• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Intersection Safety
  • Crash Facts
  • Human Factors
  • Alternative Intersection Design
  • Pedestrians & Bicyclists
  • Red-Light Running
  • Roundabouts
  • Rural Intersection Safety
  • Signalized Intersections
  • Unsignalized Intersections
  • Resources
• Local & Rural Road Safety
• Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety
• Roadway Departure Safety
• Speed Management Safety
• Additional Safety Programs & Initiatives
  • Proven Safety Countermeasures
  • Capacity Building
  • Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP)
  • Crash Tested Hardware
  • Facts & Statistics
  • Focused Approach
  • Geometric Design
  • Highway Safety Manual
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
  • Motorcycles
  • Newsletters
  • Older Road Users
  • Policy & Guidelines
  • Railway-Highway Grade Crossings
  • Road Safety Audits (RSA)
  • Roadway Safety Data Partnership
  • Safe Routes to School
  • SAFETEA–LU
  • Safety Research
  • Section 402 Highway Safety Funds
  • Tools & Technology
  • Toward Zero Deaths
  • Work Zones

Home > Intersections > Resources

Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Process

Step 6: Conduct a Workshop of Key Stakeholders and Follow-Up Implementation Planning Meeting

Two-Day Workshop

The successful reduction in statewide intersection fatalities and incapacitating injuries requires the input, support, and participation of a number of key stakeholders. They include at least the following:

• State Safety Engineer.
• State Traffic Engineer.
• State Traffic Signal and Traffic Operations Engineers.
• District or Regional Traffic/Safety Engineers.
• State Local Roads Coordinator (if one exists).
• Governor's Highway Safety Representative.
• Representatives of local governments (e.g., city, county traffic safety representatives).
• State and local police representatives.
• Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) representatives.
• FHWA Division Office Safety Engineer/Specialist.

The State should conduct a workshop with key stakeholders to achieve three goals:

1. Discuss the intersection crash reduction goal, the systematic and comprehensive approaches to achieve the goal, the crash data analysis package, and the use of potentially new intersection countermeasures.
2. Reach group consensus on a set of countermeasures, deployment characteristics, and costs to achieve the intersection crash reduction goal.
3. Establish strategic directions to successfully implement the countermeasures.

In preparation for the workshop, the following information should be prepared for discussion:

• A statewide intersection crash reduction goal.
• A set of intersection countermeasures that the State is comfortable implementing and estimated unit costs and crash reduction factors for each countermeasure.
• An intersection crash data analysis package that supports development of the straw man outline.
• A straw man outline of countermeasures; deployment levels; and characteristics, costs, and projected annual crashes, incapacitating injuries, and fatalities reduced for each countermeasure which collectively is sufficient to achieve the intersection crash reduction goal.

A typical agenda for the workshop is shown in Table 30.

On the first day it is important for the group to understand the intersection crash reduction goal, the systematic and comprehensive approaches, and how these approaches work together to achieve the goal. In addition, the data analysis package assembled in Step 4 and the list of potential intersection countermeasures created from Step 3 need to be discussed. The group also should have an introduction and initial discussion of the straw man outline on Day One. The group will probably suggest changes and refinements to the straw man outline.

After the Day One activities are complete, the straw man outline should be updated to reflect the changes and refinements. The refined straw man outline should be presented to the group on the morning of the second day. It is critical for the group to reach consensus on a final refined straw man outline that identifies the set of countermeasures, deployment levels, and costs required to achieve the intersection crash reduction goal. If necessary, the goal may be adjusted in terms of safety impact to be achieved (i.e., targeted annual lives saved) or time to achieve the goal.

Once the straw man outline is complete, the group identifies any key issues that may impact the successful implementation of the effort and establishes actions and strategic directions to address each issue. In working through the agenda items, several issues may arise. These issues and potential solutions gleaned from previous workshops are discussed below.

Insufficient Existing Funding to Achieve the Goal. Available Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) resources may not be sufficient to fund all of the improvements in the plan. To overcome this, States can seek other available federal safety fund sources (e.g., High Risk Rural Roads program, Section 1406 – Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts, Section 1407 – Safety Incentive to Prevent Operating of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Persons, Section 406 – Safety Belt Performance Grants, and Section 410 – Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasure Incentive Grants), utilize regular Federal-aid funds; or use State or local funds. The time to achieve the goal also may be extended, thus lowering the annual funding needs to an affordable level.

Improvements at Local Intersections with Federal Funds. A considerable number of State and federal requirements impede the flow of funds to local governments for low-cost countermeasures. To address this issue, States may wish to use specially-trained Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) safety engineers and/or consultants with 100 percent federal funding to administer the program, perform the engineering, and oversee the implementation. States then can provide the materials (e.g., signs, marking material, signal appurtenances) to local governments using 100 percent federal funding as long as the localities correctly install the materials in the field. This removes any transfer of funds between State and local governments.

Education and Enforcement Initiatives Beyond the Conventional 402 Funding. States may find that the countermeasures for education and enforcement in corridors and municipalities require more 402 funds than what is available. In this case, States can investigate other federal safety funding sources available to the State (e.g., Section 1406 – Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts, Section 1407 – Safety Incentive to Prevent Operating of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Persons, Section 406 – Safety Belt Performance Grants, and Section 410 – Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasure Incentive Grants).

Use of Countermeasures New to or Rarely Used in the State. Any time something new is implemented, the potential for failure increases because of the increased level of unknown factors. States can minimize the potential for failure by taking the following actions:

• Identify a champion, a safety professional, responsible for overseeing the implementation of the countermeasure.
• Ensure that the champion becomes proficient in knowledge regarding the countermeasure by reviewing literature, conferring with other out-of-state professionals with extensive knowledge regarding the countermeasure, and potentially visiting out-of-state sites where the countermeasure has been deployed.
• Seek District or Regional personnel who may be interested in deploying a demonstration of the technology.
• Identify the key issues that are preventing widespread implementation of the countermeasure and establish scheduled demonstrations to address the issues and evaluate the results.¹
• Ensure that the champion performs a rigorous assessment of the demonstrations to determine if any design, construction, or operational changes need to be made; if the countermeasure is ready for widespread deployment; and if additional demonstrations are needed.
• Upon completion of the demonstrations, make a decision on the countermeasure's readiness for widespread deployment. If so, integrate the countermeasure into normal operations. If not, make a determination on whether the countermeasure should be considered for further deployment. If the determination is to proceed, identify the remaining issues and establish a process and schedule to address them.

Countermeasures Involving Policy Decisions. At least two countermeasures may involve significant policy issues – lighting on State rural intersections and installation of enforcement-assisted lights at traffic signals to reduce red-light running. Existing lighting policies may limit the use of lighting to freeways. In addition, a State may not have a policy in place for installing on the highway system devices that can enhance enforcement. Addressing these issues likely will require input from upper management.

• Lighting on State Rural Intersections – Many States have limited lighting on freeways or at interchanges and have not considered lighting at intersections because of the potential fiscal impact. To minimize fiscal impact, States can limit lighting consideration to only those intersections with a high frequency and proportion of night crashes, utilize 100 percent federal funding for the lighting improvements, and/or consider requiring local municipalities where the intersections reside to energize and maintain the lighting.
• Installation of Enforcement-Assisted Lights – The value of enforcement-assisted lights is dependent on how aware drivers are of the function of enforcement-assisted lights, an agreement by police to use the lights for red-light running enforcement, and the commitment of the courts to process the police citations. If drivers know that police use the lights for enforcement, they easily can see the lights as they approach an intersection and slow down to stop on red. This should reduce the level of red-light running significantly. States should consider installing enforcement-assisted lights only in those municipalities with an angle crash problem at signalized intersections. Within these municipalities, States should ensure that police organizations agree to a written commitment to use the enforcement-assisted lights to enforce red-light running violations. States must also ensure that sufficient 402 funds are available to mount a limited education campaign for the residents of and surrounding the municipality about the purpose of the enforcement-assisted lights and red-light enforcement. Alternate funding such as using the flexible funding provisions of the HSIP program or State funds can also be considered.

Half-Day Follow-Up Implementation Planning Meeting

After the workshop, on the morning of the third day, a small group of key State personnel (at least the State Safety Engineer, the State Traffic Engineer, and the Governors Highway Safety Representative) and the FHWA Division Office Safety Engineer/Specialist should meet to review the results and identify key steps needed to successfully move each countermeasure from its existing state to full implementation as defined in the tentative plan. A representative of local governments, an MPO, or the police may also participate at the discretion of the State. This small group also discusses strategic directions for implementing the plan and schedules for implementation, including identifying the upper management who must approve the initiative and the actions and schedules needed to secure that approval.

¹ Rely on other State efforts to evaluate the countermeasure's CRF since there will be insufficient data and time to properly evaluate crash reduction effectiveness within the State.