during the SHSP update process, does the State have a satisfactory explanation for their absence? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| Data | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(B) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that: Analyzes and makes effective use of State, regional, local, or Tribal safety data. |
The State has used the best available safety data to identify critical highway safety problems and safety improvement opportunities on all public roads. |
When determining State transportation safety problems and priorities (i.e., emphasis areas), the State analyzed crash (e.g., fatality and serious injury), roadway, and traffic data. Did the State consider all highway users and modes during SHSP data analysis? What data did the State use to establish severity? Were trend analyses, benefit/cost analysis or other data analysis methods used to determine priorities? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| Performance Management | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(C) As part of the State highway safety improvement program, a State shall: adopt strategic and performance-based goals that:
|
The SHSP includes goals and measureable objectives to enable the State to track and monitor the status of SHSP implementation efforts and monitor progress in each of the SHSP emphasis areas. |
Are the SHSP goals and objectives long-term and do they address a variety of output and outcome measures? How did the State determine the goals and objectives? Are these goals aggressive yet achievable? Are the goals and objectives based on analysis of crash and other safety data? Has the State considered how the SHSP goals and objectives will affect other safety plans and programs? Did the State consider how the goals and objectives can be adopted by other agencies? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| Multidisciplinary Approach | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(C) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that: Addresses engineering, management, operation, education, enforcement, and emergency services elements (including integrated, interoperable emergency communications) of highway safety as key factors in evaluating highway projects. |
The State considered the highway safety elements of engineering, education, enforcement and emergency medical services (the 4 Es) when determining strategies to address SHSP emphasis areas. |
Did the State consider and integrate 4 E strategies for infrastructure and behavioral emphasis areas, where practical? Were strategies selected that have the potential to significantly reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries? Does the State have multidisciplinary/4 E representation on emphasis area teams? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(F) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that: Describes a program of strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards. |
The SHSP includes effective strategies to address the State’s emphasis areas. |
Was data used to determine the most effective strategies and countermeasures? Was high priority given to those strategies that can significantly reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries in the SHSP emphasis areas? Did the State select strategies and countermeasures that will most effectively address their roadway safety problems? Did the State consider systemic improvements and low-cost countermeasures? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| SHSP Update Content Considerations | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (1)(d)(1)(B) In establishing requirements under this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that States take into consideration, with respect to updated strategic highway safety plans:
|
A variety of data and safety programs were analyzed, reviewed and considered when determining SHSP Emphasis Areas and strategies in the updated SHSP. |
The State considered additional safety factors when updating their SHSP to inform emphasis area and strategy selection. Below are some examples: A State might consider if motor vehicle related bicycle or pedestrian fatalities or serious injuries have increased; if so an emphasis area or strategy to address the problem could be included in the SHSP. A State might consider findings of road safety audits (RSA). (A RSA is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent audit team. It qualitatively estimates and reports on potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for improvements in safety for all road users. The RSA report includes findings of each safety issue identified and provides suggestions to remedy these issues.) RSA findings should be analyzed in aggregate to identify common countermeasure recommendations for systemic improvements. |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(D) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that: Considers safety needs of, and high-fatality segments of, all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on Tribal land. |
SHSP emphasis areas and strategies address State and non-State-owned public roads and roads on Tribal land, when applicable. |
How did the State engage local and Tribal agencies in the SHSP update process? Did the data analysis include data for non-state owned roads and roads on Tribal land? Are there specific emphasis areas or strategies targeting the safety needs of non-state-owned and roads on Tribal land? If not, did the data not warrant their inclusion? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| Coordination | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(E) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that: Considers the results of State, regional, or local transportation and highway safety planning processes. |
The State coordinated with other planning processes, including but not limited to the State’s Highway Safety Plan (HSP), Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) (Section 31102 of Title 49), Statewide Transportation Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Plans, local road safety plans, etc. |
To what extent did the State consider the different planning processes in developing the SHSP? (e.g., the Statewide Transportation Plan, metropolitan long range plans, Local Transportation Plans, Statewide CVSP, HSP, and HSIP). For example: Is there a process to align high level goals, strategies and objectives among the plans? Is alignment achieved? Did the State consider how the SHSP emphasis areas compare with the priorities of the other plans or processes? Has the State considered how the other plans and processes will play a role in implementing the SHSP? Has the State considered how the planning processes will work together in the future? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(H) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that: Is consistent with section 135(g) |
The SHSP was/is:
|
Has the State considered how the emphasis areas and strategies in the SHSP will be implemented through the Statewide transportation planning and programming process? How does the State plan to implement the SHSP through the HSIP? Is there a process in place to ensure that HSIP projects identified in the STIP are consistent with and address SHSP priorities? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| SHSP Evaluation | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1)(C) Evaluates the strategic highway safety plan on a regularly recurring basis in accordance with subsection (d)(1) to ensure the accuracy of the data and priority of proposed strategies. |
The State conducted a review of current data and research to determine SHSP emphasis areas and strategies. |
Did evaluation results confirm the validity of the emphasis areas? Were emphasis areas modified based on the data? Did the evaluation include a review of the State’s progress in meeting previous SHSP goals and objectives (e.g., reductions in the number and rate of crashes, fatalities and serious injuries in the SHSP’s emphasis areas)? If goals and objectives were not met, were strategies reviewed to determine their effectiveness (to help them determine if they should continue or modify strategies in the SHSP update)? During the development of this SHSP update, was attention given to what will be measured and how progress will be determined for the period of the current SHSP? Does the State have in place mechanisms for regularly tracking SHSP implementation and monitoring progress? Is an SHSP evaluation planned, as part of the State’s next SHSP update? |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| Special Rules | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(1) HIGH RISK RURAL ROAD – The term ‘high risk rural road’ means any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road with significant safety risks, as defined by a State in accordance with an updated State strategic highway safety plan. |
The update includes the States definition of "High Risk Rural Road." |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
|
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (g)(2) OLDER DRIVERS and Pedestrians If traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data are available, that State shall be required to include, in the subsequent Strategic Highway Safety Plan of the State, strategies to address the increases in those rates, taking into account the recommendations included in the publication of the Federal Highway Administration entitled ‘Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians’ (FHWA-RD-01-103) dated May 2001, or as subsequently revised. |
The SHSP update includes strategies to address the increases in older driver and pedestrian traffic fatalities and serious injuries, if applicable. |
Does the Older Drivers and Pedestrians special rule apply to the State? Guidance Link—Section 148: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| Description of SHSP Update Process | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (d)(2)(A)(ii) In general, each State shall:
|
The State included/provided a detailed description of the SHSP update process (this description can be included as a section, chapter or appendix in the SHSP, in the cover or transmittal letter for the SHSP, or as a standalone document). |
Does the description include a discussion of:
|
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
| Administrative | ||||
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(G) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that: Is approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible State agency. |
SHSP signed by the Governor or a responsible State agency |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
|
|
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(I) The term ‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that: Is updated and submitted to the Secretary for approval as required under subsection (d)(2). |
FHWA Division Administrator approves SHSP update process |
□ Meets Requirement □ Does Not Meet Requirement |
If the requirement is met, provide a summary or brief description that supports this outcome. OR If the requirement is not met, what are the recommended action(s) the State should take to satisfy the requirement? |
|
The State’s SHSP Process is: □ APPROVED □ DISAPPROVED
DATE: _______________________________________________________________
Follow-Up Actions or Recommendations:
The following is a list of potential resources that would be beneficial information to the review team prior to a peer review or program review.
The peer review or program review should focus on only one element of the HSIP (i.e., SHSP, RHCP, Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects) or on one specific program process (i.e., planning, implementation, or evaluation). Example review topics include:
A sample agenda is outlined below. It is important to note that the content and structure of the agenda will be shaped by the review topic.
| 8:00 – 8:30 a.m. | Introduction/Overview (purpose, review elements, etc.) |
|---|---|
| 8:30 – 9:30 a.m. | Host State Presentations |
| 9:30 – 10:00 a.m. | Question & Answer/Discussion |
| 10:00 – 10:30 a.m. | Break |
| 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 noon | Visiting State Presentations |
| 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. | Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity) |
| 1:00 – 5:00 p.m. | Open Discussion |
| 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon | Discussion with other HSIP Representatives |
|---|---|
| 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. | Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity) |
| 1:00 – 5:00 p.m. | Open Discussion |
| 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon | Report Preparation |
|---|---|
| 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. | Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity) |
| 1:00 – 4:00 p.m. | Close-out Session |
The [State name] Department of Transportation hosted a Peer Review of its Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) on [Date]. The peer review team consisted of:
The expressed objectives of the peer review process were to:
To prepare for the peer review, the team reviewed documentation describing the Department of Transportation’s HSIP procedures. During the exchange, the team discussed [State name]’s procedures and those used in other team members’ respective agencies. The exchange team also interviewed [Number of] persons, including:
Interviews were conducted using a general set of questions to stimulate discussion, and provided the exchange team an opportunity to listen to concerns, experiences, technical accomplishments, and suggestions from those interviewed. Members of the team also answered questions posed to them by persons from the Department of Transportation, FHWA, and others. The team members volunteered information pertinent to the discussions on administration, HSIP development, project management, and technical accomplishments.
Several common themes emerged from the interviews:
The exchange team noted several significant strengths at the Department of Transportation:
The team’s observations on these issues as well as on general topic of HSIP follow:
[Name and organization – Team Leader]
Observations:
Planned Actions or Opportunities for [Team leader’s State name] DOT:
[Use this same format for each of the Peer Review Team Members. The last individual report and usually most comprehensive of all the reports given is for the host State.]
| << Previous | Table of Contents |
