Improving Safety on Rural Local and Tribal Roads — Safety Toolkit

< Previous

Table of Contents

Next >

Step 5. Prioritize Countermeasures for Implementation

If a single site was studied and only one countermeasure was selected, then the agency is ready to begin implementation (go to Step 6). If, on the other hand, more than one site was studied or multiple countermeasures were identified at one or more sites, the agency will need to choose which countermeasures to implement. In these cases, the countermeasures must be prioritized to determine which should be implemented given agency resources. The appropriate prioritization method to use depends on the resources and data available.

Prioritizing Countermeasures Using Qualitative Rating

Overview

One method for prioritizing among several countermeasures is to qualitatively evaluate each potential countermeasure against a set of criteria important to the community. In addition to project cost, there are many other criteria that may influence the suitability of a countermeasure to a given site. Some of these are:

• Public demand for improvements;
• Available right of way;
• Environmental considerations;
• Potential positive or negative community response to the countermeasure;
• The presence of community endorsed plans for mobility or accessibility in the corridor;
• Road user needs;
• The community’s transportation vision;
• Anticipated safety benefits;
• Design concerns; and
• Funding limitations.

To perform a qualitative evaluation, staff members select the appropriate evaluation criteria for their community or situation and rate the potential impacts and/or benefits of each countermeasure relative to the selected criteria. The rating can be “good, fair, or poor” or “high, medium, or low” based on staff members’ judgment. For criteria that can be quantified (criteria, including cost, safety effectiveness, acres of right of way needed for the treatment, and wetland impacts), the quantitative value should also be included in the evaluation.

Examples

Table 7 illustrates a hypothetical application of a “high, medium, low” qualitative rating applied to two countermeasures. The criteria selected for evaluating the countermeasures are in the left hand column. The information in the table is hypothetical. In application, the criteria and rating would be developed based on the judgment of the practitioners rating the countermeasures and the basis of the rating in the table:

• Environmental Impacts. The environmental impacts of Countermeasure 1 are less than those of Countermeasure 2.
• Anticipated Safety Benefits. In this example, CMFs are not available so the practitioners have used their experience and professional judgment to determine that the benefits of Countermeasure 2 are higher and better than those of Countermeasure 1 (if a CMF is available it could be directly used in this table. If a CMF is not available, the practitioners could comparatively judge the benefits of one countermeasure versus another based on experience in the community or experience drawn from peers).
• Consistency with Community Plans. In this example, the practitioners believe that both countermeasures are consistent with relevant plans for the community such as agency capital improvement plans, long-range transportation plans, maintenance programs, and road resurfacing programs.
• Public Acceptance. The practitioners believe the public is not likely to support Countermeasure 2 and will reasonably support Countermeasure 1.
• Right-of-Way Impacts. This criterion can be quantified. However, if it has not been quantified at this stage, the practitioners can judge the order of magnitude impacts based on knowledge of the site and familiarity with construction methods.
• Construction Costs. This criterion can be quantified. However, if it has not been quantified at this stage, the practitioners with relevant expertise can estimate the order of magnitude costs of constructing and maintaining each countermeasure.
• Future Maintenance Costs. This criterion can be quantified or at this stage maintenance staff from the agency could provide input on the order of magnitude costs of annual maintenance for both countermeasures. In this example, agency staff believe that the cost to maintain each countermeasure would be approximately equal over the years, and that there is some degree of maintenance involved for each countermeasure.

Based on this qualitative assessment, each countermeasure was assigned a low, medium, or high rating for each criterion. The countermeasures were then compared and prioritized based on the assessment (see Table 7 below). In this hypothetical example, countermeasure A would be selected.

Table 7. Hypothetical Application of a “High,” “Medium,” and “Low” Rating

	Site A Countermeasure 1	Site A Countermeasure 2
Environmental Impacts	Low	Medium
Anticipated Safety Benefits	Medium	High
Consistency with Community Plans	High	High
Public Acceptance	Medium	Low
Right-of-Way Impacts	Low	High
Order of Magnitude Costs	Low	High
Future Maintenance Obligations	Medium	Medium
Countermeasure Selected?	Yes	No

Application

Qualitative evaluation is a relatively quick and easy to use “order of magnitude” tool for prioritizing countermeasures. It is applicable in situations where available data are limited and preliminary design activities have not been conducted.

Prioritizing Countermeasures Based on Economic Evaluation

Overview

Countermeasures also can be evaluated by converting the benefits and costs of the countermeasure to monetary value and conducting either a benefit/cost analysis, or a cost effectiveness analysis.

In a benefit/cost analysis, safety benefits are converted to the estimated dollar value of fatalities, injuries, and property damage avoided over the service life of the treatment. This is calculated as the net present dollar value of benefits. The dollar value of these benefits is then compared to the dollar value of constructing and maintaining the countermeasure over the service life of the countermeasure. Costs include construction costs, environmental costs, planning and design costs, and ongoing maintenance costs. Consideration also is given to service life of the countermeasure. In more complex applications of benefit/cost analysis, societal costs (including health care costs, pain and suffering, and insurance costs) and benefits also are considered and quantified.

Cost effectiveness analysis is similar to benefit/cost analysis except that instead of quantifying safety benefits in terms of dollar values, safety benefits are quantified in terms of expected crash reductions. Cost effectiveness analysis is used when it is not possible or practical to estimate the dollar value of the safety benefits of a treatment.

Examples

Net Present Value. The net present value (NPV) or net present worth (NPW) benefit/cost analysis method expresses the difference between the discounted costs and discounted benefits of a safety improvement project. The costs and benefits have been “discounted” meaning they have been converted to a present value using a discount rate.

The NPV has two functions. It can be used to determine which countermeasures are most favorable based on the countermeasure(s) with the highest NPV. It also can be used to determine if a project is economically justified when the NPV is greater than zero, meaning the benefits are greater than the costs.

This method identifies the most desirable countermeasure(s) for a specific site, or it can be used to evaluate multiple projects across multiple sites.

Table 8 is a hypothetical example using the NPV to rank four alternatives.

Table 8. Example Using Net Present Value

Alternative Countermeasure	Present Value of Benefits	Present Value of Costs	Net Present Value	Alternate Rank
A	$1,800,268	$500,000	$1,300,268	3
B	$3,255,892	$1,200,000	$2,055,892	1
C	$3,985,768	$2,100,000	$1,858,768	2
D	$2,566,476	$1,270,000	$1,296,476	4

Source: FHWA.

Note: Alternative B has the greatest Net Present Value. All of the alternatives are economically justified, as their net present value is greater than zero.

For Alternative A the NPV is calculated:

The same step is repeated for the other three countermeasures. All are economically justified with NPV greater than zero. Alternative B has the greatest NPV, and is ranked number 1, based on this method.

Benefit/Cost Ratio. A benefit/cost ratio divides the sum of all of the benefits associated with implementing a countermeasure, expressed in monetary terms, by the sum of all the costs associated with implementing and maintaining the countermeasure. The benefit/cost ratio (B/C Ratio) of the project is the ratio of the present dollar value of the benefits to the present dollar value of the costs.

A project with a B/C Ratio greater than 1.0 is considered economically justified. The B/C Ratio can be used to prioritize optional countermeasures at one site or to prioritize among sites, by estimating the B/C Ratio for selected countermeasures at each site, and ranking the sites from highest to lowest B/C Ratio. The sites at the top of the list should be selected for countermeasure implementation. Table 9 shows an example using benefit cost ratios.

Table 9. Example Using Benefit/Cost Ratio

Alternative Countermeasure	Present Value of Benefits	Present Value of Costs	Benefit/Cost Ratio
A	$1,800,268	$500,000	3.6
B	$3,255,892	$1,200,000	2.71
D	$2,566,476	$1,270,000	2.02
C	$3,985,768	$2,100,000	1.89

Source: FHWA.

Note: Alternative A has the highest benefit/cost ratio. All of the alternatives are economically justified, as their benefit/cost ratios are greater than zero.

For Alternative A, the B/C is calculated:

The same step is repeated for the other three countermeasures. All are economically justified with B/C greater than one. Alternative A has the greatest B/C ratio, and is ranked number 1, based on this method.

Some state departments of transportation have publicly available cost benefit spreadsheets. It can be worthwhile to check on the state DOT web site for availability.

Cost-Effectiveness Index. In situations where it is not possible or practical to determine dollar values of countermeasure benefits, a “cost-effectiveness” metric can be used in lieu of the net present value or benefit/cost ratio. Cost-effectiveness is the amount of money required to avoid a single crash, or the total amount spent on the countermeasure(s) divided by the expected number of crashes reduced. In this case, the countermeasure with the lowest cost-effectiveness index is ranked highest.

The Cost-Effectiveness Index is calculated as follows:

In this analysis, the present value of the project cost is calculated in the same manner as in benefit/cost analysis. The value of crash reduction is estimated by multiplying the relevant crash modification factor by the number of existing crashes to yield the number of crashes expected after countermeasure implementation. This method provides a general sense of a project’s value, and can be used to compare many safety improvement projects relative to each other. This method also avoids the sensitivities of placing a dollar value on lives and injuries. In this method, a smaller cost-effectiveness index is better.

Table 10 provides an example of evaluating four alternatives at a given site using a cost-effectiveness index as the measure for prioritizing countermeasures.

Table 10. Example Using Cost-Effectiveness Index

Alternative Countermeasure	Present Value of Cost	Total Accident Reduction	Cost-Effectiveness Index	Alternative Rank
A	$500,000	43	11,628	1
B	$1,200,000	63	19,048	3
C	$2,100,000	70	30,000	4
D	$1,270,000	73	17,397	2

Source: FHWA.

Note: Alternative A is ranked first as it has the lowest cost associated with each crash reduction.

For Alternative A, the cost-effectiveness index is calculated as:

The cost-effectiveness index is calculated for each alternative as shown in the table. Alternative A is ranked first since it has the lowest cost associated with each crash reduced.

Application

Agency preferences and available resources influence which countermeasure prioritization method is applied. Funding agencies often suggest and sometimes require agencies use a particular method in their applications for funding. In these cases, technical guidance outlining the specific requirements of the analysis is typically provided by the funding agency.

Other prioritization and optimization methods are sometimes used as well, including:

• Incremental benefit/cost analysis;
• Linear programming;
• Integer programming; and
• Dynamic programming.

These methods are not typically used for selecting or programming projects at the local level because of the technical expertise required and generally the number of project is limited. They are described in some detail in Chapter 8 of the Highway Safety Manual.

Resources For Step 5: Prioritizing Countermeasures For Implementation

Resources for Economic Evaluation

Highway Safety Improvements Program Manual

Section 4.4 of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) manual discusses methods of prioritizing countermeasures for implementation. These methods include: project cost, monetary value of benefits, total number of crashes reduced, net present value, and cost-effectiveness. The manual also provides information about incremental benefit/cost analysis and optimization methods.

Highway Safety Manual Part B

The HSM’s Volume 1, Chapter 7 presents methods for prioritizing countermeasures at one site or prioritizing sites for implementation. The Manual’s Table 8-1: Summary of Project Prioritization Methods provides users with a comparison of the input needs, outcomes, and considerations for the different methods.

You may need Adobe® Reader® to view the PDFs on this page.

Return to top

< Previous

Table of Contents

Next >