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 / Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool

Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool

Element 2: A Framework for Balancing Systemic and Traditional Safety Investments

Graphic - This image displays the continuous cycle among three elements, each of which contain specific processes, with Element 2 highlighted. Element 1 begins with Identity Focus Crash Types & Risk Factors, which feeds into Screen & Prioritize Candidate Locations, followed by Select Countermeasures, and Prioritize Projects. The last process of Element 1 feeds into the one process within Element 2, Identify Funding for Systemic Program & Implement, which feeds into the sole process for Element 3, Perform Systemic Program Evaluation, which in turn feeds back into the first process of Element 1.

Introduction to Balancing Systemic and Traditional Safety Investments

Agencies interested in adding a systemic component to their highway safety program quickly realize their next decision involves determining how to distribute their safety investments among projects identified through the traditional site analysis approach and projects identified through the systemic approach. Element 2 of the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool provides a framework determining an appropriate balance of safety investments between the site analysis and systemic approaches. The framework supports a program manager’s decisions about the general distribution of the safety investments given particular crash and roadway system characteristics. A framework is more appropriate than a prescriptive process because each agency has unique considerations.

Decision Support Framework

The decision support framework begins with a review of historical safety investments and crash history to gain an understanding of past agency decisions. Looking back is often instructive when considering a new path to move forward. The path forward is then based on a combination of understanding the effectiveness of historical safety investments, understanding how an agency’s goals, priorities, and crash and roadway characteristics lend themselves to a systemic approach, and assessing the potential benefit to be gained with systemic investment.

Consideration of an agency’s goals, priorities, and crash and roadway characteristics provides a safety program manager with useful clues for making decisions about adding a systemic component to their safety program and allocating funding in support of identified projects. Following are some examples of these considerations:

Thus, the decision to invest funding in systemic improvements is influenced by program goals rather than justified solely through analysis of the benefits to be gained from implementation and maintenance costs expended.

Review of Past Funding Practices

Reviewing past funding practices helps answer the following questions about an agency’s historical investment in safety improvement projects:

Answers to these questions provide insight for safety program managers. If the review determines that the historical safety investments were consistent with SHSP priorities, the investments effectively reduced focus crashes, the results of the historical investments were satisfactory, and the same crash types and roadway facilities are expected to be a priority going forward, only a small portion of an agency’s safety investments would likely need to be diverted to supporting projects identified through a new systemic approach. However, if the review determines that these criteria were not achieved, then safety program managers might conclude that it may be necessary to redirect safety investments. This new direction might include allocating safety funds to a systemic safety program aimed at proactively deploying low-cost countermeasures systemwide.

Table 2 illustrates an example of one agency’s efforts to review their historical highway safety investments. This state’s HSIP records were searched, and the investments were disaggregated by project type within three basic categories: Intersection Improvements, Lane Departure Improvements, and Other Improvements. The safety program managers concluded that the Intersection Improvements and Lane Departure Improvements categories were consistent with their SHSP priorities, but several of the specific project types were not. Specifically, the proportion of funding for all safety improvement projects related to traffic signal installation and revisions substantially exceeded the proportion of severe crashes occurring at signalized intersections. In addition, the program managers concluded that within the Lane Departure Improvements category, they had underinvested in road edge enhancements and overinvested in median barriers. This determination was based on crash characteristics that indicated more than seven times as many road departure crashes on two-lane rural roads than cross-median crashes on divided roadways. It is important to understand that the funding distribution was a byproduct of the site analysis approach used to focus on locations with multiple severe crashes. This approach resulted in costly investments at relatively few locations that addressed a small percentage of the total severe crashes. Finally, the safety program managers noted that all of these safety investments were directed toward projects deployed along the state’s highway system, but over 40 percent of their severe crashes occurred on the local system. Based on this review, the safety program managers intend to modify their HSIP investments; going forward, a greater portion of their HSIP funds will be directed toward proactive, low-cost road edge improvement projects developed using the systemic safety planning process and located along two-lane roads on both the state and local highway systems.

TABLE 2. Example Historical Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding Review
Funding Category Project Description Level of HSIP Funding
Intersections Turn lanes $20,000,000
Intersections Turn lanes and signal revisions $8,000,000
Intersections Install traffic signals $4,000,000
Intersections Traffic signal revisions $12,000,000
Intersections Roundabout $1,000,000
Intersections Intersections Total $45,000,000
Lane Departure Cable barrier $27,000,000
Lane Departure Concrete barrier $16,000,000
Lane Departure Centerline rumble strips $1,000,000
Lane Departure Edgeline rumble strips $1,000,000
Lane Departure Guardrail $16,000,000
Lane Departure Shoulders $9,000,000
Lane Departure Lane Departure Total $70,000,000
Other Other Total $39,000,000

Funding Determination Framework

A funding determination framework assumes two key points. First, there is no suggestion or expectation that any roadway agency’s safety program will be 100 percent oriented toward deployment of systemic projects. This framework suggests, however, that in every agency there will be some balance between projects derived from the site analysis approach and projects derived from the systemic approach. The systemic safety planning process to identify candidates for safety investment complements an agency’s site analysis approach rather than replaces it. Secondly, there is no suggestion or expectation that one particular portion of the safety investments would apply uniformly across an agency’s entire safety program. The balance between projects implemented through each approach is likely different in different regions of a state (e.g., urban versus rural), on different components of the roadway system (e.g., state versus local), and for different focus crash types (e.g., rear end versus road departure crashes).

Agencies should consider a variety of crash and roadway characteristics to determine the balance of safety investments between site analysis and systemic projects. Such considerations suggest a general balance along a safety funding continuum, with one end representing all site analysis projects and the other end representing all systemic projects. Agencies can develop a continuum with characteristics appropriate for their system. Figure 8 illustrates a continuum using the following recommended characteristics for the funding determination framework:

FIGURE 8. Characteristics to Consider in Balancing the Distribution of Safety Investments

Figure 8 - Graphic - Figure 8 illustrates a continuum using 18 recommended characteristics. This continuum can help agencies determine a general balance between site analysis and systemic projects. One end of the continuum represents a 100% site analysis approach and the other represents a 100% systemic approach for distributing safety funding. Each characteristic is considered to qualify as More Site Analysis or More Systemic.

Example 10 illustrates the application of this funding determination framework by Minnesota DOT, which is now directing a considerable portion of their safety investments to systemic projects. In the two years since adopting this plan, MnDOT has found that their safety investments are consistent with their safety investment goals, and spending on systemic projects is actually slightly above the minimum goals set for both rural and urban areas.

Return to top

EXAMPLE 10. Minnesota Department of Transportation Application of Funding Determination Framework

MnDOT applied the Funding Determination Framework to assess their decisions related to balancing safety investments between site analysis and systemic projects.

  • The MnDOT safety program managers shared information they used to support their funds distribution decisions. The following key facts about MnDOT’s organization, priorities, and roadway and crash characteristics are relevant to their funding determination process:
  • MnDOT is decentralized, with seven districts in rural areas of the state and one in a major metropolitan area.
  • Minnesota has almost 140,000 total miles of roadways; the state system consists of approximately 12,000 miles, and the local secondary system consists of 45,000 miles (which is administered by counties and is virtually all rural).
  • MnDOT’s adopted safety performance measure is severe crashes, which are almost equally distributed between the state and local secondary system.
  • Almost 70 percent of fatal crashes and 60 percent of serious injury crashes occur outside of Minnesota’s one major metropolitan area.
  • Focus crash types include road departure and angle crashes at unsignalized intersections in rural areas, and angle and pedestrian crashes at signalized intersections in urban areas.
  • An additional priority location was determined to be horizontal curves along rural two-lane roadways. Almost 30 percent of all severe road departure crashes on MnDOT’s system are in horizontal curves, and more than 50 percent of the severe road departure crashes on the local secondary system are in horizontal curves (by mileage, curves make up less than 10 percent of each of these systems).

To determine a division of their safety investments, MnDOT reviewed historical funding practices and determined that, although severe crashes were almost equally distributed between state and local systems, more than 90 percent of safety investments were directed toward projects on the state system. MnDOT also determined that they did not select projects consistently with priorities indicated by their crash data. Rather, a disproportionate amount of funding had been directed to projects in Minnesota’s major urban area, and a disproportionate amount of that funded the traffic signal installation and revision projects. As a result of this review and a commitment in their SHSP to address severe crashes on all roads in the state, MnDOT adopted an entirely new approach to distributing their HSIP funds. The following framework shows the crash and roadway characteristics the safety program managers considered.

Using this information, MnDOT’s safety program managers decided their overall safety investments needed to be more systemic than site-specific. To accomplish this, the safety program managers:

  • Redistributed their safety funds by district based on the distribution of severe crashes. This resulted in directing 70 percent of their safety funds to the seven districts outside of the metropolitan area, which is the opposite of their historical practice.
  • Divided the safety funds within each district between the state and the local secondary systems based on the distribution of severe crashes. Statewide, this approach resulted in more than 50 percent of the safety investments being directed toward projects on the local secondary system.
  • Analyzed crash characteristics resulting in two conclusions: 1) there were no high crash locations on the local secondary system, and 2) crash densities on the local secondary system were a fraction of those on the state system. The analysis also showed that more than 80 percent of severe crashes were on rural roads; focus crash types were road departure (especially in curves) and angle crashes at through/STOP intersections.
  • Directed 100 percent of the safety funds dedicated to local roads to low-cost proactive projects with a focus on dealing with rural road edges, enhanced curve delineation, and STOP-controlled intersections, as a result of the analysis of the crash characteristics.
  • Noted that virtually no high crash locations were in their rural districts, and set a goal to direct at least 70 percent of their safety investment to systemic projects on the state system. In the urban district, where some high crash locations did exist, they set a goal to direct at least 30 percent of their safety investment toward systemic projects.

Characteristics Considered by MnDOT for Balancing the Distribution of Safety Investments

Example 10 - Graphic - demonstrates a continuum using 14 recommended characteristics. One end of the continuum represents a 100% site analysis approach and the other represents a 100% systemic approach for distributing safety funding. Each characteristic is considered to qualify as More Site Analysis or More Systemic. A site analysis approach is suggested for three characteristics: Highway System - State/Urban, Highway System - Local/Urban, and Priority Location - Signalized Intersections. A more systemic approach is suggested for 11 characteristics: Few High-Crash Locations, Safety Performance Measure - Severe Crashes, Crashes - Over-Represented on Rural Systems, Highway System - State/Rural, Highway System - Local/Rural, Focus Crash Type - Lane Departure, Focus Crash Type - Head-On, Focus Crash Type - Right Angle, Focus Crash Type - Pedestrian, Priority Location - Unsignalized Intersections, and Priority Location - Horizontal Curves.

Programmatic Assessment of the Benefit to be Gained through Systemic Investment

Safety program managers can perform a programmatic evaluation of their systemic safety planning process to help determine how much funding to invest in systemic improvements. One purpose for the programmatic evaluation is to gain an understanding of the expected crash reduction based on different levels of investment in the systemic countermeasures. To assist with gaining this understanding, several states have developed spreadsheet tools (similar to the one shown in Figure 9) that estimate the potential crash reduction expected for a systemic program.

These spreadsheet tools use the number of severe crashes or fatalities and serious injuries that occurred across the focus facility type and the size of focus facility type (i.e., number of intersections, curves or miles of roads) to estimate the average annual crash densities. With the typical construction cost and applicable crash reduction/modification factor, a spreadsheet tool can quickly estimate the crash reduction and construction cost when testing different levels of deployment (the input by the safety program manager). Including service life, interest rate, maintenance costs, and traffic growth rates in the tool provides the ability to calculate the benefit-cost ratio for the life of the countermeasure. The output, an estimate of the severe crashes or fatalities and serious injuries that could be prevented across the roadway system, provides safety program managers with information about the value of the systemic investment. Another benefit of this approach to programmatic evaluation is that similar calculations can be completed with the same spreadsheet tool for driver behavior countermeasures, providing documentation about the expected crash or injury reduction for a comprehensive safety management program.

FIGURE 9. Benefit Cost Analysis Spreadsheet

Figure 9 - Table - Figure 9 presents an example spreadsheet tool which can be used to estimate the benefit cost ratio associated with implementing various countermeasures. The number of severe crashes or fatalities and serious injuries that occurred across the focus facility type and the size of focus facility type (i.e., number of intersections, curves or miles of roads) are used to estimate the average annual crash densities. The tool includes columns for typical construction cost and applicable crash reduction/ modification factors that can be used when testing different levels of deployment (the input by the safety program manager). Columns for service life, interest rate, maintenance costs, and traffic growth rates provide the ability to calculate the benefit-cost ratio for the life of the countermeasure. The computed values include the value of the injury losses, the present value of the injuries avoided by implementing the countermeasures, the present value of all costs associated with implementing the countermeasure, and the resultant benefit cost ratio.

Summary

Element 2 of the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool presents a general framework for balancing site analysis and systemic safety investments. The following three components make up the recommended framework for developing a safety investment plan for systemic and site analysis programs:

Using this data-driven framework, safety program managers can determine general goals for the distribution of safety investments based on crash and roadway characteristics. The framework provides agencies the flexibility to craft funding plans that are consistent with their established goals, priorities, and culture.

There is no precise answer for any agency regarding the distribution of safety investments between candidate projects developed using either a site analysis or systemic approach. Safety program managers are encouraged to decide how to distribute safety investments, move forward, and then review following implementation to determine whether the results are consistent with expectations. If the results indicate a positive effect because of a downward trend in focus crashes, then moving forward would involve continuing along the same safety investment track. If the results were not in line with expectations, then the agency would need to reassess the distribution of the safety investments the following year. The review process continues on an annual basis.

<< Previous Table of Content Next >>
Page last modified on August 12, 2015.
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