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.
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: |
|