U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
FacebookYouTubeTwitterFlickrLinkedIn

Safety

eSubscribe
eSubscribe Envelope

FHWA Home / Safety / Legislation & Policy / SHSP Process Approval Checklist

SHSP Process Approval Checklist

Printable Version
PDF [237 KB]

October 2016

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) statute (23 U.S.C. 148) requires States to have an updated, approved Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). A State's SHSP update process will be approved if: (1) the SHSP is consistent with section 148(d) and 148(a)(11); 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 should be submitted to the FHWA Division Administrator (23 U.S.C. 148 (d)(2)(A)(ii)). 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 FHWA internal use and recordkeeping. The factors outlined represent the required process elements of a State-developed SHSP as outlined in the HSIP statute (23 U.S.C. 148) and in the implementing regulations (23 CFR Part 924). The SHSP Guidance and HSIP Regulation (found at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/) include additional information on these elements and should be used as reference documents for this checklist.

This checklist consists of three columns:

  1. SHSP Requirements: Column A lists the key SHSP requirements, by topic area, for the SHSP and the specific reference in the HSIP statute or regulation.
  2. Indicators:Column B provides indicators that the State meets the requirement.
  3. Requirement Status:Column C provides a place for the Division Office to document the determination for each requirement (meets or does not meet) and to document supporting information for whether the State has satisfied or not satisfied the requirement.

There is also a space to indicate the period (years) covered by this SHSP and the approval date. The approval date is the date the Governor, or Governor's designee signs/approves the SHSP. This date determines the due date for the next SHSP update, which is no later than 5 years from the date of the previous approved version.

Period Covered by SHSP: ____________________________________________________________

SHSP Approval Date: _____________________________________________________________

Next SHSP due no later than (5 years from approval date): ___________________________________________

A. SHSP Requirements B. Indicators that State Meets Requirements C. Requirement Status
CONSULTATION

23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11); 23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(ii)
An SHSP update shall…
Be developed by the State DOT in consultation with safety stakeholders.

23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)(A); 23 CFR 924.3
Safety stakeholder means, but is not limited to:

  • A highway safety representative of the Governor of the State;
  • Regional transportation planning organizations and metropolitan planning organizations, if any;
  • Representatives of major modes of transportation;
  • State and local traffic enforcement officials;
  • A highway-rail grade crossing safety representative of the Governor of the State;
  • Representatives conducting a motor carrier safety program under section 31102, 31106, or 31309 of title 49;
  • Motor vehicle administration agencies;
  • County transportation officials;
  • State representatives of non-motorized users; and
  • Other Federal, State, tribal, and local safety stakeholders.
The State 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.
There was local and tribal involvement.
Stakeholders from a variety of disciplines were involved and representatives from all "4 E's" (engineering, enforcement, education and EMS) participated in the development of the SHSP.
Stakeholders' concerns were given adequate consideration.
If a stakeholder was not consulted during the SHSP update process, is there a satisfactory explanation for its absence.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
DATA
23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(B); 23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(vi) An SHSP update shall…
Analyze and make effective use of safety data to address safety problems and opportunities on all public roads and for all road users.
The State has used the best available safety data to identify critical highway safety problems (i.e., emphasis areas) and safety improvement opportunities on all public roads.
  • Safety data means crash (e.g., fatality and serious injury), roadway, and traffic data on a public road, and, includes, in the case of a railway-highway grade crossing, the characteristics of highway and train traffic, licensing, and vehicle data.
Safety analysis tools, (e.g., the HSM SafetyAnalyst, IHSDM) and methods (e.g., trend analyses, benefit/cost analysis) were used to help identify safety issues and to determine strategies for improvements.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(11)(D)
An SHSP update shall…
Consider the 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.
The State engaged local and tribal agencies in the SHSP update process.
The data analysis included data for non-State-owned roads and roads on tribal land.
There are specific emphasis areas or strategies targeting the safety needs of non-State-owned roads and roads on tribal land. If not, did the data warrant the exclusion?
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(vii)
An SHSP update shall…
Identify key emphasis areas and strategies that have the greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries and focus resources on areas of greatest need.
The SHSP includes emphasis areas and strategies based on data with the greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries.
High priority was given to those strategies that can significantly reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries in the SHSP emphasis areas.
The State considered systemic improvements and low-cost countermeasures.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
23 U.S.C. 148 (d)(1)(B)
An SHSP update shall…
Take into consideration, with respect to updated strategic highway safety plans–
  • the fin dings of road safety audits
  • the locations of fatalities and serious injuries
  • the locations that do not have an empirical history of fatalities and serious injuries, but possess risk factors for potential crashes
  • rural roads, including all public roads, commensurate with fatality data
  • motor vehicle crashes that include fatalities or serious injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists
  • the cost-effectiveness of improvements
  • improvements to rail-highway grade crossings
  • safety on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land.
A variety of data (as listed in column A) and safety programs were analyzed, reviewed and considered when determining SHSP Emphasis Areas and strategies in the updated SHSP.

Below are some examples:
The State considered the findings of road safety audits (RSA). RSA findings should be analyzed in the aggregate to identify common countermeasure recommendations for systemic improvements.
The State used its safety data systems to identify hazardous locations, sections, and elements that are a danger to all road users, including vehicle occupants and non-occupant users of the roadway (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists), and to identify fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by location.
The State considered the systemic approach in the SHSP development process, e.g., the State identified/considered low cost countermeasures that can be deployed widely across the system.
The State conducted a benefit/cost analysis associated with countermeasures (e.g., crash reduction, etc.), expressed in monetary terms, to the cost of implementing the countermeasures, and to help it prioritize countermeasures or projects and optimize the return on investment.
The State considered the relative risk of fatalities and serious injuries at railway-highway grade crossings compared to other high risk areas of roadway safety in the State. States could accomplish this by evaluating the number and rates of fatalities and serious injuries at railway-highway grade crossings compared to other potential emphasis areas or priority areas. In addition, when evaluating the risks at crossings, States should review the inventory and collision data (inventory data include the location of the crossing, volumes of highway and train traffic over the crossing, and physical elements of the crossing).
The State coordinated its data analysis with other agencies (within State, local, and tribal jurisdictions).
The State considered whether 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.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(v)
An SHSP update shall …
Adopt performance-based goals that:
  • Are consistent with safety performance measures established by FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; and
  • Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs
The SHSP goals are consistent with 23 U.S.C. 150 and are based on analysis of crash and other safety data.
The SHSP includes multi-year objectives, which encourages monitoring of the status and progress of SHSP implementation efforts.
The SHSP objectives are SMART (specific, measurable, action-oriented, reasonable and time bound).
The State involved the State Highway Safety Office and other relevant agencies in the development of SHSP goals and objectives to create consistency among safety plans and programs.
The State considered how the goals and objectives can be adopted by other agencies.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH AND COORDINATION
23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)(C); 23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(viii)
An SHSP update shall …
Address engineering, management, operations, education, enforcement, and emergency services elements of highway safety as key features when determining SHSP strategies.
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.
The State has multidisciplinary, "4 E", representation on SHSP committees and emphasis area teams.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)(E); 23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(ix)
An SHSP update shall…
Consider the results of State, regional, local, and tribal transportation and highway safety planning processes and demonstrate mutual consultation among partners in the development of transportation safety plans.
The State coordinated with other planning processes, including but not limited to, the State's Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Highway Safety Plan (HSP), Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP), Statewide Transportation Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Plans, local road safety plans, tribal safety plans, etc.
There is a process to align high level goals, performance measures, strategies and objectives among the plans.
The State considered how the SHSP emphasis areas compare with the priorities of the other plans or processes.
The State considered how the other plans and processes will play a role in implementing the SHSP.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(11)(H); 23 CFR 924.9(c)
The SHSP must be consistent with 23 U.S.C. 135(g), which pertains to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Consistency with 23 U.S.C. 135(g) is demonstrated, for example, by showing that the SHSP and STIP were developed cooperatively by the same planning partners.
The State considered how the emphasis areas and strategies in the SHSP will be implemented through the statewide transportation planning and programming process.
The State plans to implement the SHSP through the HSIP.
There is 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
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
 
23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(x)
An SHSP update shall …
Provide strategic direction for other State and local/tribal transportation plans, such as the HSIP, the Highway Safety Plan, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan.
State, local and tribal entities were actively involved in the SHSP update process and the development of the plans goals, priorities and strategies.
Other plans and programs will incorporate the goals, emphasis areas, and strategies of the SHSP as appropriate.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
IMPLEMENTATION
23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(xi)
An SHSP update shall …
Describe the process and potential resources for implementing strategies in the emphasis areas.
The SHSP references how the strategies will be implemented, such as through annual safety plans and programs (e.g., the HSP, CVSP, HSIP), regional safety coalitions, local agencies, etc.
The SHSP references resources to help implement the SHSP; this can include the agency or champion that will implement the strategy and/or the funding source that may be considered for implementing the strategy.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
23 CFR 924.11 (c)
The SHSP update shall include or be accompanied by actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies will be implemented.
The State developed action steps for the strategies in the SHSP, which are included as an appendix or in a supplemental document (such as an emphasis area action or implementation plan).
The action steps or plans include the agency and/or person that will champion implementation of the action, the resources and timeframe for completion.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
EVALUATION
23 CFR 924.13 (a)(2)
The HSIP evaluation process shall include…
An evaluation of the SHSP as part of the regularly recurring update process to:
  • Confirm the validity of the emphasis areas and strategies based on analysis of current safety data; and
  • Identify issues related to the SHSP's process, implementation, and progress that should be considered during each subsequent SHSP update.
The State conducted a review of current data to determine the appropriate emphasis areas. The data analysis either confirmed the validity of the emphasis areas or they were modified based on the results.
The State evaluated its progress in meeting SHSP goals and objectives (e.g., reductions in the number and rate of crashes, fatalities and serious injuries in the SHSP's emphasis areas).
Strategies and actions were reviewed to determine their effectiveness, to help the State determine if it should modify strategies in the SHSP update. For example, project level evaluations can be consulted to see if it had the desired impact.
New research and data were considered in strategy selection.
During the development of the SHSP update, attention was given to what will be measured and how progress will be determined for the period of the current SHSP.
The State has in place mechanisms for regularly tracking SHSP implementation and monitoring progress.
An SHSP evaluation is planned as part of the State's next SHSP update.
The State's evaluation process is documented in the SHSP update.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
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 updated SHSP includes the State's definition of "High Risk Rural Road."This must be included even if the State is not subject to the special rule. GUIDANCE LINK
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
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.
If the State meets the special rule, the SHSP update includes strategies to address the increases in older driver and pedestrian traffic fatalities and serious injuries, if applicable. GUIDANCE LINK
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
DESCRIPTION OF UPDATE PROCESS
23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(iii)
An SHSP update shall…
Provide a detailed description of the update process.
The updated SHSP includes a detailed description of the SHSP update process. The description includes a discussion of:
Consultation
;Coordination
Data-driven emphasis areas and strategies
Performance-based
Strategy selection
Implementation and evaluation process
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
 
ADMINISTRATIVE
23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(i)
An SHSP update shall…
Be completed no later than 5 years from the date of the previous approved version.
The SHSP update was completed within 5 years from the date of the previous approved version.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11)(G); 23 CFR 924.9 (a)(3)(iv)
An SHSP update shall…
Be approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible State agency official that is delegated by the Governor.
SHSP is signed by the Governor or a responsible State agency designated by the Governor.
  • Signature could be in SHSP document (e.g., in cover letter) or in a transmittal letter.
MEETS REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

The State's SHSP update process is consistent with the requirements of section 148(a)(11) and 148(d) of title 23, United States Code, and with the HSIP implementing regulations at 23 CFR Part 924, and the State used such process to update the SHSP.

The State's SHSP Update Process is: □    APPROVED □    DISAPPROVED

Division Office Signature: _________________________________________    DATE:_________

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

 

 

Return to top

Page last modified on February 1, 2017
Safe Roads for a Safer Future - Investment in roadway safety saves lives
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000