Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Process: FHWA-SA-10-010

Intersection Safety Implementation
Plan Process
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration
FHWA-SA-10-010
Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of
Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no
liability for the use of the information contained in this document.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or
manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the
objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve
Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding.
Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and
integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs
and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Foreword
This final report has been designed to provide State Safety and Traffic Engineers with a process
to use for creating an intersection safety implementation plan based upon their Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). While many SHSPs define the State’s overarching safety goals,
typically in terms of fatality and/or injury reduction by a specific year, they do not always define
the countermeasures, deployment levels, costs, and actions needed to achieve the goal.
It is hoped that the 10-step process detailed in this report will guide and assist State Safety
and Traffic Engineers in identifying the countermeasures, strategies, deployment levels,
implementation steps, actions, and costs necessary to achieve the intersection safety goals of
the SHSP.
This report is one in a series on the topic of Intersection Safety Implementation provided
by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Safety. Other complimentary documents
include Example Data Analysis Package and Straw Man Outline, Example Intersection Safety
Implementation Plan, and Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Workshop and can be
found on the FHWA Office of Safety website at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-SA-10-010
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

November 2009
Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Process
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Tom Bryer, P.E.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

8301 Greensboro Drive
McLean, VA 22102 11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-05-D-00025, Task T-06-003
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
United States Department of Transportation

Office of Safety
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590 HSSD
15. Supplementary Notes

George E. Rice, Jr. COTM
16. Abstract
To achieve their safety goals, many States select intersection safety as an emphasis area as part of their Strategic Highway
Safety Plan (SHSP). However, while SHSPs may identify strategies to promote intersection safety, they lack the depth of infor-
mation needed to establish an action plan for implementing the strategies necessary to achieve the safety goals. This docu-
ment provides a 10-step process that guides and assists State Safety and Traffic Engineers in identifying the countermeasures,
strategies, deployment levels, implementation steps, actions, and costs necessary to achieve the intersection safety goals of
the SHSP.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Intersection safety, action plan, intersection safety strate- No restrictions. This document is available to the
gies, goals, implementation plans, strategic highway safety public from: The National Technical Information
plan. Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
19. Security Clasif. (of this report) 20. Security Clasif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 21. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 60 N/A
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Table of Contents
Overview.................................................................................................................................................................. 1
STEP 1: Set the Intersection Crash Reduction Goal......................................................................................... 2

STEP 2: Expand the Current Approach for Achieving the Crash Reduction Goal...................................... 4
Traditional Approach.......................................................................................................................................................................................4
Systematic Approach......................................................................................................................................................................................5
Comprehensive Approach..........................................................................................................................................................................9
STEP 3: Identify Intersection Countermeasure Type to be Completed...................................................... 10

Countermeasure Descriptions...............................................................................................................................................................10
Systematic Approach..................................................................................................................................................................10
Comprehensive Approach......................................................................................................................................................15
Traditional Approach..................................................................................................................................................................16
Selecting Countermeasures.....................................................................................................................................................................16
STEP 4: Analyze Crash and Applicable Roadway Data.................................................................................. 22

The Data Analysis Process.........................................................................................................................................................................22
Separate Intersection Crashes into Sub-Groups........................................................................................................22
Determine Target Crash Types..............................................................................................................................................22
Calculate Average Crash Costs and Crash Severities..............................................................................................25
Determine Distribution of Crash Densities...................................................................................................................26
Prepare Data Analysis Package.............................................................................................................................................27
Data Problems and Solutions..................................................................................................................................................................28
Data Quality......................................................................................................................................................................................28
Data Availability..............................................................................................................................................................................32
Exposure and Rates......................................................................................................................................................................33
Intersections with Multiple Countermeasures............................................................................................................34
STEP 5: Develop a Straw Man Outline.............................................................................................................. 35

Establish Threshold Crash Levels...........................................................................................................................................................35
Develop Detailed Straw Man Tables for Each Countermeasure........................................................................................37
Compile a Summary Straw Man Outline.........................................................................................................................................38
STEP 6: Conduct a Workshop of Key Stakeholders and Follow-Up Implementation...................................

Planning Meeting................................................................................................................................................. 41
Two-Day Workshop.......................................................................................................................................................................................42
Half-Day Follow-Up Implementation Planning Meeting.......................................................................................................44
STEP 7: Develop a Draft Intersection Safety Implementation Plan ........................................................... 45
STEP 8: Present the Draft Intersection Safety Implementation Plan to Upper Management .............. 46
STEP 8: Present the Draft Intersection Safety Implementation Plan to Upper Management .............. 47
STEP 10: Implement the Plan, Monitor Progress, and Evaluate Results.................................................... 48
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample Fatalities for State B...................................................................................................................................2
Table 2: Sample Fatality Rates for State A..........................................................................................................................3
Table 3: Typical Distribution of Fatalities within a State over a 5-Year Period.............................................................5
Table 4: USDOT Fatality and Injury Costs............................................................................................................................6
Table 5: Targeted Crash Types by Traffic Control, Ownership, and Area.......................................................................7
Table 6: Typical Rates for Fatalities per 100 Crashes........................................................................................................7
Table 7: Typical Distribution of Total Crashes at Rural State Stop-Controlled Intersections –

5 Years of Data . ........................................................................................................................................................8
Table 8: Typical Distribution of Total Crashes at Rural State Signalized Intersections –

5 Years of Data . ........................................................................................................................................................8
Table 9: Crash Reduction Factors, Typical Crash Thresholds, Additional Application Factors, and Estimated
Implementation Cost Ranges for Countermeasures at Stop-Controlled Intersections............................11
Implementation Cost Ranges for Countermeasures at J-Turn Stop-Controlled Intersections................12
Implementation Cost Ranges for Countermeasures at Signalized Intersections......................................13
Implementation Cost Ranges for Lighting Countermeasures at Unlit or Poorly Lit Intersections.........14
Implementation Cost Ranges for Skid Resistance Countermeasures at Intersections with High Rates
of Low-Friction Crashes.........................................................................................................................................14
Implementation Cost Ranges for Countermeasures at Stop-Controlled Intersections with
High-Speed Approaches.......................................................................................................................................15
Table 15: Crash Reduction Factors, Default Expected Life, and Estimated Implementation Costs for Corridor
and Municipal Enforcement Countermeasures................................................................................................15
Implementation Cost Ranges for Countermeasures for Education-Enforcement Strategies at
Signalized Intersections to Reduce Red-Light Running.................................................................................16
Table 17: Crash Reduction Factors, Additional Application Factors, and Estimated Implementation Costs for
Traditional Approach Countermeasures............................................................................................................17
Table 18: Template for Documenting Countermeasure Selection.................................................................................18
Table 19: Typical Types of Crashes and Associated Countermeasures .........................................................................23
iv
List of Tables Continued
Table 20: Angle Crashes – Signalized Intersections – 5 Years of Data..........................................................................26
Table 21: Sample Listing of Crashes per Intersection – State, Rural, Stop-Controlled Intersections –
5 Years of Data.........................................................................................................................................................27
Table 22: Summarized Frequency Distribution – State, Rural, Stop-Controlled Intersections –

5 Years of Data . ......................................................................................................................................................28
Table 23: Example Distribution of Crashes by Intersection – Rural/Urban..................................................................29
Table 24: Example Distribution of Night Crashes in Rural Areas by Intersection........................................................31
Table 25: Example Distribution of Wet Pavement Crashes by Rural Intersection......................................................32
Table 26: Sample Matrix for State, Rural, Stop-Controlled Intersections.....................................................................34
Table 27: Sample Distribution of Crashes at State Urban Signalized Intersections...................................................36
Table 28: Sample State Stop-Controlled Intersections - Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements...............37
Table 29: Sample Summary Straw Man...............................................................................................................................39
Table 30: Typical Agenda for Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Workshop...................................................42
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Process for Developing an Intersection Safety Implementation Plan...........................................................1
Figure 2: Levels of Information for the Systematic Approach Crash Data Analysis......................................................6
Figure 3: Examples of Basic Low-Cost Countermeasures for Stop-Controlled Intersections – Double Up

Oversize Warning Signs, Double Stop Signs, Traffic Island on Stop Approach (if feasible), Street
Name Signs, Stop Bars, and Double Warning Arrow at the Stem of T-Intersections.................................10
Figure 4: Turn Restrictions at Multi-Lane Highways.........................................................................................................12
vi
1. OVERVIEW
All States have developed Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) and have established safety
goals as part of the SHSP.
States usually express safety goals in one of two ways: in Figure 1) for creating an implementation plan to
guide intersection safety implementation activities. It is
• A reduction in fatalities by a certain year.
specifically targeted toward State Safety Engineers who
• A reduction in a combination of fatalities and injuries by a certain have intersection safety as an emphasis area in their SHSP.
year.
Once complete, the implementation plan will include the
Either of these options can be expressed in total numbers activities, countermeasures, strategies, deployment levels,
or rates. implementation steps, and funds necessary to achieve the
To achieve their safety goals, many States select intersection component of an SHSP goal. The following
intersection safety as an emphasis area. However, while resources are available on the FHWA Intersection Safety
SHSPs may identify strategies to promote intersection web page (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/) to
safety, they lack the depth of information needed to assist States in developing their implementation plans:
establish an action plan for implementing the strategies • Example workshop presentation.
and achieving the safety goals.
• Example data analysis package and straw man outline.
This document provides States a process (outlined • Example intersection safety implementation plan.
Set Crash Expand Current Identify

Reduction Goal Approach to Intersection
Achieve Goal Countermeasures
Conduct Workshop Analyze Data,

to Refine Develop
Straw Man Identify Target
Countermeasures Intersection
and Budget Outline
Develop Present Draft Implement

Draft Intersection to Upper Management
Safety Management Suggestions
Implementation
Plan
Implement Plan, Monitor
Progress, Evaluate Results
Figure 1: Process for Developing an Intersection Safety Implementation Plan
1
STEP 1:
Set The Intersection Crash Reduction Goal
Many State SHSPs define overall statewide safety goals.

However, most SHSPs do not define the portions
of the goal to be addressed by emphasis area such Year Fatalities
as improving intersection safety, reducing roadway
departures, improving pedestrian safety, reducing
2007 1,000
drinking and driving, and preventing aggressive driving.
Because SHSPs often do not contain this level of detail,
the number and types of countermeasures within an 2006 923
emphasis area needed to help achieve the overall goal
can not be ascertained. This can result in less focus on 2005 975
deployment levels, costs, and statewide fatality reductions
associated with the implementation of strategies and 2004 1,021
countermeasures.
The overall SHSP goal may be expressed in terms of 2003 1,064

reductions in fatalities or some combination of fatalities
and injuries by a certain time. It may also be expressed Table 1: Sample Fatalities for State B
in terms of a reduction in the rate in crashes or fatalities
Example 2
per million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or per 1,000
population. Two examples of setting an intersection goal SHSP Goal Expressed as a Reduction in Rate
that is aligned with the SHSP goal are provided. If the SHSP goal is expressed as a rate, it is important to
convert the rate to an expected reduction in fatalities
Example 1
and/or injuries by the time the goal is to be achieved. Two
SHSP Goal as a Reduction in Absolute Numbers pieces of information are needed to properly make this
If the SHSP goal is established in terms of a reduction in determination:
absolute numbers of fatalities and/or injuries by a given
1. The fatality rate for each of the last 5 years of data.
date, then information on the past trend of those fatalities
and/or injuries is needed. 2. The expected annual change in VMT for each year up to the year in which
the goal is expected to be achieved.
Assume State B had 1,000 fatalities in 2007, 200 of which
were intersection or intersection-related. State B has a Using the data from the last 5 years, the trend in the
goal to reduce total fatalities to no more than 850 by 2013. fatality rate can be estimated. The trend can predict
Over the past several years the fatalities have fluctuated as the expected fatality rate in the year the goal is to be
shown in Table 1. achieved. Then, using the predicted fatality rate and the
estimated VMT in the goal year, the expected number of
In 2013, it is expected that 9401 fatalities will occur.
fatalities can be estimated.
Additional strategies and efforts that result in 90 fewer
fatalities are needed to achieve the goal. The intersection As an example, assume that State A also had 1,000
portion of that goal is 20 percent of 902, or 18 fewer fatalities in 2007, 200 of which were intersection or
intersection deaths annually. intersection-related. State A also has a goal to reduce the
fatality rate from 1.30 in 2007 to 1.00 in 2013. The fatality
1 The expected number of fatalities in 2013 without additional strategies rates over the past several years are provided in Table 2.
based upon past trends is the number of fatalities in 2007 (1,000) decreased by
the results of existing trends and programs in place (1 percent annual decline in
fatalities) for 6 years, or 1,000-(1,000x0.01x6) = 1,000-60 = 940.
Table 2 shows that the fatality rate is declining at an
2 The additional fatality reduction to meet the 2013 goal is the expected average rate of approximately 3 percent annually.
number of fatalities in 2013 (940) decreased by the State’s 2013 fatality goal Projecting ahead, the expected fatality rate in 2013,
(850), or 940-850=90.
2
assuming current trends continue and no added fewer fatalities are needed to achieve the goal. Since 20
improvements are implemented, would be 1.12.3 percent of the fatalities in 2007 occurred in intersection or
However, over the next 6 years VMT is expected to grow intersection-related crashes, the intersection component
at a rate of 2.3 percent annually, or 13.8 percent over 2007 of the overall goal can be estimated as 217 lives saved
VMT. The statewide VMT for 2007 is 76.9 billion. Growing annually at intersections beginning in 2013.
by 13.8 percent, VMT is projected to be 87.5 billion by
2013. The economic losses that began in 2008 probably are
associated with significant reductions in highway fatalities
With an estimated fatality rate of 1.12, the expected being realized in 2008. Less travel, particularly less
number of fatalities in 2013 would be 980.4 The goal discretionary travel, reduces the risk exposure for a serious
for 2013 to achieve a fatality rate of 1.0 per 100 million crash. Most State SHSP goals are set approximately 5 years
VMT translates into 875 fatalities.5 Therefore, the net out (2012-2013). There is little technical basis to determine
reduction in fatalities in 2013 from what is expected to the length of the economic downturn. However, one
the goal is 105.6 Strategies and efforts that result in 105 assumption that may be made is that current economic
conditions will be gone 5 years from now and should
not be taken into consideration. That is, States could
Fatality Rate Per use 2007 as the last year of VMT and crash data in the
Year
100 Million VMT analysis. States may also assume that VMT in 2012 will be
equivalent to 2007 and expected fatalities in 2012 would
2007 1.30 be the mean of those occurring between 2002 and 2007.
2006 1.34
7 The intersection component of the overall goal is the net reduction in fatali-
ties in 2013 (105) multiplied by the percentage of intersection or intersection-
related crashes in 2007 (20 percent), or 105x0.20 = 21.
2005 1.37
2004 1.41
Step 1 Action.
2003 1.45 Create an intersection crash reduction goal

that is aligned with and complements the SHSP
goal.
Table 2: Sample Fatality Rates for State A
3 The expected fatality rate in 2013 is the 2007 rate (1.30) decreased by 3
percent per year for 6 years, or 1.30-(6x0.03) = 1.30-0.18 = 1.12.
4 The expected number of fatalities in 2013 is the expected fatality rate in
2013 (1.12 per 100 million VMT) multiplied by the projected VMT (87.5 billion),
or (1.12x10-8)x(87.5 x109) = 980.
5 The number of fatalities in 2013 if a 1.0 per 100 million VMT fatality rate is
achieved is the fatality rate goal in 2013 (1.0 per 100 million VMT) multiplied by
the VMT in 2013 (87.5 billion), or (1.0x10-8)x(87.5x109) = 875.
6 The net reduction in fatalities in 2013 is the expected number of fatalities in
2013 (980) decreased by the number of fatalities if the 1.0 per 100 million VMT is
achieved (875), or 980-875 = 105.
3
Step 2:
Expand the Current Approach for Achieving the Crash Reduction Goal
Traditionally, States have relied on one approach to • Less than 10 percent of statewide intersection fatalities occur at locally-
address intersection safety problems – concentrating owned intersections – Minimal importance to include locally-owned
on improving those intersections with the highest intersection improvements to achieve a statewide intersection crash
concentrations of frequent and severe intersection reduction goal.
crashes. However, in order to meet the intersection crash
reduction goal established in Step 1, States likely will have • Between 10 and 20-25 percent of statewide intersection fatalities
to expand their approach. occur at locally-owned intersections – Beneficial and probably need to
include some local intersection improvements to achieve a statewide
Three approaches to implementing intersection intersection crash reduction goal.
improvements probably will be needed to achieve the
intersection crash reduction goal, particularly if the goal • Greater than 20-25 percent of statewide intersection fatalities occur at
is designed to achieve a measurable statewide reduction locally-owned intersections – Necessary to incorporate local intersection
in intersection fatalities or fatalities and incapacitating improvements to achieve a statewide intersection crash reduction goal.
injuries. The approaches are:
1. Traditional.
Traditional Approach
Traditionally, States identify high-crash locations using
2. Systematic. crash data associated with a highway referencing system
and, in some cases, traffic volume information. A formula
3. Comprehensive.
to rank the locations by some combination of frequency,
If the intersection crash reduction goal is expressed severity, rate, and crash trend is used to establish
in terms of a reduction in statewide fatalities and a candidate locations for improvement. For each candidate
substantial number of the fatalities occur on local roads location, crash diagrams are developed and studied to
and intersections, it is probable that these approaches determine potential countermeasures for reducing future
need to be considered for application on both State- crash occurrence. A benefit-cost (B/C) analysis usually is
and locally-owned intersections. As a rule of thumb, performed to determine if the proposed improvement(s)
based upon experience gathered from States that is cost-effective. Those candidate locations with the best
have developed intersection safety plans, the relative benefit-cost ratios may be selected for the limited funding
importance of considering improvements on local available. Due to the relative high cost of many of these
intersections to achieve a statewide intersection goal can improvements, an average State may implement fewer
be reflected in the proportion of intersection fatalities than 100 traditional safety improvements annually.
occurring at local intersections as indicated in the
following ranges:
4
Number of Intersections Intersections with Intersections with Intersections with
Road Ownership
with a Fatal Crash One Fatal Crash Two Fatal Crashes Three Fatal Crashes
State 683 647 34 2
Local 336 328 7 1
Table 3: Typical Distribution of Fatalities within a State over a 5-Year Period
While this approach is important and needs to continue, it has minimal impact on reducing substantial numbers of
future statewide fatalities and incapacitating injuries. If a State’s safety goal is measured by a reduction of statewide
fatalities, there is little probability that a fatality would occur at the improvement sites during the next few years, even
if the improvements had not been made. The probability of a future fatality occurring is a function of a number of
independent variables, many of which safety engineers have no control over, including the following:
• Speed. • Time of day.

• Type of crash. • Type of traffic control.
• Point of impact. • Crash location – urban or rural.
• Type and mass of involved vehicle(s). • Age and health of drivers and occupants.
• Safety belt usage. • Emergency medical service (EMS) capabilities.
• Type of highway. • Distance to nearest hospital.
• Weather and surface conditions.
In addition, statistics from States indicate very few intersections have multiple fatal crashes over a 5-year period. A typical
distribution of fatal crashes within a State over a 5-year period is shown in Table 3.
If a fatal crash has occurred at an intersection, there is a relatively low probability that another one will occur within the
next few years even if nothing is done to the intersection. If the statewide goal is expressed as a measured reduction of
statewide fatalities (or fatalities and incapacitating injuries), then a traditional approach limited to a relatively nominal
number of intersection improvements (less than approximately 100 annually) will be insufficient by itself to achieve
the goal. Additional approaches to supplement the traditional approach are needed to achieve the intersection crash
reduction goal.
Systematic Approach
The systematic approach is the opposite of the traditional approach in that it starts with a set of low-cost, effective
countermeasures that the State is comfortable deploying and searches the crash data system to identify intersections
where the countermeasures can be deployed cost-effectively. This approach is not limited to the highest crash
locations. Typically, it focuses on treating the 3-6 percent of the intersections at which 25-45 percent of the statewide
targeted intersection crashes exist.
5
All Intersection Crashes
State Roads Local Roads
Rural Urban Rural Urban
Traffic Stop Traffic Stop Traffic Stop Traffic Stop

Signal Sign Signal Sign Signal Sign Signal Sign
Figure 2: Levels of Information for the Systematic Approach Crash Data Analysis
In the systematic approach, intersection crash data are significantly depending on the type of control (e.g., angle
divided into three levels of information: State or local crashes at rural stop-controlled intersections are generally
ownership, urban or rural location, and stop-controlled much more severe than angle crashes at rural signalized
or signalized. As shown in Figure 2, all combinations intersections).
of these levels (e.g., State, rural, stop-controlled, local
urban signalized intersections) are used as a basis for The cost of a fatality and all injury categories should
analyzing the data. The breakdown of intersection be used in performing benefit/cost (B/C) analyses to
ownership is important since State and local government determine the target crash threshold where it is cost-
implementation processes are often quite different. The effective to apply a designated low-cost countermeasure
separation of crashes by urban and rural area is necessary or sets of countermeasures. These costs were updated
since crash severity (i.e., potential for a fatality) is much in a February 5, 2008, US Department of Transportation
greater in rural areas for the same type of crash. The type (USDOT) memo, Treatment of the Economic Value of
of traffic control will dictate countermeasure treatment. In a Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses, and are
addition, the severity of similar types of crashes can differ summarized in Table 4.
Severity Descriptor Cost Per Injury (2007 Dollars)
K Fatal 5,800,000
A Incapacitating 402,000
B Evident 80,000
C Possible 42,000
PDO Property Damage Only 4,000
Table 4: USDOT Fatality and Injury Costs
6
Crash data analyses to determine if a countermeasure is cost-effective and can be considered for systematic
deployment take crash types into consideration. Examples of crash type information needed to evaluate the potential
deployment of various countermeasures are shown in Table 5.
For each of the crash types in Table 5, two key pieces of crash data are needed to perform the analyses:
• The severity of crashes, usually expressed in fatalities per 100 crashes for all of the statewide crashes over the past 5 years. The number of incapacitating
injuries per 100 crashes may also be used to measure the impact of a countermeasure on incapacitating injuries.
• The distribution of crashes per intersection using 5 or more years of crash data for all intersections that had at least one crash. For example, this 5-year
distribution may show that 25-45 percent of statewide crashes at State, rural, stop-controlled intersections occur in 3-6 percent of the intersections.
Crash Type
Traffic
Ownership Area Pedes-
Control Total Angle Left Turn Dark Wet Speeding
trian
Stop State Rural      
Stop State Urban       
Stop Local Rural      
Stop Local Urban       
Signal State Rural      
Signal State Urban       
Signal Local Rural      
Signal Local Urban       
Table 5: Targeted Crash Types by Traffic Control, Ownership, and Area
Crash Type
Traffic
Ownership Area
Control Total Angle Left Turn Dark Wet Pedestrian
Stop State Rural 2.40 3.12 2.08 3.79 3.04 11.76

Stop State Urban 1.14 1.40 1.48 1.70 1.32 3.95
Stop Local Rural 1.24 1.57 1.14 1.69 1.60 2.80
Stop Local Urban 0.51 0.60 0.52 0.63 1.47 1.73
Signal State Rural 1.60 3.53 2.53 1.88 0.44 16.98
Signal State Urban 0.59 0.88 0.98 0.98 0.60 15.91
Signal Local Rural 0.72 1.03 1.00 0.96 0.65 7.49
Signal Local Urban 0.39 0.55 0.55 0.52 0.16 2.55
Table 6: Typical Rates for Fatalities per 100 Crashes
An example of typical rates for fatalities per 100 crashes is provided in Table 6. This table shows that rural stop-controlled
intersections have the highest severity rates, and that these rates generally increase at night. Pedestrian crashes have a
much higher fatality rate than other types of crashes. Crashes at local intersections have a severity similar to, but may be
slightly less than, those occurring at State intersections. It is important that each State compute its own values for these
severity rates using the most current 5 years of crash data.
Typical distributions for total crashes at State stop-controlled and signalized intersections are provided in Tables 7 and 8.
7
Number of Cumulative Cumulative
Number of
Crashes per
Intersections
Intersection Intersections Percent Crashes Percent
50 and greater 7 7 0.07 428 1.42
30-49 26 33 0.31 1,390 4.60
20-29 91 124 1.16 3,506 11.60
10-19 389 513 4.82 8,601 28.45
5-9 1,033 1,546 14.51 15,347 50.76
4 576 2,122 19.92 17,651 58.39
3 1,008 3,130 29.38 20,675 68.39
2 2,034 5,164 48.47 24,743 81.84
1 5,489 10,653 100.00 30,232 100.00
Total 10,653 10,653 100.00 30,232 100.00
Table 7: Typical Distribution of Total Crashes at Rural State Stop-Controlled Intersections – 5 Years of Data

Number of
Crashes per
Intersections
Intersection Intersections Percent Crashes Percent
50 and greater 8 8 1.44 573 13.95
30-49 23 31 5.57 1,407 34.26
20-29 36 67 12.03 2,258 54.98

10-19 56 123 22.08 3,012 73.34
5-9 73 196 35.19 3,490 84.98
4 31 227 40.75 3,614 88.00
3 43 270 48.47 3,743 91.14
2 77 347 62.30 3,897 94.89
1 210 557 100.00 4,107 100.00
Total 557 557 100.00 4,107 100.00
Table 8: Typical Distribution of Total Crashes at Rural State Signalized Intersections – 5 Years of Data
Two key observations can be made from Tables 7 and 8. In Table 7, if the 513 intersections that had 10 or more crashes
were treated with low-cost countermeasures, almost 30 percent of the crashes that occur at State, rural, stop-controlled
intersections could be impacted by the countermeasures. In Table 8, if the 31 intersections that had 30 or more crashes
were treated with low-cost countermeasures, then over 34 percent of the crashes that occur at State, rural, signalized
intersections could be impacted by the countermeasures. Conceptually, this is the essence of the systematic approach
– identifying a relatively small set of intersections that comprise a substantial portion of the statewide crash problem,
and treat the set with effective, low-cost countermeasures.
8
When performing the above analyses, it is important that In all cases where education and enforcement initiatives
a minimum of 5 full years of crash data be utilized. More are to be considered, appropriate low-cost engineering
years may be used if the data is available in the crash countermeasures should supplement the initiative and
data system and factors that can change exposure (e.g., be in place before the education and enforcement
significant land use changes, traffic volume changes) have initiatives begin. Examples of supplemental low-cost
not occurred over the crash data period. Three years of countermeasures include appropriate speed limit sign
data, while acceptable for identifying high-crash locations, adjustments, traffic calming measures, and traffic signal
is considered too unstable for identifying intersections enhancements (e.g., combined yellow plus all red
with lower repetitive crash histories to be considered for clearance interval timing adjustments, increasing the
systematic deployment of low-cost countermeasures. visibility of the signal heads).
In addition, each State should define its own threshold
levels based upon the data analyses, a State’s ability to The State crash data system may be used to identify
implement countermeasures, and the intersection crash priority corridors and municipalities with high numbers
reduction goal. of intersection crashes. Those 5 to 10 mile sections of
highway with the highest number of intersection fatalities
Comprehensive Approach and incapacitating injuries over a 5 year period would be
Since poor driving behavior contributes substantially to candidates for corridor intersection safety improvements.
intersection crashes, it is important to consider initiatives Those municipalities with the highest number of 5-year
which can improve safe driving through intersections. intersection fatalities and incapacitating injuries (either
The comprehensive approach combines low-cost total, on a per capita basis, or on a VMT basis) can be
engineering countermeasures with targeted education considered for the area-wide approach.
and enforcement countermeasures. It is not economical
to apply the education and enforcement components to
Step 2 Action.
a single intersection. The comprehensive approach works
best on a corridor or within a specific area (usually defined Obtain support from the State Safety Engineer
by municipality boundaries) with a significant number for the expanded approach to achieve the
of severe intersection crashes. The most predominant intersection crash reduction goal.
driving characteristics are speeding on approaches to
intersections (both stop-controlled and signalized) and
red-light running at signalized intersections. To a lesser
extent, running Stop signs and pedestrian movement
violations may be specific concerns for a given corridor or
area.
9
Step 3:
Identify Intersection Countermeasure Types to be Considered
Countermeasure Descriptions
Suggested low-cost countermeasures that can be considered and the intersection conditions where these
countermeasures can be most cost-effectively deployed are identified in the tables below. The tables provide information
for each countermeasure on target crash types, crash reduction factor (CRF), average expected life, and average
construction costs. The CRF information was generated primarily from the August 2008 Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness to Make Intersections Safer,1 other recent FHWA
publications,2 and input from intersection safety experts and practitioners.
Systematic Approach
The systematic approach countermeasures were developed by integrating available research findings and input from
intersection safety experts and practitioners in the FHWA intersection focus states.3 A more detailed description of the
crash problem and deployment characteristics for each of the these countermeasures can be found in the FHWA report
Low-Cost Safety Enhancements for Stop-Controlled and Signalized Intersections.
1 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/briefs/interissuebrief.cfm
2 FHWA-HRT-07-033, Synthesis of the Median U-Turn Intersection Treatment, Safety and Operational Benefits, http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/07033/index.htm
FHWA-HRT-08-053, Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks, http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/08053/index.htm
FHWA-HRT-08-063, Two Low-Cost Safety Concepts for Two-Way Stop-Controlled Rural Intersections on High-Speed Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadways, http://www.tfhrc.
gov/safety/pubs/08063/index.htm
FHWA-HRT-08-067, Traffic Calming on Main Roads Through Rural Communities, http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/08067/index.htm
3 The FHWA intersection focus states are a set of States with a disproportionate percent and/or number of intersection fatalities in comparison to other States.
Suggested Mountable Curb
Figure 3: Examples of Basic Low-Cost Countermeasures for Stop-Controlled Intersections – Double Up Oversize Warning Signs, Double Stop Signs, Traffic Island
on Stop Approach (if feasible), Street Name Signs, Stop Bars, and Double Warning Arrow at the Stem of T-Intersections
10
Stop-Controlled Intersections
Typical Imple-
Crash Typical Typical Additional
mentation
Countermeasure Reduction Urban Crash Rural Crash Implementation
Cost Range per
Factor Threshold Threshold Factors
Intersection
Basic set of sign and marking 40% 10 crashes 4-5 crashes None $5,000 to $8,000
improvements in 5 years in 5 years
Installation of a 6 ft. or greater raised 15% 20 crashes 10 crashes Widening required $25,000
divider on stop approach (installed in 5 years in 5 years to install island to $75,000
separately as a supplemental counter (pavement
measure ) widening but no
ROW required)
Either a) flashing solar powered LED 10% (13% for 15-20 crashes 8-10 crashes None $5,000 to
beacons on advance intersection right angle in 5 years in 5 years $15,000
warning signs and Stop signs or b) crashes)
flashing overhead intersection beacons
Dynamic warning sign which advises Unknown 20-30 crashes 10-20 crashes 5 angle crashes in $10,000 to
through traffic that a stopped vehicle in 5 years in 5 years 5 years and inadequate $25,000
is at the intersection and may enter the sight distance from the
intersection stop approach
Transverse rumble strips across the stop 28% (transverse 5 running 3 running Inadequate stopping $3,000 to
approach lanes in rural areas where rumble strips) Stop sign Stop sign sight distance on the $10,000
noise is not a concern and running 15% (“Stop crashes in crashes in stop approach
Stop signs is a problem (“Stop Ahead” Ahead” 5 years 5 years
pavement marking legend if noise is pavement
a concern) markings)
Dynamic warning sign on the stop Unknown 8 running Stop 5 running Stop Inadequate stopping $10,000 to
approach to advise high-speed sign crashes in sign crashes sight distance on the $25,000
approach traffic that a stopped 5 years in 5 years stop approach
condition is ahead
Extension of the through edge line Unknown 10 crashes 5 crashes Wide throat and Less than $1,000
using short skip pattern may assist in 5 years in 5 years observed vehicles
drivers to stop at the optimum point stopping too far back
from the intersection
Reflective stripes on sign posts Unknown 10 crashes 5 crashes Sign visibility or Less than $1,000
may increase attention to the sign, in 5 years in 5 years conspicuity
particularly at night significantly degraded
particularly at night
Table 9: Crash Reduction Factors, Typical Crash Thresholds, Additional Applications Factors, and Estimated Implementation Cost Ranges for Countermeasures at
Stop-Controlled Intersections
The basic set of sign and marking improvements for stop- »» Doubled-up (left and right), oversize Stop signs.
controlled intersections referenced in Table 9 includes: »» Installation of a minimum 6 ft. wide raised splitter island on the stop
• Low-cost countermeasures for the through approach: approach (if no pavement widening is required).
»» Doubled-up (left and right), oversize advance intersection warning »» Properly placed stop bar.
signs, with street name sign plaques. »» Removal of any foliage or parking that limits sight distance.
• Low-cost countermeasures for the stop approach: »» Double arrow warning sign at stem of T-intersections.
»» Doubled-up (left and right), oversize advance “Stop Ahead” intersec-
tion warning signs.
11
Figure 3 shows the basic set of sign and marking Signalized Intersections
improvements for stop-controlled intersections, including
a splitter island. The basic set of sign and signal enhancements referenced
in Table 11 includes:
The other countermeasures in Table 9 (i.e., those not
in the basic set of sign and marking improvements • Twelve-inch LED lenses on all signal heads.
category) should be considered to supplement the basic • Back plates on all signal heads (optional reflectorized border).
set of sign and marking improvements at those stop-
• A minimum of one traffic signal head per approach lane.
controlled intersections (1) with higher crash frequencies
and (2) that possess the physical characteristics that the • Traffic signal yellow change interval and all-red interval timing adjusted
countermeasure is intended to mitigate. to be in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
timing standards.
Information about the J-turn treatment for stop-con-
• Elimination of any late night flashing operations.
trolled intersections4 is shown in Table 10. The J-turn
treatment is to be considered primarily at high-speed, The basic set of sign and signal enhancements should be
arterial, multi-lane highways and only permit right turn applied to all intersections with high crash frequencies.
in and right turn out as illustrated in Figure 4. It also may In addition, the other countermeasures listed in Table 11
be considered at other lower speed intersections such as should be considered at signalized intersections (1) with
those in urban areas. higher frequencies of crashes beyond the crash threshold
for basic countermeasures and (2) that have specific crash
types or physical limitations that the countermeasure is
4 J-turn treatments are also referred to as restricted-crossing U-turn intersection
treatments. intended to address.
Typical Typical Additional Implementation

Crash Reduction
Countermeasure Urban Crash Rural Crash Intersection Cost Range per
Factor
Threshold Threshold Concern Intersection
J-turn modifications on 100% cross path, 72-84% 4 angle crashes 4 angle crashes Ability to make U-turn $5,000 to
high-speed divided arterials frontal impact, in 5 years* in 5 years* within about ¼ to ½ $50,000
43-53% all crashes mile of intersection
* If a highway section has a series of stop-controlled intersections with a high collective number of angle crashes, it is preferable to treat the problem on a system-
wide basis, addressing all of the stop-controlled intersections rather than improving a few intersections that have isolated high numbers of angle crashes.
Table 10: Crash Reduction Factors, Typical Crash Thresholds, Additional Application Factors, and Estimated Implementation Cost Ranges for Countermeasures at
J-Turn Stop-Controlled Intersections
24 Total J-Turn Conflict Points

12 @ Main Intersection 4 Crossing
8 Weaving 10 Merge
4 @ U-Turns 10 Diverge
Figure 4: Turn Restrictions at Multi-Lane Highways
12
Implemen-
Crash
Typical Urban Typical Rural Additional tation Cost
Countermeasure Reduction
Crash Threshold Crash Threshold Implementation Factors Range per
Factor
Intersection
Basic set of signal and 30% 20 crashes 10 crashes None $5,000 to
sign improvements in 5 years in 5 years $30,000
Change of permitted and 41-48% of 5 left turn 5 left turn movement None $5,000 to
protected left-turn phase left turn movement crashes; crashes; 3 or more $10,000
to protected-only crashes 3 or more opposing opposing through
through lanes; lanes; minimal
minimal turning turning gaps
gaps available available
Advance cross street Unknown 20 crashes in 5 10 crashes in 5 High-speed approaches on $1,000 to

name signs for high- years years four or more lane arterial $5,000
speed approaches on highways
arterial highways
Advance left and right 22% 20 crashes in 5 10 crashes in 5 Isolated traffic signal with $1,000
“Signal Ahead” warning years years one or more miles between
signs for isolated traffic signals; or traffic signals that
signals are not readily visible due
to highway alignment or
obstructions
Supplemental signal face 28% 20 crashes in 5 10 crashes in 5 Signal faces obstructed $5,000 to
per approach years years by horizontal alignment; $15,000
or exceptionally wide
intersections (>100 ft) where
a near side signal is needed
Advance detection 40% 5 angle crashes 5 angle crashes in Isolated high-speed (45mph $15,000
control systems (injuries) in 5 years 5 years or greater) signalized
intersections
Signal coordination 32% 20 crashes in 10 crashes in 5 years Arterials with closely spaced $5,000 to
5 years per per intersection (about 1/2 mile maximum) $50,000
intersection signals
Pedestrian countdown 25% 2 pedestrian 2 pedestrian crashes None $5,000 to

signals (pedestrian crashes in 5 years in 5 years $15,000
crashes)
Separate Pedestrian 34% 2 pedestrian crashes 2 pedestrian crashes None $5,000 to

Phasing (pedestrian in 5 years involving in 5 years involving a $15,000
crashes) a turning vehicle turning vehicle
Pedestrian Ladder or 15% 2 pedestrian 2 pedestrian crashes None $1,000 to

cross-hatched crosswalk (pedestrian crashes in 5 years in 5 years $3,000
and advanced pedestrian crashes)
warning signs for signs
Unknown
for
crosswalk
Signalized Intersections
13
Both Stop-Controlled and Signalized Intersections
Additional Implementation
Crash Reduction Typical Urban Typical Rural
Countermeasure Intersection Cost Range per
Factor Crash Threshold Crash Threshold
Concern Intersection
New or upgraded 50% (NEW), 10 night crashes in 5 years 5 night crashes in 5 years None $5,000 to
Lighting 25% (UPGRADED) and a night /total crash and a night/total crash $15,000
of night crashes ratio above the statewide ratio above the statewide
average for urban unlit average for rural unlit
intersections intersections
Table 12: Crash Reduction Factors, Typical Crash Thresholds, Additional Application Factors, and Estimated Implementation Cost Ranges for Lighting Countermea-
sures at Unlit or Poorly Lit Intersections
Additional Implementation
Crash Reduction Typical Urban Typical Rural
Countermeasure Intersection Cost Range per
Factor Crash Threshold Crash Threshold
Concern Intersection
Skid resistant 50% (wet pavement 8 wet pavement 8 wet pavement High-speed $20,000 to
surface crashes only) crashes in 5 years, crashes in 5 years, approaches $50,000
a wet/total crash a wet/total crash (45mph or greater)
ratio above the ratio above the and a ribbed tire
statewide average statewide average skid number of
wet/total crashes for wet/total crashes for about 30 or less.
intersections intersections
Table 13: Crash Reduction Factors, Typical Crash Thresholds, Additional Application Factors, and Estimated Implementation Cost Ranges for Skid Resistant
Countermeasures at Intersections with High Rates of Low-Friction Crashes
Implemen-
Crash
Typical Urban Typical Rural Additional tation Cost
Countermeasure Reduction
Crash Threshold Crash Threshold Intersection Concern Range per
Factor
Intersection
Lane narrowing using 31% 10 speed-related 5 speed-related Free of noise and bicycle $20,000 to
pavement marking and crashes in 5 years crashes in 5 years issues – single through lane $40,000
shoulder rumble strips
Lane narrowing using Unknown 10 speed-related 5 speed-related Single through lane $5,000 to
pavement marking and but crashes in 5 years crashes in 5 years $10,000
raised pavement markers probably
less than
31%
Peripheral Transverse Unknown 10 speed-related 5 speed-related $3,000 to

pavement markings crashes in 5 years crashes in 5 years $5,000
Dynamic speed warning
sign on the through 30% 10 speed-related 5 speed-related $10,000
approach to reduce speed crashes in 5 years crashes in 5 years
“Slow” pavement Unknown 10 speed-related 5 speed-related $2,000 to

markings crashes in 5 years crashes in 5 years $5,000
High-Friction Surface 25% 10 speed-related 5 speed-related $20,000 to

(All crashes) crashes in 5 years crashes in 5 years $50,000
Stop-Controlled Intersections with High-Speed Approaches
14
Tables 11-14 provide crash reduction factors, the typical number of crash reductions, and estimated cost ranges for a
comprehensive set of intersection countermeasures.
Comprehensive Approach
Automated red-light enforcement systems detect vehicles that enter a signalized intersection after the signal phase
has turned red. The red-light camera system is connected to the traffic signal and to sensors that monitor traffic flow
at the crosswalk or stop line. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal. For a specified amount of time after
the signal turns red, any vehicle entering the intersection triggers the camera. One photograph will show a readable
license plate. A second photograph typically shows the red light violator in the intersection. Cameras record the date,
time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, and vehicle speed. Tickets typically are sent by mail to
owners of violating vehicles, based on review of photographic evidence.
Enforcement-assisted light systems activate a white light above the traffic signal as the signal turns into the red phase.
Officers can be located downstream of the intersection and, using the white light activation, more easily identify and
apprehend red light violators.
Typical Imple-
mentation
Countermeasure Reduction Urban Crash Rural Crash Intersection
Cost Range per
Factor Threshold Threshold Concern
Intersection
Corridor engineering, education, and 25% of corridor 10 or more 10 or more Length of corridor $1,000,000
enforcement (3E) improvements on intersection intersection intersection should be in the 5-10 per corridor
high-speed arterials with very high fatal and fatalities fatalities mile range + $100,000
frequencies of severe intersection incapacitating education and
crashes injury crashes enforcement
annually per
corridor
Municipal-wide 3E improvements in 10% of all Top 5 or so Consider density of $500,000 to

municipalities with high frequencies of intersection municipalities severe crashes per 1,000,000
severe intersection crashes crashes with the most capita + $100,000
intersection to 200,000
fatalities (dependent on
the size of the
city) education
and enforcement
annually per
municipality
Table 15: Crash Reduction Factors, Default Expected Life, and Estimated Implementation Costs for Corridor and Municipal Enforcement Countermeasures
15
Typical Imple-
mentation
Countermeasure Reduction Urban Crash Rural Crash Intersection
Cost Range per
Factor Threshold Threshold Concern
Intersection
Automated red-light enforcement 25% of angle 8 angle 4 angle crashes Enabling legal Normally $0
crashes crashes in 5 in 5 years authority required if operated by
years contractor
Enforcement-assisted lights 15% of angle 8 angle 4 angle crashes Enforcement $1,000

crashes crashes in 5 in 5 years commitment
years required
Table 16: Crash Reduction Factors, Typical Crash Thresholds, Additional Application Factors, and Estimated Implementation Cost Ranges for Countermeasures for
Education-Enforcement Strategies at Signalized Intersections to Reduce Red-Light Running
Traditional Approach Table 18 provides a template for States to use when

considering intersection countermeasures. When
Since the traditional approach addresses the intersections
completing this template, States should include any
with the highest crash frequencies and/or severities, the
additional intersection countermeasures it is using or
most effective crash-reducing countermeasures should
considering.
be considered for these intersections. These include
roundabouts and left turn lanes. These improvements Intersections proposed for countermeasures listed
also are among the costliest countermeasures. Individual under the first category in Table 18 – will consider for
analyses are required to determine if they are the most widespread deployment – eventually will need field
appropriate improvements to implement. inspection to verify that the countermeasure can be
implemented and is appropriate at the intersections
Selecting Countermeasures identified. It may be appropriate to field verify a sample
set of intersections where the countermeasure may be
Selection of the set of countermeasures to consider for deployed before completing the implementation plan to
inclusion in the implementation plan will depend on a determine if deployment assumptions are acceptable.
number of factors, such as:
Countermeasures listed under the second category
• The size of the crash problem that the countermeasure may impact. in Table 18 – will limit or restrict deployment – may
• The cost and CRF of the countermeasure. include countermeasures with which a State has no
or little experience (e.g., dynamic intersection warning
• Any major deployment or policy issues associated with the
sign systems at stop-controlled intersections). It may
countermeasure.
be appropriate to consider listing these types of
• Any legislative restrictions affecting the use or deployment of the countermeasures in the second category until further
countermeasure experience is gained.
16
Typical Imple-
Typical Typical Additional
Crash Reduction mentation
Countermeasure Urban Crash Rural Crash Intersection
Factor Cost Range per
Threshold Threshold Concern
Intersection
Roundabouts 72% to 87% (injuries Intersections Intersections Right of way $500,000 to $1
and fatalities) with the most with the most restrictions; million each
frequent frequent individual
severe crashes severe crashes intersection analysis
statewide statewide required
Left Turn Lanes 13% to 24% for Intersections Intersections Right of way $350,000 to
left-turn crashes with the most with the most restrictions; $400,000 each
at signalized frequent frequent individual
intersections, severe crashes severe crashes intersection analysis
37% to 60% for statewide statewide required
left-turn crashes
at stop-controlled
intersections
Other Geometric Improvements Dependent Intersections Intersections Right of way $250,000 to $1

(i.e., Elimination of Skew, upon type of with the most with the most restrictions; million each
Vertical Curve) countermeasure, frequent frequent individual
see Toolbox of severe crashes severe crashes intersection analysis
Countermeasures and Their statewide statewide required
Potential Effectiveness
to Make Intersections
Safer for specific
improvements
Table 17: Crash Reduction Factors, Additional Application Factors, and Estimated Implementation Costs for Traditional Approach Countermeasures
Those countermeasures listed in the first two categories will be helpful in developing the implementation plan.
make up the set of countermeasures to consider for In addition, States should also identify reasons that
achieving the intersection crash reduction goal. For countermeasures will not be considered (i.e., the third
countermeasures that are to be limited or restricted, category in the template) for potential discussion among
States should list the specific issues that need to be stakeholders during the workshop in Step 6.
addressed before wider deployment is considered. This
17
Will Consider for Will Limit or Restrict Cost- Will not Consider
Countermeasure Widespread Cost- Effective Deployment Until Deploying at This
Effective Deployment Issues/Concerns are Resolved Time
Systematic Approach – Stop-Controlled Intersections
Basic set of sign and marking

improvements
Installation of a 6 ft. or greater raised

divider on stop approach (installed
separately as a supplemental
countermeasure)
Either a) flashing solar powered LED

beacons on advance intersection
warning signs and Stop signs or b)
flashing overhead intersection beacons
Dynamic warning sign which advises

through traffic that a stopped vehicle
is at the intersection and may enter the
intersection
Transverse rumble strips across the

stop approach lanes in rural areas
where noise is not a concern and
running Stop signs is a problem (“Stop
Ahead” pavement marking legend if
noise is a concern)
Dynamic warning sign on the stop

approach to advise high-speed
approach traffic that a stopped
condition is ahead
Extension of the through edge line

using short skip pattern may assist
drivers to stop at the optimum point
Reflective stripes on sign posts

may increase attention to the sign,
particularly at night
J-turn modifications on high-speed

divided arterials
18
Systematic Approach – Signalized Intersections
Basic set of signal and sign

improvements
Change of permitted and protected

left-turn phase to protected-only
Advance cross street name signs for

high-speed approaches on arterial
highways
Advance left and right “Signal Ahead”

warning signs for isolated traffic signals
Supplemental signal face per approach
Advance detection control systems
Signal coordination
Pedestrian countdown signals
Separate pedestrian phasing
Pedestrian ladder or cross-hatched

crosswalk and advanced pedestrian
warning signs
19
Systematic Approach – Both Stop-Controlled and Signalized Intersections

New or upgraded lighting
Skid resistant surface
Lane narrowing using pavement

marking and shoulder rumble strips
Lane narrowing using pavement

marking and raised pavement markers
Peripheral transverse pavement

markings
Dynamic speed warning sign on the

through approach to reduce speed
“Slow” pavement markings
High-friction surface
Comprehensive Approach
Corridor 3E improvements on
high-speed arterials with very high
frequencies of severe intersection
crashes
Municipal-wide 3E improvements in
municipalities with high frequencies of
severe intersection crashes
Automated red-light enforcement
Enforcement-assisted lights
20
Traditional Approach
Roundabouts
Left-turn channelization
Other geometric improvements (i.e.,

elimination of skew, vertical curve)
Table 18: Template for Documenting Countermeasure Selection
Step 3 Action.
Complete Table 18 and list all the specific

issues that need to be addressed for all
countermeasures identified as limited or
restricted.
21
Step 4:
Analyze Crash and Applicable Roadway Data
The Data Analysis Process 4. State urban stop-controlled intersection crashes.
The intersection safety implementation plan process is 5. Local rural signalized intersection crashes.
data-driven. The primary source of data for intersection
6. Local urban signalized intersection crashes.
crash analysis is a State’s crash data system. The data
used in the analysis helps identify candidate intersections 7. Local rural stop-controlled intersection crashes.
where countermeasures can be considered for cost-
effective implementation. 8. Local urban stop-controlled intersection crashes.
The most recent 5 years of crash data is recommended The division of crashes into State and local ownership
for use in the analysis. More years may be used if the is helpful since the processes for implementing similar
data is available in the crash data system and factors that improvements on the State verses the local system are
can change exposure (e.g., significant land use changes, significantly different. Crashes are separated by rural
traffic volume changes) have not occurred over the and urban areas because similar types of intersection
crash data period. Three years of data, while acceptable crashes are more severe in rural areas (e.g., Table 6 shows
for identifying high-crash locations, is considered that typical values for fatalities per 100 crashes for angle
too unstable for identifying intersections with lower crashes are 3.53 and 0.88 for State rural and State urban
repetitive crash histories to be considered for systematic intersections, respectively). This is important if the State’s
deployment of low-cost countermeasures. goal is to reduce fatalities and/or incapacitating injuries
instead of crashes. Finally, the types of countermeasure
The five levels in the data analysis process are described will be different at stop-controlled intersections compared
below. to signalized intersections for similar crash patterns. In
addition, the severity of similar crashes is greater at stop-
Separate Intersection Crashes into Sub-Groups controlled intersections than at signalized intersections.
Intersection crashes should be divided into sub-groups
Determine Target Crash Types
based on State or local ownership, urban or rural location,
and traffic control type. This results in eight sub-groups for Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 3, States
analysis: should identify the crash types and characteristics that
the countermeasures are designed to impact. The typical
1. State rural signalized intersection crashes. types of crashes and associated countermeasures are
shown in Table 19. This list provides the basis for analyzing
2. State urban signalized intersection crashes. the crash data. The combinations of crash types and sub-
groups represent all of the various cuts of data that can be
3. State rural stop-controlled intersection crashes.
used in subsequent levels of the data analysis process:
22
Crash Sub-Group
Crash Type Traffic Countermeasure Approach
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Local
Local
State
State
Control
Basic set of sign and marking improvements Systematic
Installation of a 6 ft. or greater raised divider Systematic

on stop approach (installed separately as a
supplemental countermeasure)
Either a) flashing solar powered LED beacons Systematic

on advance intersection warning signs
Total Crashes Stop-
Controlled
    and Stop signs or b) flashing overhead
intersection beacons
Dynamic warning sign which advises Systematic

through traffic that a stopped vehicle
is at the intersection and may enter the
intersection
Dynamic warning sign on the stop approach Systematic

to advise high-speed approach traffic that a
stopped condition is ahead
Roundabouts Traditional
Other geometric improvements (i.e., Traditional

Total Crashes-
Divided Arterials
Stop-
Controlled
  J-turn modifications on high-speed divided
arterials
Systematic
Running Stop Sign

Crashes1
Stop-
Controlled
    Transverse rumble strips across the stop
approach lanes in rural areas where noise
Systematic
is not a concern and running Stop signs is a

problem (“Stop Ahead” pavement marking
legend if noise is a concern)
Basic set of signal and sign improvements Systematic
Signal coordination Systematic

Total Crashes Signalized    
Roundabouts Traditional
Left-turn channelization Traditional
Other geometric improvements (i.e., Traditional

Left-Turn Crashes Stop-
Controlled
    Left-turn channelization Traditional
Left-Turn Crashes Signalized     Change of permitted and protected left-turn

phase to protected-only
Systematic
23
Crash Sub-Group
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Local
Local
State
State
Control
Angle Crashes - 45
mph and greater
Signalized   Advance detection control systems Systematic
Angle Crashes Signalized     Automated red-light enforcement Comprehensive
Enforcement-assisted lights Comprehensive
Pedestrian countdown signals Systematic

Pedestrian Crashes Signalized    
Separate pedestrian phasing Systematic
Pedestrian ladder or cross-hatched crosswalk Systematic

and advanced pedestrian warning signs
Night Crashes Stop-     New or upgraded lighting Systematic
Controlled
Night Crashes Signalized     New or upgraded lighting Systematic
Wet Crashes - 45 Stop-

mph and Greater Controlled
  Skid resistant surface Systematic
Wet Crashes - 45
mph and Greater
Signalized   Skid resistant surface Systematic
Lane narrowing using pavement marking Systematic

and shoulder rumble strips
Speed-Related
Crashes
Stop-
Controlled
    and raised pavement markers
Peripheral transverse pavement markings Systematic
Dynamic speed warning sign on the through Systematic

approach to reduce speed
“Slow” pavement markings Systematic
High-friction surface Systematic

and shoulder rumble strips
Speed-Related
Crashes
Signalized     and raised pavement markers
Peripheral transverse pavement markings Systematic
Dynamic speed warning sign on the through Systematic

approach to reduce speed
“Slow” pavement markings Systematic
High-friction surface Systematic
24
Crash Sub-Group
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Local
Local
State
State
Control
Fatal and N/A - Crashes are grouped by county Corridor 3E improvements on high-speed Comprehensive
Incapacitating and route arterials with very high frequencies of severe
Injury Crashes – intersection crashes
Corridors
Fatal and N/A – Crashes are grouped by city/ Municipal-wide 3E improvements in Comprehensive
Incapacitating municipality municipalities with high frequencies of
Injury Crashes – severe intersection crashes
Municipalities
Angle Crashes – Signalized N/A – Crashes are Municipal-wide 3E improvements in Comprehensive

Municipalities grouped by city/ municipalities with high frequencies of
municipality severe intersection crashes
Pedestrian Crashes N/A – Crashes are grouped by city/ Municipal-wide 3E improvements in Comprehensive
– Municipalities municipality municipalities with high frequencies of
severe intersection crashes
1 Running Stop sign crash types may be identified from crash data systems where this specific type of crash in included in the data,
usually as a causation factor.
Table 19: Typical Types of Crashes and Associated Countermeasures
There are a number of special cases or supplementary »» Advance left and right “Signal Ahead” warning signs for isolated traffic
countermeasures that do not appear in Table 19 because signals.
they will be deployed only if an intersection warrants
»» Supplemental signal face per approach.
them. This determination cannot be made from the
data; it requires field evaluation. These special case/
supplementary countermeasures include: Calculate Average Crash Costs and Crash
Severities
• Stop-Controlled Intersections:
Using the countermeasures selected in Step 3 and the
»» Extension of the through edge line using short skip pattern may assist related information in Table 19, States should calculate
drivers to stop at the optimum point. the average crash costs and severity of crashes for each
»» Reflective stripes on sign posts may increase attention to the sign, crash type/sub-group (i.e., State and local ownership, rural
particularly at night. and urban area, and traffic control type) combination. The
formula for average crash costs uses the cost data in Table
• Signalized Intersections: 4 and the number of injury types for each crash type/sub-
»» Advance cross street name signs for high-speed approaches on arterial group combination:
highways.
25
(K x 5,800,000) + (A x 402,000) + (B x 80,000) + (C x 42,000) + (PDO x 4,000)
AverageCrashCost =
Total Crashes
Severity usually is measured in terms of fatalities per 100 crashes and incapacitating injuries per 100 crashes using 5
years of data. Thus, if implementation of a given countermeasure is expected to prevent 200 crashes in a specified
subgroup with a severity of 1 fatality per 100 crashes, it can be expected that 2 fatalities can be prevented through the
implementation of the countermeasures at the identified number of intersections.1 Table 20 shows an example of a
severity and average crash cost report for angle crashes at signalized intersections.
Fatalities Total Incapacitating

Total Total Average Crash
Locality per 100 Incapacitating Injuries per 100
Crashes Fatalities Cost
Crashes Injuries Crashes
State Roads
Rural 1,588 11 0.69 148 9.32 $89,779.60
Urban 27,278 66 0.24 1,520 5.57 $56,565.07
Total 28,866 77 0.27 1,668 5.78 $58,392.30
Local Roads
Rural 238 5 2.10 5 2.10 $121,436.97
Urban 31,643 86 0.27 1,323 4.18 $51,009.77
Total 31,881 91 0.29 1,328 4.17 $51,535.52
Table 20: Angle Crashes – Signalized Intersections – 5 Years of Data
Determine Distribution of Crash Densities

Using the same list of crash type/sub-group combinations as in the average crash cost and crash severity analysis, States
need to determine the distribution of crash densities across intersections. The first step in this process creates a standard
location definition for each intersection. On State roads, this definition typically is a combination of county, route, and
milepost. For local roads, county, city, and the two intersecting road names are often used. The second step is to group
crashes by intersection, so that the number of crashes per intersection can be obtained. Table 21 shows a sample,
partial listing of crashes per intersection. It should be noted that there are over 10,000 intersections included in the
complete listing of intersections associated with this sample.
1 The expected number of fatalities prevented is the expected number of crashes prevented (200) multiplied by the fatalities per 100 crashes (1), or 200x(1/100) =
200x0.01 = 2.
26
The final step is to create a summarized frequency
distribution of intersections based on their number of Intersection Number of
crashes. Table 22 shows an example distribution for State, Percent of Total
Number Crashes
rural, stop-controlled intersections. This data corresponds
with that shown in Table 21. This example shows that 484482 88 0.29
almost 5 percent2 of the intersections (i.e., those with 10 308460 77 0.25
or more crashes) account for approximately 30 percent3 of
381451 58 0.19
all the crashes at State, rural, stop-controlled intersections
over 5 years. 406090 55 0.18
109723 50 0.17
It is to be noted that only those intersections with at least
one crash within the overall crash data period are listed. 352859 50 0.17
Therefore, there are more actual intersections in existence 401778 50 0.17
than those listed from the crash data.
323215 47 0.16
Prepare Data Analysis Package 611052 47 0.16
States should prepare a data analysis package to develop 378049 45 0.15

the straw man outline including a set of countermeasures, 329718 42 0.14
deployment level, costs, and estimated statewide annual
411137 42 0.14
crash reductions (Step 5), to provide relevant intersection
crash information during the workshop (Step 6), and to 89587 41 0.14
develop the draft intersection safety implementation plan 176793 39 0.13
(Step 7). The package should include at least the following
383587 39 0.13
information:
517467 39 0.13
1. A comparison of annual intersection fatalities reported from the State
383490 38 0.13
crash data systems with the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
data for the State. 494698 38 0.13
544656 38 0.13
2. A universal table showing crashes and percentages of intersection
crashes, incapacitating injuries, and fatalities for each of the eight sub- 132752 37 0.12
groups over 5 years of data.
Table 21: Sample Listing of Crashes per Intersection – State, Rural, Stop-
2 Almost 5 percent is calculated by dividing the number of intersections Controlled Intersections – 5 Years of Data
with 10 or more crashes (513) by the total number of intersections (10,653), or
513/10,653 = 0.482.
3 Approximately 30 percent is calculated by dividing the number of crashes
at intersections with 10 or more crashes (8,601) by the total number of crashes
(30,232), or 8,601/30,232 = 0.2845.
27
Number of
Crashes per
Intersections Intersections Percent Crashes Percent
Intersection
50 and greater 7 7 0.07 428 1.42
30-49 26 33 0.31 1,390 4.60
20-29 91 124 1.16 3,506 11.60
10-19 389 513 4.82 8,601 28.45

5-9 1,033 1,546 14.51 15,347 50.76
4 576 2,122 19.92 17,651 58.39
3 1,008 3,130 29.38 20,675 68.39
2 2,034 5,164 48.47 24,743 81.84
1 5,489 10,653 100.00 30,232 100.00
Total 10,653 10,653 100.00 30,232 100.00
Table 22: Summarized Frequency Distribution – State, Rural, Stop-Controlled Intersections – 5 Years of Data
3. Other general intersection crash data, such as the distribution of crash Data Problems and Solutions
and injury types by speed limit for stop-controlled and signalized
intersections and the distribution of crash types by the eight sub-groups A State may encounter at least four types of problems
(total crashes and fatalities). while analyzing its crash data to apply a systematic
approach: data quality, data availability, exposure and
4. Sets of tables providing information on the average cost; number of rates, and intersections with multiple countermeasures.
crashes, incapacitating injuries, and fatalities; and the proportion of Approaches to addressing these problems have been
incapacitating injuries and fatalities per 100 crashes for each of the crash found as discussed below.
type and traffic control combinations in Table 19 that correspond to the
countermeasures selected in Step 3. Table 20 provides an example. Data Quality
5. Sets of tables providing information on the distribution of crash densities Inconsistency of the Rural/Urban Designation at the
by intersection for each of the crash type and traffic control combinations Same Intersection. The rural/urban differential is used
in Table 19 that correspond to the countermeasures selected in Step 3. to define the probable severity of similar crashes. On
Table 22 provides an example. the whole, crashes in rural areas are much more severe
than similar types of crashes in urban areas. The rural/
An example data analysis package and straw man outline urban designation for a crash can come from two sources:
can be found on the FHWA Intersection Safety web page directly from the police crash report or transferred from
(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/). the State’s roadway data file. If the information comes
28
from the roadway data file, it is consistent for all crashes by consulting designation information from the roadway
that occur at a specific intersection. If the information data file and correcting the urban/rural data in the crash
comes from the police crash report, the rural/urban files for the appropriate crashes.
designation may differ among crash reports for the
Police-reported speed limit information may be used as
same intersection. This becomes a problem when the
an alternate source of crash severity differences, as it often
data are grouped according to rural/urban designation.
has more report consistency than police-reported rural/
If an intersection has 20 crashes total, but the police
urban designation. A speed limit at and above 45 mph
crash reports show 13 of these in urban areas and 7 in
provides a breakpoint where the speed limit data for the
rural areas, the intersection will appear on both the rural
same intersection is consistent. In addition, similar crashes
intersection reports and the urban intersection reports
at intersections where the speed limit is 45 mph or greater
(i.e., an urban intersection with 13 crashes and a rural
have been found to have significantly higher fatality rates
intersection with 7 crashes).
(e.g., fatalities per 100 crashes) than similar crashes that
The preferred solution is to link the crash and roadway occur at intersections where the speed limit is 40 mph
data files and use the rural/urban designation from or lower. States that do not have accurate and consistent
the roadway data file for each crash. If the rural/urban urban/rural crash data elements can use speed limits as
information is not available from the roadway file or an indicator of intersections with higher approach speeds
cannot be transferred, then the State should identify the and more severe crashes similar to those experienced in
level of data inconsistency to determine if an informed rural areas.
estimate of the correct urban/rural designation can
Inconsistency of the Traffic Control Device
be made. This can be accomplished by tabulating the
Information at the Same Intersection. Most States
distribution of crashes at high-crash intersections above
do not have a computerized traffic control device
the threshold level by urban and rural areas to determine
inventory. Information on the type of traffic control at
if one type of area is predominant. Table 23 provides an
the intersection must come from police-reported traffic
example tabulation.
control device information on the crash report. Almost
In this case, 8 of the 10 intersections are most likely all intersections are controlled by a Stop sign or a traffic
rural. Two of the 10 intersections (Intersections C and signal. However, the type of traffic control device reported
D) are too close to call. The urban/rural designation for on the police report can vary widely and include warning
crashes at Intersections C and D should be determined signs, pavement markings, or no traffic control devices
Intersection Rural Crashes Urban Crashes Total Crashes
Intersection A 22 10 32
Intersection B 13 4 17
Intersection C 6 5 11
Intersection D 4 3 7
Intersection E 6 2 8
Intersection F 8 2 10
Intersection G 4 1 5
Intersection H 7 2 9
Intersection I 5 1 6
Intersection J 6 0 6
Table 23: Example Distribution of Crashes by Intersection – Rural/Urban
29
at all. The traffic control device information is critical at those intersections.4 A State can proceed toward
to the implementation plan. It relates to the probable implementation plan development using the predicted
severity of future crashes and the type of countermeasure traffic control device values. If the percentage of correctly
to apply to reduce future crashes. The traffic control identified traffic control devices is not sufficient to predict
device consistency problem is similar to the rural/urban the type of traffic control devices at intersections with
designation problem. crashes above the threshold levels, then States should use
a secondary source to determine traffic control devices at
Like the rural/urban designation problem, when the these intersections, preferably prior to the development of
data is grouped by traffic control device, an intersection the straw man outline (Step 5). Video logs, photo logs, or
could appear on more than one data report. For example, field reviews can be used to determine or verify the type
an intersection with 20 crashes and inconsistent and/ of traffic control device.
or incorrect identification of traffic control devices could
appear on a stop-controlled report (assuming 10 crashes Inconsistency of Lit/Unlit Information at Intersections
were identified as stop-controlled), a signalized report with Night Crashes. The data from police crash reports
(assuming 4 crashes were identified as signalized), and an on the time period of the crash (e.g., day, dusk, dawn,
unknown report (assuming 6 crashes were identified as night) is generally very good. However, in most States the
no, other, or unknown traffic control device). data on night crashes identifying whether the intersection
is lit or unlit have a significant amount of variability
If a State is developing a computerized traffic control for crashes at the same intersection. Compounding
device inventory, or at least a traffic signal inventory the problem are intersections that are inadequately lit
(i.e., all non-signalized intersections can be assumed compared to current standards.
to be stop-controlled), the State should complete the
development of that inventory prior to the data analysis To address this problem, States can identify intersections
described here and use that inventory to determine if an with a high frequency and proportion (e.g., night/total
intersection is signalized or stop-controlled. crashes) of night crashes. Table 24 shows an example of
the distribution of night crashes by intersection in rural
If a traffic control device inventory is not near completion areas.
or is not readily available, the overall accuracy of the States should identify the statewide mean proportion of
police-reported traffic control device information should night crashes to total crashes for both rural and urban
determine the course of action. The thresholds for areas. For example, with a statewide mean of 18 percent
crashes at stop-controlled intersections considered for of night to total crashes in rural areas, those intersections
countermeasure improvement are generally 5 for rural that have both a high frequency and proportion of
intersections and 10 for urban intersections. If about night crashes substantially above the mean (i.e., in this
70 percent or more of total intersection crash reports case, 25 percent or more night/total ratio) have been
have a correctly identified traffic control device, then identified in Table 24 and should be considered for some
those intersections with a number of crashes equaling type of lighting enhancement. A field review of these
or exceeding the thresholds noted above (which are intersections is necessary to determine if lighting exists
the minimum used) should have sufficient numbers of and if so, to what degree.
correctly identified traffic control devices to predict the
type of traffic control device for all crashes occurring 4 By assessing the distribution of traffic control devices for crashes at the same
intersection using the same process as described for the rural/urban designa-
tion problem. For example, if there were six crashes at a rural intersection with
three crashes indicating a stop-controlled traffic control device, one indicating
a signalized traffic control device, and two indicating no traffic control device, it
can be reasonably assumed that the intersection is stop-controlled.
30
Intersection Information for Crashes at Locally- local intersections. Ideally States should do this at the
Owned Intersections. Crash reports for crashes that time data is entered into the crash data system. However
occur at locally-owned intersections usually have reliable if standard nomenclature is not pre-established, it can
information on the county and municipality in which the be selectively applied to those municipalities in which
crash occurred. However, information on the intersecting intersection safety initiatives are being considered during
streets can be characterized in different ways depending development of the intersection safety implementation
on the reporting officer. For example, Fifth Street could be plan, thus reducing the level of effort. A sample listing of
identified as Fifth St., Fifth Str, 5th Street, or 5th St, among common terms, currently being used by Arizona, includes:
other variations. A standard term of “Fifth St” would
address this issue. Unless the information is standardized, • Alley – AL • Expressway – EXWY
crashes that occur at the same intersection may be spread • Avenue – AV • Freeway – FRWY
over many intersection identifiers when an analyst tries to
• Boulevard – BLVD • Highway – HWY
group crashes by intersection. This can create significant
problems when trying to identify intersections with crash • Circle – CIR • Road – RD
levels above a threshold. • Court – CT • Street – ST
To address this issue, States could establish standard • Drive – DR
nomenclature to consolidate some of the crashes for
Intersection
Night Crashes Total Crashes Night/Total Ratio
Number
4118 28 105 26.67%
3814 23 144 15.97%

4017 21 176 11.93%
3332 19 31 61.29%
5008 19 23 82.61%
3804 18 80 22.50%
6398 16 49 32.65%
8958 15 41 36.59%
1127 14 57 24.56%
3734 13 47 27.66%
1118 12 81 14.81%
3821 12 90 13.33%
5415 12 51 23.53%
Table 24: Example Distribution of Night Crashes in Rural Areas by Intersection
31
Data Availability States should determine the statewide mean proportion
of wet to total crashes for rural and urban intersections
Insufficient Information to Determine if an Approach
where the speed limit is at or above 45mph. For example,
Pavement Has Both an Inordinate Number and
if the statewide mean for rural intersections with speed
Proportion of Wet Pavement Crashes and a Slippery
limits of 45mph or above is 16 percent, those intersections
Surface.
that have both a high frequency and proportion of wet
The data from police crash reports on pavement surface
pavement crashes substantially above the mean (i.e., in
conditions (e.g., wet, dry, icy, snow covered) is usually very
this case, 25 percent or more wet pavement/total ratio)
reliable. However, the physical attributes of the pavement
have been identified in Table 25 and should be considered
that may be contributing to the inordinate number and
for some type of pavement surface improvement.
proportion of wet pavement crashes often are not known.
The State should conduct a skid test of the approach
To address this problem, States can identify intersections to determine if the pavement has a low coefficient of
with a high frequency and proportion (e.g., wet friction. Then the State should conduct a field review of
pavement/total crashes) of wet pavement crashes. Table the intersection and a review of the pavement history
25 shows an example of the distribution of wet pavement to determine if other surface factors such as significant
crashes by intersection. rutting (i.e., greater than 2 inches) exist in the wheel paths
which could contribute to hydroplaning.
Intersection
Wet Pavement Crashes Total Crashes Wet Pavement/Total Ratio
Number
492147 44 121 36.36%

310275 42 294 14.29%
314010 35 128 27.34%
239541 34 272 12.50%
135899 33 65 50.77%
352859 32 51 62.75%
131539 31 48 64.58%
175700 31 70 44.29%
132762 30 102 29.41%
636969 30 50 60.00%
654354 30 63 47.62%
310544 28 137 20.44%
189589 27 169 15.98%
245788 27 94 28.72%
538559 24 88 27.27%
Table 25: Example Distribution of Wet Pavement Crashes by Rural Intersection
32
Exposure and Rates
Exposure for Intersections is Different than Highway 2. Are there any intersections with crash frequencies at or slightly above
Segments. Exposure at intersections is measured in the crash threshold level which have very high entering volume levels?
terms of the number of entering vehicles from all of For example, if the threshold level is 5 crashes in 5 years, are there any
the intersection legs rather than VMT. A few States have intersections that have 5 or 6 crashes and a mainline AADT exceeding
extracted volume information from their roadway data file 50,000?
and developed entering vehicle numbers for each of the
completely State-owned intersections in the State. This If the number of through lanes or the functional
information can be used to establish rates of crashes per classification for the mainline route in the roadway data
million entering vehicles. However, most States only pull file has been linked to the crash data file, one of these
the mainline annual average daily traffic (AADT) from the pieces of information can be used to establish different
roadway data file and attach it to each specific crash in threshold levels, either based on the number of through
the crash data file. As a result, an intersection with several lanes or the mainline functional classifications. For
crashes over a 5-year period will have different levels of example, a higher crash threshold may be established
AADT if the AADT is updated over the crash history period. for stop-controlled intersections with three through
Without complex and time-consuming programming, approach lanes as opposed to an intersection with a
it can be difficult to consolidate these differences at the single through approach lane, since the volumes and
same intersection into single values for computing rates. exposure on the three through approach lane intersection
Fortunately, the use of rates is not as critical in the are much greater.
systematic application of cost-effective, low-cost
Once threshold levels are established, assuming that
countermeasures compared to the traditional approach.
the mainline AADT for each crash is listed in the output,
There are a number of approaches to refine the number
the mainline AADT for intersections slightly below, at,
of intersections that should be considered for systematic
and slightly above the crash threshold level can be
improvement considering exposure differences. The two
scanned to determine which intersections to consider
key questions that need to be addressed are:
for improvement. Any very low AADT intersections
1. Are there any intersections with crash frequencies slightly below the slightly below the threshold may be added to the list of
crash threshold established that have very low entering volume values? intersections being considered for improvement. Any
For example, if the threshold for a given countermeasure in rural areas is very high AADT intersections either at or slightly above
5 crashes in 5 years, are there any intersections that have only 4 crashes the threshold could be removed from improvement
but the mainline AADT is below 1,000? consideration.
33
Intersections with Multiple Countermeasures
Developing the Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Focuses on Identifying Separate Countermeasure
Deployments at Intersections. As a result, intersections often will appear on more than one list of countermeasures.
For example, a rural stop-controlled intersection may be above the crash thresholds for the basic set of sign and
marking improvements, new or upgraded lighting, and skid resistance surfaces. Grouping countermeasures together
for the same intersection is important since that it can reduce the number of multiple field reviews at one location.
States can create a set of matrices for each of the eight possible intersection sub-groups (i.e., State/local, rural/urban,
stop-controlled/signalized) to identify intersections with multiple countermeasures. Table 26 is a sample matrix. This
table shows the number of crashes above the given threshold for a specific countermeasure by intersection. It is created
by combining all of the distributions of crashes by intersection, using only those intersections where the number of
crashes exceeds the threshold for that given countermeasure.
Countermeasure
Sign and Skid-
Sign and Sign and Marking- J-Turn
Marking Lighting Resistant
Marking Flashing Beacons (Divided)
(Divided) Surface
Intersection
Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold Threshold
Number Threshold = 20
= 6 Total = 6 Total = 10 Total = 6 Dark = 10 Wet
Total Crashes Crashes and Crashes and
Crashes Crashes Crashes
Dark/Total = Wet/Total =
0.20 0.18
4482 88 88 16
0460 77 57 77 57 17
1451 58 58
6090 55 55
9723 50 50
5859 50 50 50 50 32
Table 26: Sample Matrix for State, Rural, Stop-Controlled Intersections
Step 4 Action.
Develop an intersection crash data analysis

package as described in this section. Use the
example data analysis package and straw
man outline (found on the FHWA Intersection
Safety web page, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
intersection/) as a guide.
34
Step 5:
Develop a Straw Man Outline
Once the countermeasures considered acceptable by Unlike a conventional analysis, the B/C is given or set.
the State to implement are identified (Step 3) and the The answer one seeks is the threshold, the minimum
data analysis is complete (Step 4), the State can develop number of targeted crashes per intersection needed to
a straw man outline to achieve the intersection crash make the countermeasure cost-effective. The threshold is
reduction goal (Step 1). An example data analysis package represented by the number of crashes in the conventional
and straw man outline can be found on the FHWA B/C formula above.
Intersection Safety web page (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
intersection/). The formula used to establish the threshold is as follows:
Establish Threshold Crash Levels AnnualCost x B / C

T=
The first step in creating the straw man outline is CRFx AverageCrashCost
establishing threshold crash levels for the intersection
and crash types that each countermeasure is intended
to impact. At the very least, separate thresholds should Where:
be calculated based on road ownership and location • T = Threshold – Minimum number of targeted crashes per intersection
(i.e., State/local, rural/urban) such that each crash type needed to make the countermeasure cost-effective.
may have up to four thresholds depending on where the • Annual Cost = Annual cost of the improvement.
crashes occur. Crash threshold levels can be established
»» If the improvement involves a construction project, annual cost is the
based on a number of factors including:
construction cost averaged over the expected life of the project.
• The level at which a countermeasure is cost-effective (B/C ratio usually »» If the improvement is an education or enforcement initiative, annual
set at 2.0 or greater). cost is the annual cost of a full year of enforcement and education.
• The number of improvements, the unit cost of the countermeasure and • B/C = A set B/C ratio used to determine the threshold number of inter-
the availability of funds per threshold level. section crashes. In this case, a B/C value of 2.0 may be used.
• CRF = Estimated crash reduction factor, or effectiveness, of the strategy
• The lowest number of crashes per intersection considering exposure
to reduce targeted crashes. It is expressed in terms of the percent of
levels that may reasonably indicate a recurrent crash problem that can be
targeted crashes reduced.
mitigated by the countermeasure (usually not less than three crashes per
intersection in 5 years at very low-volume intersections). • Average Crash Cost = Average cost of targeted crashes using the cost
data in Table 4 and the number of injury types for the targeted crashes.
Improvements deployed on a systematic basis have
to be cost-effective, and a B/C analysis is used to make
the determination. The conventional analysis uses the
following formula to compute the B/C:
NumberCrashes x CRF x AverageCrashCost

B/C =
AnnualCost
35
As an example, consider a signal update for State urban four or even possibly three crashes in 5 years may be selectively added to
intersections where: the list if the traffic volumes (exposure) are extremely low.
• Annual Cost = $3,000 ($30,000 averaged over 10 years). • Considering the relationship of crashes per intersection, number of
intersections, and number of statewide crashes, as higher thresholds are
• B/C = 2.0. set (crashes per intersection), the B/C will be larger and the total costs
• CRF = 0.30. will be smaller, but the overall crash reduction also will be smaller.
• Average Crash Cost = $40,000 (estimated from the distribution of fatali- As a result, scarce resources and achieving the intersection
ties, injuries, and property damage crashes for State, urban, signalized crash reduction goal have to be balanced.
intersections).
Table 27 shows a sample distribution of crashes at State,
3,000 x 2.0 urban, signalized intersections. If a State starts at the base
T= = 0.50 level to achieve a B/C of 2.0 or greater (i.e., 3 or more
0.30 x 40,000 crashes per intersection), then 2,955 intersections would
be improved. This would encompass 97.5 percent of
all signalized intersection crashes. However at $30,000
This example shows that the threshold should be 0.50 per intersection improvement, the costs to improve all
crashes annually, or between 2 and 3 crashes in 5 years. 2,955 intersections would be close to $90 million. If the
The results indicate that it does not take many crashes threshold is increased to 5 crashes per intersection, 2,487
to apply low-cost countermeasures cost-effectively. intersections would be improved, encompassing 95.3
However, when considering scarce resources, two percent of all State urban signalized crashes. The costs for
additional factors need to be considered: this level of improvement would be close to $75 million.
• Establishing a very low crash threshold (e.g., less than 5 crashes in 5 Assuming funds are not that plentiful, if a threshold
years) may increase the randomness of crash occurrence and not reflect level of 50 crashes per intersection is selected, only 371
intersections with persistent and repetitive crash occurrences. It is sug- intersections would need to be improved at a cost of
gested that a minimum of five targeted crashes in 5 years be the base about $10 million. This would still encompass over 38
threshold used in the analyses for most intersections. Intersections with percent of all State, urban, signalized crashes.

Number of
Crashes per
Intersections Intersections Percent Crashes
Intersection Percent
100 and greater 63 63 1.44 8,058 10.90

50-99 308 371 8.46 28,570 38.65
30-49 461 832 18.98 46,320 62.67
20-29 483 1,315 30.00 57,986 78.45
10-19 633 1,948 44.43 66,850 90.44
5-9 539 2,487 56.73 70,471 95.34
4 206 2,693 61.43 71,295 96.46
3 262 2,955 67.40 72,081 97.52
2 403 3,358 76.60 72,887 98.61
1 1,026 4,384 100.00 73,913 100.00
Total 4,384 4,384 100.00 73,913 100.00
Table 27: Sample Distribution of Crashes at State Urban Signalized Intersections
36
Develop Detailed Straw Man Tables Not all of the intersections shown in Table 28 will end
for Each Countermeasure up as improvements. Some will have been upgraded
previously; field reviews of others will show that sign
The straw man consists of a set of countermeasures, and marking enhancements do not make sense. In
deployment levels, costs, and safety impacts (usually this case, an assumption is made that only 80 percent
defined in terms of the overall goal (i.e. annual lives of the intersections will remain candidates for the sign
saved), which collectively can achieve the overall and marking enhancements after the field review. Each
intersection safety goal. Each countermeasure needs to State can establish its own estimated retention rate for
be investigated in terms of its deployment levels, costs, the improvement estimate. If time is available, a more
safety impacts, and relative contribution in achieving the accurate means of developing the estimate is to field
overall intersection safety goal using data from the data review a random sample of the candidate intersections
analysis. An example of the tabulation of intersections that beforehand and use the percentage of these intersections
can be considered for the basic set of sign and marking in which enhancements are likely for the estimate.
improvements for State stop-controlled intersections is
shown in Table 28.1 In this table, 1,221 intersections had 6 A trial and error method can be used to develop the
or more crashes within the crash history period. A 6-year straw man outline with an objective to achieve the
crash history period was used in this evaluation because it intersection crash reduction goal with the least costs. Each
was available and provided more stable data than 5 years of the accepted countermeasures can be deployed at
of data. In addition, no significant changes in traffic or levels dependent on the distribution of crashes, severity
roadway features occurred during the 6 years. of crashes (fatalities per 100 crashes), CRF, and unit
construction costs. The annual lives saved per $1 million
1 The full example data analysis package and straw man outline can be found expended can be used as a gauge to determine what
on the FHWA Intersection Safety web page (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersec- levels are appropriate for each countermeasure.
tion/).
Fatalities per 100

Costs ($ Million)2
Statewide Crash
Threshold Crash
Improvements1
Targeted 6 Year
Targeted Crash
Level (6 Years)
Crashes in the
Intersections
Intersections
Construction
Reduction3
Reduction4
Number of
Number of
Number of
Estimated
Estimated
Crashes
Fatality
Annual
Annual
Countermeasure
Basic Set of Sign and 6 1,221 13,722 977 7.82 1.60 732 11.71
Marking Improvements
– State Rural Stop-
Controlled Intersections
Basic Set of Sign and 30 474 23,795 379 3.03 0.21 1,269 2.67
– State Urban Stop-
Controlled Intersections
Total 1,356 10.85 14.38
1 Estimated number of improvements assumes that 80 percent of locations can be improved. Estimated number of improvements is calculated by
multiplying the number of statewide crash intersections by the percent of locations that can be improved. For the first row of the table, this calculation is
1,221x0.80 = 977.
2 Construction costs assume an average cost of $8,000 per intersection. Construction costs are calculated by multiplying the estimated number of
improvements by the average cost per intersection. For the first row of the table, this calculation is 977x8,000 = $7.82 million.
3 Annual targeted crash reduction uses a CRF of 0.40. Annual targeted crash reduction is calculated by multiplying the average number of targeted
crashes per year by the percent of locations that can be improved multiplied by the CRF. For the first row of the table, this calculation is (13,722/6)
x0.80x0.40 = 732.
4 Annual estimated fatality reduction is calculated by multiplying the annual targeted crash reduction by the fatalities per 100 crashes and dividing by
100. For the first row of the table, this calculation is (732x1.6)/100 = 11.71.
Table 28: Sample State Stop-Controlled Intersections - Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements
37
Compile a Summary Straw Man
Outline
After all of the individual countermeasure detailed • Estimated Annual Crashes Reduced – Number of crashes reduced annu-
straw man tables are created, the State should develop ally. Transferred from the detailed straw man tables.
a summary straw man outline. The summary straw • Estimated Annual Incapacitating Injuries Reduced – Number of incapaci-
man outline should encompass all of the candidate tating injuries reduced annually. Transferred from the detailed straw man
countermeasures, the impact toward achieving the tables, as applicable.
overall statewide intersection goal, and the costs of
• Estimated Annual Fatalities Reduced – Number of fatalities reduced
improvements. Specific elements include the following:
annually. Transferred from the detailed straw man tables.
• Countermeasures – All of the countermeasures selected in Step 3. Table 29 shows an example of a summary straw man
• Approach – Systematic, comprehensive, or traditional. outline. It is based on a State that established a goal to
reduce intersection fatalities by 28 per year by 2012.
• Number of Statewide Crash Intersections to be Improved – Number of
In this example, the State chose to focus on reducing
intersections with the crash characteristics that can be impacted by the
both fatalities and incapacitating injuries. As a result, the
countermeasure. Transferred from the detailed straw man tables.
estimated annual incapacitating injuries reduced column
• Construction Cost – Cost for construction of infrastructure countermea- is included. In addition, only the countermeasures that the
sures. Transferred from the detailed straw man tables, as applicable. State agreed to implement are included in the table (i.e.,
• Enforcement and Education Costs – Costs for enforcement and education, other countermeasures are not listed because the State
countermeasures. Transferred from the detailed straw man tables, as decided not to include them in the intersection safety
applicable. implementation plan).
38
Annual Fatalities
Injuries Reduced
Intersections to
Annual Crashes
Education and
Incapacitating
Enforcement,
Construction
be Improved
Number of
Thousand)
Estimated
EMS Costs
($ Million)
Estimated
Estimated
Approach
(Annual $
Reduced
Reduced
Annual
Costs
Countermeasure
Basic Set of Sign and Systematic 1,108 8.87 1,382 117.7 13.07
– State Stop-Controlled
Intersections (Rural and
Urban)
Flashing Overhead Systematic 69 0.69 54 4.0 0.44

Intersection Beacons –
State Stop-Controlled
Urban)
J-Turns Modifications Systematic 56 16.80 77 17.5 2.87

on High-Speed Divided
Arterials – State Rural
Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Basic Set of Sign and Systematic 236 1.89 555 15.1 0.71
– Local Stop-Controlled
Urban)
Basic Set of Signal and Systematic 395 1.92 789 28.1 1.52
Sign Improvements
– State Signalized
Urban)
Basic Set of Signal and Systematic 263 2.63 670 19.5 1.51
Sign Improvements
– Local Signalized
Urban)
Change of Permitted Systematic 536 2.67 819 44.0 1.49

and Protected Left-Turn
Phase to Protected
Only – State Signalized
Urban)
Change of Permitted Systematic 387 1.94 623 23.7 1.27
and Protected Left-Turn
Phase to Protected
Only – Local Signalized
Urban)
Advanced Detection Systematic 67 1.00 45 4.2 0.31
Control Systems– State
Signalized Intersections
(Rural and Urban)
39
Annual Fatalities
Injuries Reduced
Intersections to
Annual Crashes
Education and
Incapacitating
Enforcement,
Construction
be Improved
Number of
Thousand)
Estimated
EMS Costs
($ Million)
Estimated
Estimated
Approach
(Annual $
Reduced
Reduced
Annual
Costs
Countermeasure
New or Upgraded Systematic 64 3.84 49 8.4 1.08

Lighting – State
Rural Intersections
(Stop-Controlled and
Signalized)
High-Friction Surface Systematic 53 2.65 86 11.3 1.27

– State Intersections
(Stop-Controlled and
Signalized, Rural and
Urban)
Enforcement-Assisted Systematic 1 City 0.09 0.05 45 2.3 0.11

Lights
Corridor 3E Compre- 3 Corridors 6.00 0.30 83 7.5 1.25

improvements on hensive
high-speed arterials with
very high frequencies
of severe intersection
crashes
Municipal-wide 3E Compre- 1 City 1.00 0.10 383 6.6 0.57

improvements in hensive
municipalities with high
frequencies of severe
intersection crashes
Roundabouts Traditional 3 2.40 32 3.0 0.36
Total 54.39 0.45 5,692 312.9 27.83
Table 29: Sample Summary Straw Man
Step 5 Action.
Using the intersection crash data analysis

package from Step 4, establish threshold crash
levels, develop detailed straw man tables for
each countermeasure, and compile a summary
straw man outline. Use the example data
analysis package and straw man outline (found
on the FHWA Intersection Safety web page,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/) as a
guide.
40
Step 6:
Conduct a Workshop of Key Stakeholders and Follow-Up Implementation Planning
Meeting
Two-Day Workshop 1. Discuss the intersection crash reduction goal, the systematic and compre-
hensive approaches to achieve the goal, the crash data analysis package,
The successful reduction in statewide intersection and the use of potentially new intersection countermeasures.
fatalities and incapacitating injuries requires the
2. Reach group consensus on a set of countermeasures, deployment charac-
input, support, and participation of a number of key
teristics, and costs to achieve the intersection crash reduction goal.
stakeholders. They include at least the following:
3. Establish strategic directions to successfully implement the countermea-
• State Safety Engineer. sures.
• State Traffic Engineer. In preparation for the workshop, the following information
• State Traffic Signal and Traffic Operations Engineers. should be prepared for discussion:
• District or Regional Traffic/Safety Engineers. • A statewide intersection crash reduction goal.

• State Local Roads Coordinator (if one exists). • A set of intersection countermeasures that the State is comfortable
• Governor’s Highway Safety Representative. implementing and estimated unit costs and crash reduction factors for
each countermeasure.
• Representatives of local governments (e.g., city, county traffic safety
representatives). • An intersection crash data analysis package that supports development
of the straw man outline.
• State and local police representatives.
• A straw man outline of countermeasures; deployment levels; and charac-
• Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) representatives.
teristics, costs, and projected annual crashes, incapacitating injuries, and
• FHWA Division Office Safety Engineer/Specialist. fatalities reduced for each countermeasure which collectively is sufficient
The State should conduct a workshop with key to achieve the intersection crash reduction goal.
stakeholders to achieve three goals: A typical agenda for the workshop is shown in Table 30.
41
Workshop Agenda
Day 1
8:30 AM Welcome and Introductions
• Review of Workshop Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes
• Background on Reducing Intersection Fatalities
8:45 AM Module I: Intersection Goal, Data Analysis, and Countermeasure Identification

10:00 AM Break
10:15 AM Module I Continued
12:00 PM Lunch
1:00 PM Module II: Putting It All Together
2:45 PM Break
3:00 PM Module II Continued
• Straw Man Outline of Countermeasures, Deployment Characteristics, Costs, and Lives Saved
4:30 PM Adjourn
Day 2
8:30 AM Module II Reality Check
• Review Day 1 Results
• Review and Fine-Tune Straw Man Outline
• Check Personal Knowledge of High-Crash Intersections to Determine if Improvement Types Make Sense
9:45 AM Break
10:00 AM Module III: Strategic Direction and Actions
• Crosscutting Barriers
• Key Countermeasure Barriers
12:00 PM Lunch
1:00 PM Module III Continued
2:00 PM Module IV: Action Items to Implement Components of the Plan
• Key Steps to Implement Countermeasures
• Performance Measures
• Implementation Plan Outline
3:00 PM Module V: Next Steps
3:15 PM Adjourn
Table 30: Typical Agenda for Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Workshop
42
On the first day it is important for the group to under- oversee the implementation. States then can provide
stand the intersection crash reduction goal, the systemat- the materials (e.g., signs, marking material, signal
ic and comprehensive approaches, and how these appurtenances) to local governments using 100 percent
approaches work together to achieve the goal. In addi- federal funding as long as the localities correctly install the
tion, the data analysis package assembled in Step 4 and materials in the field. This removes any transfer of funds
the list of potential intersection countermeasures created between State and local governments.
from Step 3 need to be discussed. The group also should
have an introduction and initial discussion of the straw Education and Enforcement Initiatives Beyond the
man outline on Day One. The group will probably suggest Conventional 402 Funding. States may find that the
changes and refinements to the straw man outline. countermeasures for education and enforcement in
After the Day One activities are complete, the straw man corridors and municipalities require more 402 funds
outline should be updated to reflect the changes and than what is available. In this case, States can investigate
refinements. The refined straw man outline should be other federal safety funding sources available to the
presented to the group on the morning of the second State (e.g., Section 1406 – Safety Incentive Grants for Use
day. It is critical for the group to reach consensus on a of Seat Belts, Section 1407 – Safety Incentive to Prevent
final refined straw man outline that identifies the set of Operating of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Persons,
countermeasures, deployment levels, and costs required Section 406 – Safety Belt Performance Grants, and Section
to achieve the intersection crash reduction goal. If 410 – Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasure Incentive
necessary, the goal may be adjusted in terms of safety Grants).
impact to be achieved (i.e., targeted annual lives saved) or
Use of Countermeasures New to or Rarely Used in
time to achieve the goal.
the State. Any time something new is implemented, the
Once the straw man outline is complete, the group potential for failure increases because of the increased
identifies any key issues that may impact the successful level of unknown factors. States can minimize the
implementation of the effort and establishes actions and potential for failure by taking the following actions:
strategic directions to address each issue. In working
• Identify a champion, a safety professional, responsible for overseeing the
through the agenda items, several issues may arise. These
implementation of the countermeasure.
issues and potential solutions gleaned from previous
workshops are discussed below. • Ensure that the champion becomes proficient in knowledge regard-
ing the countermeasure by reviewing literature, conferring with other
Insufficient Existing Funding to Achieve the Goal. out-of-state professionals with extensive knowledge regarding the
Available Highway Safety Improvement Program countermeasure, and potentially visiting out-of-state sites where the
(HSIP) resources may not be sufficient to fund all of the countermeasure has been deployed.
improvements in the plan. To overcome this, States can
• Seek District or Regional personnel who may be interested in deploying a
seek other available federal safety fund sources (e.g.,
demonstration of the technology.
High Risk Rural Roads program, Section 1406 – Safety
Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts, Section 1407 – • Identify the key issues that are preventing widespread implementation
Safety Incentive to Prevent Operating of Motor Vehicles by of the countermeasure and establish scheduled demonstrations to ad-
Intoxicated Persons, Section 406 – Safety Belt Performance dress the issues and evaluate the results.1
Grants, and Section 410 – Alcohol-Impaired Driving • Ensure that the champion performs a rigorous assessment of the
Countermeasure Incentive Grants), utilize regular Federal- demonstrations to determine if any design, construction, or operational
aid funds; or use State or local funds. The time to achieve changes need to be made; if the countermeasure is ready for widespread
the goal also may be extended, thus lowering the annual deployment; and if additional demonstrations are needed.
funding needs to an affordable level.
• Upon completion of the demonstrations, make a decision on the coun-
Improvements at Local Intersections with Federal termeasure’s readiness for widespread deployment. If so, integrate the
Funds. A considerable number of State and federal countermeasure into normal operations. If not, make a determination on
requirements impede the flow of funds to local whether the countermeasure should be considered for further deploy-
governments for low-cost countermeasures. To address ment. If the determination is to proceed, identify the remaining issues
this issue, States may wish to use specially-trained Local and establish a process and schedule to address them.
Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) safety engineers
and/or consultants with 100 percent federal funding to 1 Rely on other State efforts to evaluate the countermeasure’s CRF since there
will be insufficient data and time to properly evaluate crash reduction effective-
administer the program, perform the engineering, and ness within the State.
43
Countermeasures Involving Policy Decisions. At least two countermeasures may involve significant policy issues–
lighting on State rural intersections and installation of enforcement-assisted lights at traffic signals to reduce red-light
running. Existing lighting policies may limit the use of lighting to freeways. In addition, a State may not have a policy in
place for installing on the highway system devices that can enhance enforcement. Addressing these issues likely will
require input from upper management.
• Lighting on State Rural Intersections – Many States have limited lighting on freeways or at interchanges and have not considered lighting at in-
tersections because of the potential fiscal impact. To minimize fiscal impact, States can limit lighting consideration to only those intersections with a high
frequency and proportion of night crashes, utilize 100 percent Federal funding for the lighting improvements, and/or consider requiring local municipali-
ties where the intersections reside to energize and maintain the lighting.
• Installation of Enforcement-Assisted Lights – The value of enforcement-assisted lights is dependent on how aware drivers are of the function
of enforcement-assisted lights, an agreement by police to use the lights for red-light running enforcement, and the commitment of the courts to process
the police citations. If drivers know that police use the lights for enforcement, they easily can see the lights as they approach an intersection and slow
down to stop on red. This should reduce the level of red-light running significantly. States should consider installing enforcement-assisted lights only in
those municipalities with an angle crash problem at signalized intersections. Within these municipalities, States should ensure that police organizations
agree to a written commitment to use the enforcement-assisted lights to enforce red-light running violations. States must also ensure that sufficient 402
funds are available to mount a limited education campaign for the residents of and surrounding the municipality about the purpose of the enforcement-
assisted lights and red-light enforcement. Alternate funding such as using the flexible funding provisions of the HSIP program or State funds can also be
considered.
Half-Day Follow-Up Implementation Planning Meeting

After the workshop, on the morning of the third day, a small group of key State personnel (at least the State Safety
Engineer, the State Traffic Engineer, and the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative) and the FHWA Division Office
Safety Engineer/Specialist should meet to review the results and identify key steps needed to successfully move each
countermeasure from its existing state to full implementation as defined in the tentative plan. A representative of local
governments, an MPO, or the police may also participate at the discretion of the State. This small group also discusses
strategic directions for implementing the plan and schedules for implementation, including identifying the upper
management who must approve the initiative and the actions and schedules needed to secure that approval.
Step 6 Action.
Plan and conduct the two-day workshop with

key stakeholders to gain consensus on a set
of countermeasures, deployment levels and
characteristics, costs, and fatality reductions
needed to achieve the intersection crash
reduction goal. Plan and conduct the half-day
follow-up implementation planning meeting
to reach consensus within the State on the key
steps and schedule to fully implement each
countermeasure.
44
Step 7:
Develop a Draft Intersection Safety Implementation Plan
Upon completion of the workshop and follow-up meeting • Implementation.

with key State personnel, the State develops a draft »» Countermeasure Descriptions.
implementation plan. The plan should:
»» Key Implementation Steps.
• Establish or re-state the intersection crash reduction goal. • Performance Measures
• Document the problem, countermeasures, deployment characteristics, »» Production Performance Measures.
and funding needed to achieve the intersection crash reduction goal.
»» Impact Performance Measures.
• Identify funding levels needed to implement plan and potential funding
sources. • Performance Standards – Program Effectiveness in Reducing Targeted
Crashes
• Establish who has to approve the initiative and its funding and what is
required for a decision. • Summary.
• Document any cross-cutting or key issues (e.g., funding, local inter- An example intersection safety implementation plan
section countermeasure deployment, deploying new or rarely used is available on the FHWA Intersection Safety web page
countermeasures) and how they should be addressed. (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/).
• Document key steps and decisions needed to effectively implement the The draft plan should be circulated to the key
countermeasures in the plan and achieve the goal. stakeholders who participated in the workshop and
• Establish performance measures and tracking mechanisms to monitor follow-up meeting for additions, deletions, and/or
implementation and fatality reductions. modifications. Once all comments are received, the plan
should be updated into a revised draft form.
A suggested outline for the plan is as follows:
• Executive Summary.
• Background. Step 7 Action.
• The Intersection Safety Goal. Develop a draft intersection safety

»» The Approach. implementation plan based upon the results of
the workshop and follow-up meeting. Circulate
»» Distribution of the State Intersection Fatality Problem. the plan among workshop and follow-up
»» Summary of Countermeasures. meeting participants. Revise the draft based on
comments received.
• Key First Steps.
45
Step 8:
Present the Draft Intersection Safety Implementation Plan to Upper Management
The draft plan is presented to upper management for action to make local municipalities aware of the problems,
approval, rejection, or modification. Upper management and actions the State should take to assist municipalities
input is needed for successful implementation, since implement the improvements. A recommended
the plan probably will involve addressing a number methodology to finance local intersection improvements,
of new issues, implementing new countermeasures, including the role that the State should play, should also
and increasing funding levels. These issues should be be included.
presented clearly to upper management for direction.
Some of the key items in a briefing to upper management Policy-Related Actions. Some of the potential
may include the following. countermeasures (e.g., lighting rural intersections with
high frequencies and proportions of night crashes) have
Funding. The plan may require additional funding been applied rarely or never in many States. Funding
beyond that available from the HSIP. The presentation these improvements, including the maintenance and
should include an overview of the type and level of energizing responsibilities, require upper management
projects for which the funds will be used; the expected direction. The presentation should identify portions of the
impact in terms of lives saved and incapacitating injuries plan that involve policy issues and provide recommended
and crashes prevented; alternative sources for securing courses of action that meet the plan objectives while
the additional funding; and a recommended financial minimizing potential adverse actions on the State.
approach to implement the plan.
Funding Education and Enforcement Initiatives. Some
Approach. Reducing statewide intersection fatalities and of the corridor or municipal-wide initiatives may require
incapacitating injuries likely will require supplementing funding beyond existing 402 funding levels. If this occurs,
the traditional approach with the systematic and alternate funding sources (and recommendations on their
comprehensive approaches. use) need to be presented to upper management for
direction. This will require special coordination with the
New Countermeasures Not or Rarely Used in the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative if that person is
State. The presentation should describe the process located outside of the State DOT.
for implementing the new countermeasure in a way
that minimizes risks of failure and/or adverse publicity
while meeting the timeframes established in the plan.
The presentation should include a list of the new Step 8 Action.
countermeasures and how they will be introduced and
implemented in the State. Prepare a presentation on the draft
intersection safety implementation plan and
Implementing Safety Improvements at Locally- its key issues for upper management group
Owned Intersections. The presentation should include approval and direction.
an overview of the scope of the intersection crash
problem on local intersections, the suggested course of
46
Step 9:
Finalize the Intersection Safety Implementation Plan
The feedback received from upper management may

alter some of the contents and recommendations in the Step 9 Action.
plan. The final plan should incorporate these changes1
Finalize the intersection safety implementation
and then be circulated to all of the key stakeholders for plan based upon the guidance and direction
informational purposes. provided by upper management. Circulate
the final plan among key stakeholders for
informational purposes.
1 In most cases, this is the responsibility of the State Safety Engineer.
47
Step 10:
Implement the Plan, Monitor Progress, and Evaluate Results
Once the intersection safety implementation plan is the oversight committee on adhering to the implementation schedules
finalized, the State should take a number of key actions defined in the implementation plan for each countermeasure.
to ensure successful implementation and statewide 3. Develop and implement a system to track projects in the plan for each
reduction of intersection fatalities and incapacitating countermeasure for project development progress, construction, and
injuries. Suggested actions to improve the likelihood of crash history following construction.
success include:
4. On a bi-annual basis, make a comprehensive review of the plan. Update
1. Create an oversight committee led by the State Safety Engineer and the plan as needed to reflect any substantive modifications or significant
composed of at least the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative adjustments.
and the State Traffic Engineer (or their representatives) and the FHWA
Division Office Safety Engineer/Specialist. The oversight committee
should meet on a quarterly basis to monitor progress, provide direction, Step 10 Action.
and make mid-course adjustments. The oversight committee also should
Conduct implementation, monitoring, and
periodically report back to upper management on progress.
evaluation activities.
2. For each countermeasure in the plan, seek or assign a staff professional
as coordinator to be responsible for its successful implementation. The
coordinators should provide periodic (i.e., at least twice a year) input to
48
For More Information
Ed Rice
Intersection Safety Team Leader,
FHWA Office of Safety
202.366.9064 P
ed.rice@dot.gov
U.S. Department of Transportation

FHWA-SA-10-010 November 2009

Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Process: FHWA-SA-10-010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Process: FHWA-SA-10-010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Process: FHWA-SA-10-010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intersection Safety Implementation

U.S. Department of Transportation

Quality Assurance Statement

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

DTFH61-05-D-00025, Task T-06-003

United States Department of Transportation

15. Supplementary Notes

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

STEP 1: Set the Intersection Crash Reduction Goal......................................................................................... 2

STEP 3: Identify Intersection Countermeasure Type to be Completed...................................................... 10

STEP 4: Analyze Crash and Applicable Roadway Data.................................................................................. 22

STEP 5: Develop a Straw Man Outline.............................................................................................................. 35

STEP 6: Conduct a Workshop of Key Stakeholders and Follow-Up Implementation...................................

STEP 7: Develop a Draft Intersection Safety Implementation Plan ........................................................... 45

Table 2: Sample Fatality Rates for State A..........................................................................................................................3

Table 3: Typical Distribution of Fatalities within a State over a 5-Year Period.............................................................5

Table 4: USDOT Fatality and Injury Costs............................................................................................................................6

Table 5: Targeted Crash Types by Traffic Control, Ownership, and Area.......................................................................7

Table 6: Typical Rates for Fatalities per 100 Crashes........................................................................................................7

Table 7: Typical Distribution of Total Crashes at Rural State Stop-Controlled Intersections –

Table 8: Typical Distribution of Total Crashes at Rural State Signalized Intersections –

Table 18: Template for Documenting Countermeasure Selection.................................................................................18

Table 19: Typical Types of Crashes and Associated Countermeasures .........................................................................23

Table 22: Summarized Frequency Distribution – State, Rural, Stop-Controlled Intersections –

Table 23: Example Distribution of Crashes by Intersection – Rural/Urban..................................................................29

Table 24: Example Distribution of Night Crashes in Rural Areas by Intersection........................................................31

Table 25: Example Distribution of Wet Pavement Crashes by Rural Intersection......................................................32

Table 26: Sample Matrix for State, Rural, Stop-Controlled Intersections.....................................................................34

Table 27: Sample Distribution of Crashes at State Urban Signalized Intersections...................................................36

Table 29: Sample Summary Straw Man...............................................................................................................................39

Figure 3: Examples of Basic Low-Cost Countermeasures for Stop-Controlled Intersections – Double Up

Figure 4: Turn Restrictions at Multi-Lane Highways.........................................................................................................12

Set Crash Expand Current Identify

Conduct Workshop Analyze Data,

Develop Present Draft Implement

Figure 1: Process for Developing an Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

Many State SHSPs define overall statewide safety goals.

The overall SHSP goal may be expressed in terms of 2003 1,064

2003 1.45 Create an intersection crash reduction goal

State 683 647 34 2

Local 336 328 7 1

Table 3: Typical Distribution of Fatalities within a State over a 5-Year Period

• Speed. • Time of day.

State Roads Local Roads

Rural Urban Rural Urban

Traffic Stop Traffic Stop Traffic Stop Traffic Stop

Severity Descriptor Cost Per Injury (2007 Dollars)

Table 4: USDOT Fatality and Injury Costs

Stop State Rural 2.40 3.12 2.08 3.79 3.04 11.76

Table 6: Typical Rates for Fatalities per 100 Crashes

Number of Cumulative Cumulative

20-29 36 67 12.03 2,258 54.98

Suggested Mountable Curb

Typical Typical Additional Implementation

24 Total J-Turn Conflict Points