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


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Safety

FHWA Home / Safety / Transportation Safety Planning (TSP) / Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Analysis

Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Analysis: A Primer for Safety and Environmental Professionals

3.0 Considering Safety Before the NEPA Process

3.1 Introduction

The passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005 opened a new era for transportation safety planning. SAFETEA-LU established a core highway program focused on safety and required all states to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The SHSP identifies the top priority road safety issues in the state, and describes strategies for addressing the problem, including education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency response.

SHSPs do not typically contain lists of specific safety projects for implementation, and thus do not link directly to project development and NEPA review. Rather, they are intended to be implemented through linkage to other planning processes, specifically state and regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP), and other planning processes (pedestrian, bicycle, commercial motor vehicle safety, freight, Highway Safety Program, and Highway Safety Improvement Program). Figure 3.1 illustrates how these linkages are intended to occur. This integration advances the safety agenda because it reflects statewide priorities, provides a blueprint for action for key agencies, and influences resource distribution. Examples of how plan integration is accomplished include:

Figure 3.1 Integrating SHSP Priorities into other Plans and Programs

Shows the link between Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) with State safety, non-safety and metropolitan transportation related plans (long description available)L

Note: State safety-related plans are shown in grey; state nonsafety-related plans are shown in white; and metropolitan transportation plans are shown in light blue.

3.2 Linking The NEPA Process to Safety Planning

Begin consideration of safety prior to the NEPA process, particularly during safety planning processes. Linking safety planning to project development processes helps in:

The degree of linkage may depend on whether the project is safety-focused and the amount of public engagement that has occurred. Safety-focused projects should directly support specific strategies listed in the SHSP. For example, if analysts identify run-off-road crashes as an issue at the project site, they should reference the SHSP and incorporate strategies identified in the SHSP to address run-off-road crashes. If the project is funded with Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds, it should be included in the HSIP project list, as well as in both a long-range plan (LRP) and a program document (TIP); and the NEPA document should reference any safety analysis conducted to demonstrate the existence of a safety problem at the project site (e.g., results of network screening to identify high-crash concentration locations).

For both safety projects and nonsafety projects, check to ensure the project is consistent with the overall safety goals listed in the SHSP, which should integrate with state and regional planning goals (As per CFR 924.9(J)). For example, if the SHSP sets a goal of reducing crashes by 50 percent, regional transportation plans could incorporate at least the same crash-reduction goal, and include safety benefits as a project prioritization factor. Individual projects competing for funding in the region should be able to reference this goal and demonstrate whether they support it. Finally, projects should incorporate any systemic safety improvements identified in the SHSP or other safety plans. Systemic safety improvements are safety countermeasures appropriate for deployment on most or all facilities prone to certain types of crashes, as opposed to targeted deployment only at safety “hotspots” (locations where an unusually high number of crashes has occurred). Examples of systemic safety countermeasures could include:

Incorporating systemic safety features into projects recognizes the fact that while crashes may historically occur more in some places than others, this is in part due to random chance. Future crashes can occur in any place at any time.

3.3 Transitioning into the NEPA Process

The results of safety planning and traditional transportation planning processes may be very useful in NEPA analysis. However, this information is frequently lost or disregarded during the transition to NEPA review, if it is collected at all. When initiating the NEPA process, consult with transportation planners and safety professionals for collection and use of relevant materials and data. Examples of useful information might include:

Page last modified on October 29, 2014
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