A Systems Approach to Project Selection

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Made a paradigm shift to a safe systems approach to HSIP project selection.
• Established a process for the DOT Central Office to nominate HSIP projects based on objective criteria.
• Implemented a process to review all transportation projects with respect to safety and to add safety improvements to the scope where beneficial.
• Achieved high annual expenditures of HSIP obligations.

Historically, States focused problem identification analysis on fatal crashes to identify locations for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). This long-standing practice was reinforced by Federal agencies’ performance goals focusing on fatal crash reduction. Fatal crashes should be a foundation of the process, but not the exclusive focus.

To reduce the tendency to “chase fatalities and injuries,” Utah is adopting a proactive and preventive “safe systems” approach. The SHSP process provided focus and guidance for the Utah Department of Transportation’s (UDOT) migration to this approach. The State has fundamentally changed the way crash problems are addressed leading to a comprehensive approach to the HSIP.

Historically, all or most projects were nominated by regions or districts. Through this new, broader approach, UDOT now analyzes Statewide data and the Central Office nominates half of the safety projects Statewide. This is a fundamental change in UDOT’s safety planning culture. Bringing the Central Office into the project selection process helps to avoid regional political issues and pressures and encourages objectivity. The deciding factor for project selection is not which entity is submitting the project, but which project has the most favorable benefit/cost ratio.

The UDOT Central Office reviews every project, not just safety-specific projects, to determine safety deficiencies and, if necessary, adds safety-related improvements to the project scope. To resolve complaints that too much money was being spent on safety to the detriment of pavement preservation, exceptions were made when an element fit into a UDOT project programmatic focus area (e.g., rumble strips), which meant the element would have been added anyway. Exception requests can also be considered if the cost of the safety improvement is significant (i.e., 20 percent or more of the total project cost).

Results

Utah has moved towards a safe systems approach to developing transportation projects. It is now standard practice to consider systematic safety solutions. As a result, the State maintains a high annual expenditure of HSIP obligations.

Contact:
Robert Hull
Director, Traffic and Safety Division
Utah DOT
801-965-4273
rhull@utah.gov

LTAP Provides Software and MDOT Provides Support for Local Safety Data Analysis

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Increased the number and quality of local safety projects.
• Developed local agency analysis capabilities on safety trends including development of charts and maps.
• Aligned local safety efforts with the SHSP.

Because the fatal crash rate on non-State highways was higher than on State highways, Michigan recognized that additional tools were needed to support local safety planning and programming. The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) developed a GIS-based integrated roadway management system to analyze and report on local roadway inventory, safety, and condition. The software’s safety module helps local practitioners conduct several analyses, including identifying trends in crash frequency and severity, determining segments eligible for the High-Risk Rural Roads funding program, and identifying intersections of concern in their jurisdictions. Crash report data are embedded in the software so users can easily access crash reports when conducting safety analysis. These new analysis capabilities result in projects targeted to locations with high rates of fatal and serious injury crashes. Previously, it was common for projects to be targeted at locations based on resident complaints. Development of standard data queries aligned with SHSP emphasis areas is underway.

The software also includes diagnostic tools to analyze crash patterns to identify locations where infrastructure improvements can reduce crash frequency and severity. Once problem areas are defined, users can follow built-in links to National Cooperative Highway Research Program safety documentation to identify promising countermeasures. MDOT-funded enhancements to the safety module and provides funding for the LTAP to offer the software and training at no cost to local agencies.

Since the establishment of the MDOT Local Safety Initiative in 2004, three dedicated staff have provided engineering support to local agencies by conducting local crash analysis using the software. Additionally, MDOT conducts field reviews of locations of interest with the local agency and provides suggestions for safety countermeasures. When staff conducts outreach to local agencies they provide information on the State’s SHSP to increase alignment of local activities with Statewide safety goals and strategies.

Results

More than one-half of counties have voluntarily sought support on safety data analysis, countermeasure development, and training from the local safety initiative. The local capacity for safety analysis has improved, and the number and quality of local safety projects has increased.

Contact:
Tracie Leix
Supervising Engineer, Local Safety Initiative
Michigan DOT
517-373-8950
LeixT@michigan.gov

Project Evaluation Using Empirical Bayes

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, HSIP Project Evaluation; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF 2.3MB)

Incorporating the Empirical Bayes (EB) method into project evaluations reduces the potential overestimation of safety benefits due to regression-to-the-mean. While the EB method is not difficult in itself, it requires safety performance functions (SPF) for the type of facilities on which projects are being evaluated.

SPFs were originally developed by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for use in the network screening process. While crash rates are commonly used to measure safety, the crash rate implies a linear relationship between safety and exposure, which can often be misleading since rates change with Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). To capture how this rate change takes place, design engineers at the CDOT started to calibrate SPFs in the late 1990s, as part of the development of the Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) concept. LOSS is used to identify locations with potential for safety improvement and reflects how a roadway segment is performing in regard to its expected crash frequency and severity at a specific level of AADT, based on the SPF. By 2001, CDOT had calibrated SPFs for all public roadways (state and local) in Colorado, stratified by the number of lanes, terrain, environment, and functional classification. In 2009, CDOT in collaboration with consultants developed SPFs for all intersection types.

The development of SPFs has not only advanced CDOT’s network screening process, it also has enabled CDOT to institutionalize the use of the EB method as a standard procedure for safety evaluation analysis. Colorado has traditionally used a simple spreadsheet with three to five years of before and after data to conduct project evaluations. CDOT is currently working on applying an EB correction to evaluate sites on an SPF graph as shown. The use of the EB method is particularly effective when it takes a long time for a few crashes to occur, as is often the case on Colorado rural roads.

Key Accomplishments

• Developed SPFs for all roadway facility and intersection types in the state.
• Institutionalized the use of the Empirical Bayes method as a standard procedure for safety evaluation analysis to reduce effects of regression-to-the-mean.

Results

CDOT developed SPFs for all state and local roadway facilities and intersection types. The development of the SPFs has enabled CDOT to fully institutionalize the EB method for all safety analysis at CDOT and reduce the effects of regression-to-the-mean.

Contact

Bryan Allery
Colorado Department of Transportation
303-757-9967
bryan.allery@dot.state.co.us

Jake Kononov
Colorado Department of Transportation
303-757-9973
jake.kononov@dot.state.co.us

Nevada Funds Education and Outreach Programs with HSIP Flex Funds

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF, 2.8MB)

The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) flexed $800,000 of its Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds in FY 2009 (seven percent of the total) to fund a range of outreach and education campaigns linked to the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) emphasis areas.

SHSP partners actively participated in identification of the flex projects. SHSP critical emphasis area (CEA) teams identified several projects focusing on seat belts, impaired driving, lane departures, intersections, and pedestrians. Other flex projects involving marketing and communications were identified by the Nevada Strategic Communications Alliance (SCA), comprised of public information officers from state agencies and private sector organizations with an interest in safety. The SCA manages communications and marketing related to the SHSP, and recommended strategies within the SHSP emphasis areas. The list of recommendations from the SCA and the CEA teams was reviewed by the SHSP Technical Working Group and then by the Nevada Executive Committee on Traffic Safety.

The increased communications among partners from the SHSP process resulted in several key developments. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) reported a reduction in funding for safety belt and impaired driving media campaigns. It is doubtful that without the SHSP forum NDOT and others would have been aware of this situation. The $300,000 in flex funds, which were used to increase media buys, extended these campaigns and augmented the outreach already underway.

The creation of the SCA resulted in innovative programs receiving much-needed support and expansion of successful programs statewide. NDOT invested $114,000 in flex funds in Nevada’s Prevent All Crashes Every Day (PACE) program, which increases awareness of seatbelt use and the dangers of impaired and distracted driving among teens through presentations on the program at assemblies, teacher meetings, and other events. The flex funds enabled OTS to roll out the program beyond the Las Vegas area to other teens statewide.

To reach the Latino population, NDOT invested $310,000 to hire regional coordinators and develop a comprehensive Latino community highway safety awareness and education program. The objective was to engage Latino audiences, particularly first- and second-generation Latinos, through culturally responsive media campaigns, enforcement operations, and educational programming targeting highway safety messages in the areas of seat belts, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety.

NDOT used $20,000 in flex funds to support the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in publishing up to 150,000 educational tip cards on topics related to the SHSP emphasis areas, including teen driving, impaired driving, seat belts and child safety seats, pedestrian and bicycle safety, lane departures (move over law), and other new legislation. This project was an update and revitalization of the DMV’s existing “Quick Tip” series.

NDOT allocated an additional $56,000 to the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Washoe County to provide and promote a “Safe Ride Home” with free public transportation on New Year’s Eve and St. Patrick’s Day in Reno/Sparks along with a “Don’t Drink and Drive/Safe Ride Home” education campaign.

NDOT staff found the flex fund application process to be fairly simple since the agency met the requirement of obligating funds for the infrastructure projects it had identified for the year. Additionally, given the FHWA division office’s participation in SHSP implementation activities, the Nevada Division Office FHWA representative was familiar with the proposed projects.

Performance measures and tracking mechanisms are included in funding agreements with each of the implementing agencies. For example, process measures for tracking successful implementation include, among others, the number of materials distributed, the number of active partners, and the number of news stories about the issue. Outcome measures include changes in target audience behavior and attitude on seat belts, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety.

Key Accomplishments

• Used Emphasis Area teams to identify safety projects for flex funding.
• Used HSIP flexible funding provision to expand successful and proven programs.
• Initiated a new education program to reach the Latino population.
• Strengthened relationships with safety partner agencies.

Results

Flexing of HSIP funding enabled NDOT to support multiple education and outreach programs related to the SHSP that would not have received funding or support otherwise. Included with efforts targeting the general population are programs to reduce fatalities and serious injuries among two high-risk groups – young drivers and Latinos. The successful PACE program was expanded from just one area to students all over the State. The proven effective Click It or Ticket and Over the Limit Under Arrest campaigns were also expanded. The RTC free ride program provided 7,326 rides between 7 p.m. and 4 a.m. on New Year’s Eve in 2009. While data is not available for the specific day, the number of crashes involving driving under the influence (DUI) in December 2009 was 30 percent lower than in December 2008.

Contact

Chuck Reider
Chief Safety Engineer
Nevada DOT
775-888-7335
creider@dot.state.nv.us

Prioritizing Safety in the Transportation Improvement Program

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Increased use of safety as a factor in prioritizing TIP projects.
• Achieved better understanding of safety problems through data analysis in MPO areas.
• Increased number of local safety projects proposed.

While safety is required in transportation planning and is frequently stated as a planning goal, often safety issues are not given sufficient weight in the project selection process to ensure safety projects are advanced into the programming phase. To increase the number of safety projects programmed, several Michigan metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) have developed prioritization processes that explicitly consider safety.

MPO project prioritization often takes the form of weighting project factors using a point system. Incorporating safety into the weighting process can be achieved through allocating a certain number of points to safety, which may vary depending on whether a project is categorized as capacity, preservation, or non-motorized. For example, one MPO allocated up to 20 points out of a possible 100 to safety-related factors for preservation projects and 20 points out of 125 points for capacity projects. Safety factors considered included separation of non-motorized modes from vehicles, crash rates, and whether a project includes countermeasures such as signs and striping to reduce crashes and severity.

The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning funds a consultant to analyze safety data and identify hazardous locations in most of the MPO planning areas. As part of the project prioritization process, several MPOs consider whether a project addresses a hazardous location included in the safety analysis.

Results

Through the SHSP process, awareness of the Michigan safety goal among MPOs has increased. The number of requests for local safety funds has increased, as well as the funding available for such projects.

Contact:
Marsha Small
Manager, Statewide Transportation Planning
Michigan DOT
517-373-9054
smallm@michigan.gov

Michigan DOT Uses MOU to Define Roles Among Data Generators

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Developed an MOU to clearly define roles, responsibilities, and funding obligations related to crash data management.
• Improved data quality and timeliness.
• Ensured consistent use of data Statewide through uniform data queries.

The Michigan DOT (MDOT), Department of State, and State Police signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) defining crash data management and funding. The State agencies invested in a team of three people, including a dedicated project manager, over a five-year period. The MOU provided a basis for ongoing cooperation and communication concerning Michigan’s data systems. Researchers can review current data without personal identifiers within 24 hours of receiving crash reports. The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) provides funding for a research center at Wayne State University, which provides public access to annual reports on safety data.

The State’s safety stakeholders understand they all need to be working with the same data and statistics for each crash type; therefore, a uniform data query was developed for Statewide use to ensure consistency in the number of crashes for each emphasis area and other crash types.

Michigan currently is transitioning to electronic crash reporting and citation management to reduce reporting errors. Paper crash reports have an average of 1.5 errors per form, while the error rate for electronic crash reports is very low given the quality checks that can be implemented (e.g., it is impossible to enter conflicting data such as the weather was sunny and the crash occurred at midnight). The OHSP contributed $1 million in funding in 2007 for electronic crash reporting equipment. One county currently operates a completely paperless system. Citation information is processed quickly; therefore, in areas with electronic data processes, a person can drive directly to the courthouse to pay the fine after receiving a citation.

Results

The State established a uniform crash reporting system with improved data quality, reliability, and timeliness. Data are now widely available to all potential users to improve safety data analysis and dissemination.

Contact:
Dale Lighthizer
Supervising Engineer
Michigan DOT
517-373-2334
lighthizerd@michigan.gov

SHSP Committee Provides Forum for Data Collection Improvements

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Used collaborative process of the TRCC to conduct problem solving related to data quality.
• Improved quality of commercial vehicle safety data resulting in the receipt of MCSAP funding.
• Implemented improvements in one of the key SHSP emphasis areas.

Since data is the foundation of transportation safety planning, the Ohio Department of Transportation identified data improvement as one of the priority emphasis areas in its SHSP. Each year the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) publishes a State-by-State safety data quality rating that summarizes the completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of State-reported commercial motor vehicle crash and inspection records. States receive either a poor, a fair, or a good rating. Ohio received a “fair” rating and wanted to improve its “timeliness” rating to receive Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) incentive funds.

Ohio’s TRCC is responsible for overseeing data improvements included in the SHSP. The TRCC is the perfect forum for addressing this issue since all the necessary partners are members of the committee. Ohio’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), which provides motor carrier crash data to the FMCSA, did not realize that by not meeting the Federal data reporting deadline, the State was being penalized. Through its participation in Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) meetings, DPS learned of this problem and was able to modify its data reporting process to accommodate the deadline. The policy changes involved the department obtaining crash data from local governments in a timelier manner to meet FMCSAs data reporting requirements.

Results

By improving the timeliness of its data reporting, and therefore its safety data quality rating, Ohio received several hundred thousand dollars in MCSAP incentive funds.

Contact:
Tom Hollingsworth
Chief, Traffic Statistics
Ohio Department of Public Safety
614-387-2800
THollingsworth@dps.state.oh.us

Safety Warrants and Spot Safety Index

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, HSIP Project Identification; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF, 2.7MB)

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) started to identify shortcomings in its problem identification method in the mid-1990s. The previous method focused on identifying locations with a potential safety issue based on factors such as crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. In many cases, the locations identified did not exhibit a correctable crash type and were congestion related issues. For example, NCDOT repeatedly identified signalized intersections exhibiting a high frequency of rear-end collisions, but attributed the collisions to congestion and driver inattention rather than a roadway factor.

Intersection Warrants:

I-1: Frontal Impact

I-2: Last Year Increase

I-3: Frequency with Severity Index Min

I-4: Night Location without Streetlight

I-5: Chronic Pattern

Section Warrants:

S-1: Run Off Road- Wet Conditions

S-2: Run Off Road

S-3: Wet Road Conditions

S-4: Non-Intersection Night Location without Streetlight

Bridge Warrant:

B-1: Bridge

Bike/Ped Intersection Warrants:

P-1: Last 3 Years (pedestrians)

P-2: Darkness with Streetlights

P-3: Alcohol Involvement

P-4: Chronic Location

X-1: Last 3 years (bicyclists)

X-2: Darkness with Streetlights

X-3: Alcohol Involvement

X-4: Chronic Location

Beginning with the 1996 HSIP, a set of safety warrants was established for intersections and roadway segments to target locations exhibiting a pattern of correctable crash types or conditions, as well as locations with a significant increase in crash frequency during the past calendar year. NCDOT has continued to expand and modify the safety warrants throughout the years to improve the identification process.

NCDOT initially screens the network (including local roads) for potential safety improvement locations using four categories of safety warrants: intersections, sections, bridges, and bicycle and pedestrian intersections. The safety warrants are analyzed annually using 5 to 10 years of crash data by querying the crash database. The current warrant criteria are based on crash frequency, severity, conditions, and percentage of target crashes. When a location meets the warrant criteria, it is flagged. As an example, an interstate segment would be flagged based on run-off road crashes if a minimum of 30 total crashes occurred on the segment, the crash rate is greater than 60 crashes per mile, and a minimum of 60 percent of the total crashes were run off the road. After a location is flagged, a weighting factor is calculated based on the warrant criteria. The weighting factors are summed for locations meeting multiple warrants and are used to rank locations to determine which will receive priority for further analysis and investigation by the corresponding Regional Traffic Engineering and Highway Division staff. The Regional Traffic Engineers are responsible for identifying potential countermeasures and developing projects.

All safety projects are submitted to North Carolina’s Safety Oversight Committee, which was established to help select projects to receive Spot Safety Program funding. To provide clear and consistent data-driven selection process, the Spot Safety Index (SSI) was developed as a decision support tool to perform an initial prioritization of all candidate projects from across the state. It ensures safety investments are focused on locations with the greatest need and potential for improvement. The SSI is calculated based on a 100-point scale and is composed of four parts: Safety Factor (60 points), Constructability (5 points – e.g., ROW acquisition needs), Department Goals (5 points) and Division/Region Priority (30 points). The Safety Factor is based on the benefit-cost ratio, Severity Index, and whether the project is identified in the HSIP List or identified through a Road Safety Audit (RSA). An initial list of prioritized projects is developed by ranking projects based on the SSI. However, the Committee must take other considerations into account to develop the final list, including distribution of funding to the 14 districts and the effectiveness of countermeasures identified in the projects based on results from the state’s evaluation group.

Key Accomplishments

• Developed network screening method to identify locations with severe and correctable crash patterns.
• Continued to update network screening process to improve the identification of relevant safety issues and locations.
• Developed systematic project prioritization ranking method that considers benefit-cost analysis, departmental and regional priorities, and ease of constructability.

Results

The development of the safety warrants for use in the network screening process has enabled NCDOT to focus their analysis on the identification of locations with severe crashes and crash patterns correctable by infrastructure safety countermeasures. NCDOT also has successfully established a clear and consistent data-driven process for selecting and prioritizing projects for funding.

Contact

Stephen Lowry
Safety Improvement Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
919-773-2892
slowry@ncdot.gov

Statewide and Regional SHSP Coalitions

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, SHSP Stakeholder Involvement; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF, 2.6MB)

In November 2004, Missouri’s SHSP, titled Blueprint for Safer Roadways, was developed in consultation with many safety advocates, including engineers, law enforcement, educators, and emergency responders. Prior to the Blueprint, Missouri never had a statewide safety goal. The Blueprint established the fatality reduction goal of 1,000 or fewer fatalities by 2008.

One of the key principles guiding development of the 2004 Blueprint was deploying targeted strategies at both the state and regional level. The document outlined a strategy to organize 10 regional safety coalitions designed to work in concert with the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS). As soon as the Blueprint was published, champions pushed very hard to sell the goal and promote shared responsibility through individual meetings within each region. Presentations promoted the “Essential Eight” strategies Missouri must implement to make significant progress in reaching the projected goal. The Champions helped establish regional coalitions and provided the coalitions with safety planning toolkits, including data packages, copies of the Blueprint, and copies of the National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) 500 Series.

Before the Blueprint, no forum existed for regional multidisciplinary discussions on safety. Purpose and procedural guidelines now document the organizational structure and activities of the MCRS and Regional Coalitions. The 10 regional coalitions are charged to:

• Assist with the implementation of the Blueprint;
• Conduct regional data analysis to guide highway safety activities;
• Expand regional safety network and partnerships;
• Actively participate in MCRS meetings, campaigns, and promotions;
• Develop a localized safety plan for the region; and
• Facilitate the expenditure of allocated funds.

Participation in the coalitions is open to any national, state, regional, or local organization and any individual. The MCRS includes an Executive Committee with representatives from over a dozen agencies and organizations, and is presided over by a chair and vice chair. Nine subcommittees were also established to effectively address the mission of the Coalition on a statewide level, including: Commercial Motor Vehicle, Elder Mobility and Safety, Enforcement, Impaired Driving, Infrastructure, Legislative, Public Information, Strategic Planning and Implementation, and Traffic Records Coordinating.

In each regional coalition, the corresponding Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) district office and Missouri State Highway Patrol troop help facilitate meetings, expand coalition membership, develop and implement regional strategic highway safety plans, and distribute funding. In addition, MoDOT trained a representative from each district to provide data analysis support to each regional coalition.

Two-million dollars of state road funds are offered each year to support regional safety plans activities. Annual grant applications are submitted to MoDOT for enforcement and education programs supporting Blueprint priorities. Previously, such programs had been supported exclusively through Federal Section 402 funds with project selection by the MoDOT Highway Safety Office. Regional safety plans developed by local stakeholders can provide more targeted programs. MoDOT also utilizes district safety funds to support regional engineering projects.

The MCRS meets quarterly, including an Executive Committee meeting and discussion with regional coalition contacts before an afternoon meeting with the broader statewide coalition. Every other year the MCRS holds a Blueprint Conference and uses state funds to bring up to 10 representatives from each regional coalition. The conferences combine presentations with participatory working groups. Statewide and regional coalition members played an active role in the 2008 update, Blueprint to Arrive Alive, which, among other changes, expanded the original “Essential Eight” to the “Targeted Ten” strategies to improve safety. The Blueprint appendices include data for each coalition, which are updated annually. MCRS also sends out a weekly e-mail with updated statewide and regional fatality counts. All of the above activities are designed to keep safety on the forefront and to maintain regular communication and collaboration among safety stakeholders.

Key Accomplishments

• Established collaborative, multidisciplinary, regional partnerships pursuing common safety goals.
• Funded localized safety programs addressing Blueprint priorities via 10 annual regional safety plans.

Results

Together, the MCRS and Regional Coalitions have embraced the elements of the Blueprint and implemented a comprehensive, coordinated, and focused effort to reduce fatalities and disabling injuries on Missouri roads. Missouri’s original fatality reduction goal of 1,000 or fewer fatalities by 2008 was met one year early. Regional Coalitions have expanded their number of partners and regional safety plans include a wider variety of localized safety programs.

Contact

Leanna Depue, Ph.D.
Highway Safety Director
Missouri Department of Transportation
573-751-7643
leanna.depue@modot.mo.gov

Grant Writing Assistance Focuses on SHSP

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Developed efficient grant application process.
• Used current, centralized data rather than local data.
• Strengthened the partnership between the Highway Safety Office and law enforcement.

The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) partners with police on traffic enforcement efforts as part of its annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP). To receive funding, each year every county law enforcement agency and the State Police write grant applications describing the data-driven need for traffic enforcement efforts. Law enforcement agencies typically have few grant writing resources, and in the past it took considerable time to revise grant application drafts by both law enforcement and OHSP staff. To assist law enforcement with this process, the OHSP developed a law enforcement grant shell, or template, to provide a framework for applications.

The OHSP populates the template with current crash data on key SHSP emphasis areas, including safety belts and impaired driving. The grant shell describes general enforcement strategies to support the SHSP, including national mobilization efforts defined by NHTSA and strategies based on State problem identification. The grant application does not dictate methods for enforcement so each agency can customize approaches for its region, but it provides consistency on addressing SHSP goals related to law enforcement.

Results

This approach has allowed law enforcement to minimize time writing grant applications and improved the quality of the applications.

Contact:
Mike Prince
Director
Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning
517-333-5301
princem@michigan.gov