A. Has your agency officially adopted a policy of zero deaths as your long-term vision?

Why: More than 30,000 people die annually as a result of motor vehicle crashes. A necessary first step in working toward zero traffic-related fatalities is officially adopting zero deaths as your agency’s long-term vision. Changing your agency’s priorities, practices, policies, and culture is necessary.

How: Culture change is a vital part of adopting a policy of zero deaths as your agency’s long-term vision. This change requires top-level management support of this vision. Management needs to communicate expectations, including changing old habits and policies and adopting new best management practices to make safety programs more effective.

B. Has your agency adopted aggressive short-term goals?

Why: Monitoring trend lines is a strategic approach for analyzing traffic fatalities. However, this method is a backward reflection of an agency’s safety practices and the effectiveness of their implementation. Trend lines reflect potential effects of long-term measures and are insufficient for analyzing the immediate effectiveness of short-term goals. Data indicate that few agencies will have zero fatalities by focusing only on historic trend lines.

How: Channeling forward-thinking implementation practices, policies, and approaches will allow for a more encompassing approach than focusing on trend lines. Agencies that are serious about working toward zero deaths must understand that more aggressive short-term goals are required and more effective safety practices, policies, and implementation need to be adopted.

C. Do your agency’s short-term goals fall on the nationwide fatality trend line?

Why: Using the nationwide fatality trend line would not lead to zero deaths, even over an extended period of time. The nationwide fatality trend line, and the trend line for most states, has remained the same for the past five years.

How: Agencies need to adopt a more aggressive approach that includes clear and proven short-term goals and new practices for implementation of more effective safety strategies.

D. Do your agency’s statewide goals include a breakout of state versus local systems?

Why: It is necessary to document the distribution of fatalities by state and local systems in order to address the specific needs of the state.

How: A first step in addressing safety practices on roadway systems, relative to a specific state, is to acknowledge the need through comprehensive documentation. A state’s safety needs typically include a breakdown of severe crashes by safety emphasis areas and location, including by facility types and functional classification (e.g., freeway versus two-lane roadway, state versus local systems, rural versus urban systems, and segment-related versus intersection-related).

E. Are safety issues on the local road system addressed in collaboration or coordination with state safety efforts?

Why: State agencies are often in a good position to provide technical and financial support to address safety challenges on local roads. At the statewide level, the data are clear—no state can actually achieve zero traffic-related fatalities without addressing safety locally. Local agencies own almost 70 percent of the country’s road miles, and around 40 percent of traffic fatalities occur on these local roads. The actual fraction of road deaths that occur on local systems varies by region (generally below the national average in the east and southeast and above the average in the rest of the country), but no state has zero deaths on its local system. Since there are hundreds of local agencies (counties, cities, townships) in each state, state agencies can provide overarching coordination and oversight of these efforts among local agencies.

How: Serious efforts to work toward zero traffic deaths across a state must address safety on local systems, which requires collaborative coordination between state agencies and the local agencies that manage those systems.

A. Does your agency have a traffic safety champion?

Why: Successful safety programs have been led by champions with a passion for eliminating traffic fatalities. Champions develop and cultivate partnerships and relationships within their organizations and with outside agencies and organizations at all levels of government and private industry.

How: A champion takes on the role of the go-to person for traffic-safety-related efforts. Agencies collaborate with their champion to effectively communicate with the public about traffic safety, acquire dedicated resources, and develop and implement safety action plans. Effective safety champions can be found at any level of an organization and can hold either technical or managerial roles. Read more about TZD champions in the How-To Guide: Implementing the TZD Strategic Communications Plan.

B. Can leadership describe your safety priorities and programs?

Why: Agency leadership should be able to describe safety priorities and programs to show it has a vested interest in their development and implementation (note that the safety champion may need to brief leadership on these priorities and programs). Also, an agency that has committed to eliminating fatalities by implementing safety programs will need to effectively communicate planning efforts throughout the organization.

How: Leadership can include safety measures as a discussion topic during meetings. Or, consider scheduling a workshop to detail the agency’s priorities and programs, and to help develop safety strategies as a part of the organization’s culture. It is also helpful to ensure that top staff have current, accurate, and telling crash data easily available; creating a one-pager or “trivia card” with specific data that leaders can use as talking points is one recommendation. An example of NHTSA’s “quick facts” publication can be found here. In another example, North Carolina has created an online safety dashboard providing quick and easy access to safety-related data. These facts can also be used as a foundation for communicating traffic safety messages to other stakeholders and the public. Finally, using the name of your program (TZD, Zero Vision, etc.) can also help with brand identity and shifting the safety culture.

C. Does your agency’s leadership encourage relationships with peers at other organizations?

Why: Eliminating fatalities cannot be achieved by one discipline alone. Collaborative relationships must be developed to achieve the zero-fatalities goal. A focus on collaboration acknowledges that there is a shared responsibility for safe travel outcomes between all agencies and users. This idea of shared responsibility for safety is consistent with the principles for safe systems adopted by the World Road Association, as detailed in its Road Safety Manual (2017).

How: The 4E concept (engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services) has demonstrated that crash reduction is possible with collaboration. Safety champions, regardless of their position within an organization, should have support from their top staff to seek out relationships in the traditional 4Es as well as with business and community leaders, metropolitan planning organizations, elected officials, and private industry partners to discuss priorities and garner support. It is imperative to open lines of communication with other agency partners and provide resources for sustaining these relationships in the development and implementation of coordinated zero deaths programs.

D. Does your agency inspire collaboration and engage in effective relationship-building practices with other organizations?

Why: Sustaining a successful safety program requires multiple agencies and organizations to work together toward zero deaths. Therefore, multi-organizational collaboration is imperative.

How: A key step is to outline roles and responsibilities of each partnership and to clearly define expectations and accountability measures. Each agency should acknowledge its role in the program. As an accountability measure, periodic reviews should be conducted to verify that the program is reaching its optimal potential. Also, these reviews will provide an opportunity to include additional partners—or to offer additional assistance to partners who want to be more effective—in addressing the program's goal. Leadership should ensure that resources are dedicated to support this review process and encourage new relationships with nontraditional partners.

E. Does your agency staff have the necessary training and expertise to make decisions that improve safety?

Why: Safety is described by many agencies and organizations as their number-one priority. However, their programs may not always reflect the level of commitment that statement implies. Agencies with strong safety cultures should seek input from all staff who have the necessary training and expertise to enhance and improve the agency’s safety programs. This strategy will create positive results.

How: Interested staff should work with leadership to develop their safety programs and shape the way zero fatalities will be achieved. Leadership should commit to dedicating the appropriate investment (as provided through staff analysis and recommendations) and allow its team to decide how that investment is prioritized to implement safety programs. While there will be investment tradeoffs with other programs, it is important to support program efforts with staff from within your agency.

A. Does your program have an overarching support structure?

Why: Once a commitment to a zero vision has been made, the next step is implementation. An overarching support structure can provide a framework from which to coordinate efforts and develop an action plan with accountable performance metrics. Appropriate resources can then be identified and dedicated to developing and implementing the projects and programs that will achieve this vision.

How: There are a number of cases for which the overarching program support is provided at the statewide level. Learn more about Utah’s program structure in the How-To Guide: Implementing the TZD Strategic Communications Plan.

B. Does your program have clearly defined roles for administrative responsibilities?

Why: The key to program success is having adequate staff support, which can be determined by the size of the program. Zero deaths programs will vary in size and focus, so the amount of resources needed should correspond to the level of program efforts.

How: Staffing support while developing, implementing, and maintaining a safety program with a zero deaths goal is vital for success. Rather than assigning this responsibility exclusively to current staff, many agencies have turned to external organizations to provide this support. Regardless of the model you choose, an adequate level of resources should be committed for this work.

C. Does your program involve coordination efforts at the state and local levels?

Why: A successful zero-deaths program requires coordinated efforts among many agencies and organizations. For example, in some states severe crashes occur broadly across state and local systems, which is why having multiple levels of roadway owners involved in the process is often most effective.

How: Convene multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional meetings to identify common safety issues and challenges. Leverage funding when allowed to implement solutions and expand the reach of your program. Provide consistent messaging for use across jurisdictions to share the program’s goals and successes.

D. Does your program have regional organizations that facilitate local involvement?

Why: Implementation of a zero-deaths strategy often requires multiple jurisdictions to work together. Dividing your state into regions can help facilitate a local connection and encourage cooperation on grassroots efforts.

How: Minnesota’s statewide zero deaths program is one example where regional partnerships support geographical areas of the state. Each region’s multi-jurisdictional action plan incorporates local stakeholder input, as well as projects and programs implemented at the local level. The statewide organization provides oversight and financial resources as necessary to ensure program effectiveness.

E. Is your program periodically reviewed and evaluated for effectiveness?

Why: Program evaluation is key to implementing a successful program. Agencies need to know whether their programs are achieving adopted goals in order to either continue with or revise existing goals.

How: Create a process to complete an annual review of your zero-deaths program. This process should include measurable metrics and provide the opportunity for stakeholders to review successful strategies that have been implemented; build on the successes that have been achieved; evaluate challenges that have occurred throughout the implementation process; update the program structure and action plan; and incorporate new members as needed. This evaluation will update stakeholders on the program’s progress and provide recommendations for future implementation, which can then be used to help secure support for continued resources, market to new partners, and re-energize existing efforts.

A. Does your agency know who your stakeholders are?

Why: To have effective relationships with stakeholders and to mobilize your relationships to make progress on TZD goals, you need to begin with knowing who your stakeholders are.

Stakeholders are groups or organizations that have a strong influence over or interest in the achievement of TZD goals.

• Influence could take the form of legal authority, data, resources (funding, human resources), or political power that could affect how well TZD goals will be met. They may have formal or informal power to support, obstruct, or renegotiate TZD goals.
• Those with an interest include groups affected by the program’s success, such as people who use the roads, or organizations that might be assigned or given resources to implement some part of the TZD strategy.

How: A good way to identify stakeholders is to brainstorm a list with a small group of your colleagues, using the simple 5-step process described on pages 28–29 of “What to do when stakeholders matter” (Bryson 2004). Or, view this short and fun instructive video for ideas about how to recognize the important players in TZD in your region. And finally, read about how to identify potential partners in the How-To Guide: Implementing the TZD Strategic Communication Plan.

Note: To gain a more complete understanding of stakeholder engagement strategies, complete the Self-Assessment Tool for TZD Stakeholder Involvement.

B. Does your agency have a general plan for communication or outreach to stakeholders?

Why: A necessary foundation for any productive work with stakeholders is to communicate with them effectively about your work, meaning that you communicate regularly and provide relevant and helpful information.

How: To communicate effectively, you must first be aware of who your stakeholders are and understand their needs and desires for information. What TZD goals and metrics will they be most interested in? Second, you need a communication plan and basic resources to implement it.

Note: To gain a more complete understanding of stakeholder engagement strategies, complete the Self-Assessment Tool for TZD Stakeholder Involvement.

C. Does your agency have dedicated staff or a consulting budget for communication and outreach?

Why: The recommendations in this matrix for improving outcomes from stakeholder engagement are untenable without the necessary resources. The benefits of engagement typically increase with the level of engagement. No work can be accomplished without some commitment for your staff to be involved in the work.

How: Consider your human resource needs for building relationships, outreach, or technical assistance. Do you have them in place within your agency or through some consulting or contracting arrangement? More information is available in the How-To Guide: Implementing the TZD Strategic Communication Plan.

Note: To gain a more complete understanding of stakeholder engagement strategies, complete the Self-Assessment Tool for TZD Stakeholder Involvement.

D. Are your key stakeholders aware of your state goals and activities?

Why: It’s important to be clear—within your agency and with your stakeholders—about the kind of involvement you are inviting and the level of influence your stakeholders will have. Otherwise, your agency may inadvertently imply (or stakeholders may infer) that stakeholders will have more influence than they actually will. This kind of misunderstanding often damages trust.

How: Cells 4A–4E of this matrix denote increasing levels of stakeholder engagement in and influence over TZD goal setting, resource allocations, and programming decisions. The IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation describes different levels of engagement and suggests how to communicate about them; it also makes clear that a greater level of engagement is not necessarily desirable.

Even the most modest level of engagement should be on the spectrum: at a minimum, inform stakeholders about TZD goals and activities, so that you are acting transparently and stakeholders know where to go for more information and how to get involved. An example of a one-page handout with this type of information is available in the How-To Guide: Implementing the TZD Strategic Communication Plan.

Note: To gain a more complete understanding of stakeholder engagement strategies, complete the Self-Assessment Tool for TZD Stakeholder Involvement.

E. Do your agency and key partners share and review crash data?

Why: Systematic data collection and analysis allows you and your stakeholders to identify problems and gain a common understanding of the key issues. This will help you to determine and prioritize your TZD activities.

How: This recent NHTSA report describes the kinds of data collection and analysis you could conduct to detect key problems and emerging trends and to measure the effectiveness of countermeasures. This NCHRP study offers suggestions for developing an injury measurement and reporting system.

Note: To gain a more complete understanding of stakeholder engagement strategies, complete the Self-Assessment Tool for TZD Stakeholder Involvement.

A. Does your agency provide safety training?

Why: In general, most agencies have very few, if any, specialists who focus solely on addressing safety issues—it’s part of their job, but not an exclusive responsibility. As a result, there is a need for specialized safety-related training with a focus on data-driven processes associated with system evaluations, safety priorities, and candidate locations for safety investment.

How: Agencies that adopt crash-reduction goals should provide safety training as a first step in planning efforts. General safety training programs offered by NHTSA, state DOTs, and LTAPs, for example, typically include identifying crash characteristics associated with each element of a roadway system, key analytical techniques that support conducting a data-driven evaluation, and basic components of a traffic safety tool box. A valuable resource for developing this training is the Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook. More information is also available in the How-To Guide: Implementing the TZD Strategic Communications Plan.

B. Does your agency provide training on project development for safety-related projects?

Why: According to feedback from states, those that provide additional training focused on safety project development reported an increase in the level of participation by local agencies in statewide safety planning efforts.

How: Providing generalized safety training that includes insight about analytical processes is a necessary component of participating in state-managed safety programs. It is equally important to identify frequent crash types, screen potential safety strategies based on cost and crash-reduction effectiveness, evaluate the system for the presence of crashes or certain roadway and traffic characteristics, and detail requirements for the solicitation process to secure funding.

C. Does your agency provide focused safety training on a risk-based assessment process?

Why: Traditionally, meeting adopted thresholds for high frequencies or high rates of severe crashes has been a barrier for local systems implementing a highway safety improvement program. The overall number of severe crashes on their local systems was equal to or higher than the state system, but the large size of the local system resulted in low-crash densities, and locations with multiple severe crashes were rare. As a result, these states added a systemic risk-based entry to their safety programs to better accommodate the crash characteristics of their local systems. The low-crash density and absence of high-crash locations along local systems does not equate to no risk. Also, strategic safety investment could result in a reduction in severe crashes.

How: Training local agencies in the use of systemic risk-based processes and the ways in which to identify the roadway and traffic characteristics at locations with severe crashes is necessary to help an agency evaluate its system, develop safety projects, and begin implementation. Refer to FHWA (2017) for an example of successful implementation of the systemic process.

D. Does your agency provide funding to support development of local safety plans?

Why: In a few cases, states have found that providing safety training for local agencies increased the level of participation in statewide safety planning efforts but did not achieve a high enough level to meet adopted goals for funding local system projects. Therefore, a number of these states took the next step, which involves funding the preparation of local safety plans. These include documented results of a data-driven systemic evaluation process, identification of suggested safety projects, and the completed Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) solicitation form for each suggested project.

How: If your agency does not provide funding to support this development, or if supplemental funding is needed, it is possible to submit projects for HSIP funding for deployment of effective, low-cost safety countermeasures across the local roadway system. State highway safety offices can also consider Section 402 or 405 funding for behavior-related initiatives.

E. Does your agency form collaborative partnerships to prepare local safety plans?

Why: Collaborative partnerships are proven to be effective. In Minnesota, the initial state-funded safety plan preparation effort had approximately 85 percent of counties implementing at least one project, which resulted in crash reductions on the county system exceeding those on the state’s system.

How: Based on feedback from county residents and elected officials, this program was popular and appreciated. As a result, county engineers requested that their safety plans be updated. A subsequent effort was initiated in which the DOT agreed to manage the safety plan preparation effort, and the counties would generate data about their systems, provide technical oversight of the risk-based analysis and project development, and contribute a portion of the cost to support the preparation of updated plans for their systems.

A. Are your agency’s safety activities derived from a proven, data-driven analytical process?

Why: Successfully working toward reductions in the number of severe crashes requires implementation. Crash trend lines will most likely be broken or bent according to your agency’s decision to implement behavioral and/or engineering countermeasures based on the results of a data-driven process that links specific crash types with proven countermeasures at specific locations.

How: It is imperative to use appropriate behavioral and/or engineering countermeasures that have been proven effective at reducing the particular types of crashes identified as a priority for a particular state, region, or local agency. For example, at an intersection with a high number of pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes, there may be a need to upgrade signals, restripe crosswalks, provide a pedestrian refuge island, lower the speed limit, conduct pedestrian safety enforcement (that addresses all roadway users), educate pedestrians about safe crossing practices, and educate motorists about pedestrian safety laws.

B. Has your agency identified a prioritized list of crash types contributing to severe crashes as well as associated performance measures?

Why: When agencies adopt zero traffic deaths as their long-term vision, they should prioritize the types of crashes with large numbers of fatalities and serious injuries. A number of safety research studies have demonstrated that crashes involving these types of injuries tend to be different than less-severe crashes. Although it is different for each state, often severe crashes are overrepresented by certain crash types along rural highways and local systems. Adopting a zero vision could result in a change in your agency’s safety priorities.

How: Utilize a data-driven analytical approach to identify the most frequent types of severe crashes occurring on your system. Because safety funding is limited, this data then provides a prioritized list of crash types on which to focus prevention efforts.

C. Has your agency identified the top safety strategies that will support a Toward Zero Deaths vision?

Why: Your agency might revise the prioritized list of safety strategies based on a new awareness from the data-driven analytical process. These differences should be reflected in an agency’s forward-looking safety program.

How: Develop a short list of high-frequency crash types that will help identify safety strategies, since most safety strategies are linked to specific crash types. A great deal of information is available (e.g., FHWA’s CMF Clearinghouse, FHWA 2017) documenting the safety effectiveness of particular strategies and detailing how these strategies will achieve successful results. For example, many safety plans have identified rural lane-departure crashes as a priority, and the data-driven analysis has documented that even though there are large numbers of these crashes, they are widely scattered across thousands of miles of roads. This low crash density suggests that widely deploying low-cost strategies across a system would likely be more effective in preventing severe crashes than concentrating higher-cost strategies at only a very few locations. For more information, refer to the national Toward Zero Deaths strategy.

D. Do your agency’s top safety priorities and strategies reflect the factors contributing to severe crashes on your roadways?

Why: Currently, no states have zero severe crashes on their local system. National data indicate that, on average, between 40 and 50 percent of severe crashes occur on local systems. Overall, the range of severe crashes is from less than 20 to more than 60 percent.

How: As your agency adopts a Toward Zero Deaths strategy, you must consider local roadway severe crashes. Also, characteristics and factors contributing to crashes on local systems may be different than those on a state system, so your agency needs to understand the differences to make its strategy effective.

E. Do top priorities and strategies account for/reflect regional differences?

Why: Safety plans reflect the results of a data-driven analysis of statewide crash data. However, relying only on statewide data may mask important regional differences. For example, in Minnesota, crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists are considered a priority because these types of crashes account for around 13 percent of fatalities and serious injuries. However, disaggregating these crashes by region supports the notion that addressing pedestrian and bicycle crashes in the seven-county Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area is a higher priority than in the other 80 counties. Crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists account for around 20 percent of fatalities and serious injuries in the metropolitan area but only 5 percent in the rest of the state.

How: Research the types of crashes that most severely affect the region on which your agency is focusing. Use your researched data and the statewide crash data to develop your top priorities and implementation strategies.

A. Is your agency spending all allocated safety funds on program development and implementation?

Why: If states consistently carry a balance in their safety fund account, or transfer funds to other program categories, internal safety project development challenges may be overlooked and opportunities to invest in safety missed. Not all agencies have spent their annual allotment of safety funds because of shifts in program focus, project delays or cancellation, or the identification of other pressing agency needs (transferring funds among various federally aided programs is allowed). Bending the trend line of severe crashes requires focused implementation—deploying effective strategies at identified locations with certain roadway characteristics.

How: Designated safety funds should be spent on the safety program to continue supporting implementation and forwarding the agency’s goals.

B. Does your agency compare the distribution of safety investment to the distribution of crashes (delineated by type and location)?

Why: State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) document results of a data-driven analysis, from both an engineering and behavioral perspective, of their crash records. The plans also describe the types of severe crashes that represent the greatest opportunity for reduction through focused safety investment, and identify the types of roadways and specific behaviors where states should invest resources. However, a review of a sample of states’ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) annual reports found that actual safety spending has not always been aligned with the priorities documented in their SHSPs.

How: Implement a high level of consistency between documented priorities and actual safety investments to achieve a higher level of effectiveness (crashes reduced per dollar of safety investment). For example, if the data-driven analysis identifies lane-departure crashes, angle crashes at intersections, and occupant protection as a priority for reduction, directing HSIP and/or Highway Safety Plan (HSP) funds to mitigate these crashes should be a key component of the safety program. Another example: If the data-driven analysis documented that locations with crashes are over-represented—including two-lane rural roads on the local system, divided roadways on the state’s system, and urban intersections along local roads—a key issue would be whether safety investments were actually being directed toward these locations.

C. Are your agency’s safety investments focused on top priorities and strategies?

Why: State SHSPs document the screening process that results in identifying a state’s top safety priorities—the safety emphasis areas that represent the greatest opportunity for reduction. Results of this screening process help with evaluating and identifying a short list of top priority safety strategies.

How: A number of states have indicated that they have found that a solution to low densities of severe crashes is to widely distribute effective countermeasures, and that the size of their system and limited safety budgets require a focus on low cost. Identifying lane-departure crashes as a top priority would point toward a short list of strategies dealing with enhancing road edges, establishing and maintaining clear roadsides, and upgrading highway hardware. However, if the analysis reveals that the density of severe crashes (crashes per mile per year) is very low and the size of the road system is large, this would suggest a focus on low-cost strategies (edge rumbles at $3,000 per mile as opposed to wide shoulder paving that could cost upwards of $200,000 per mile) that would support a far wider distribution of a low-cost but proven safety countermeasure.

D. Has your agency adopted safety program management practices that allow sharing federal safety funding with agencies outside your own?

Why: State transportation agencies are encouraged to provide oversight for safety across all road systems. In support of this effort, many state agencies choose to report the distribution of crashes by state versus local system and to direct some of their dedicated safety funds to support projects developed by local agencies.

How: One potential approach to directing safety funds to local system projects would be an overall distribution of either projects or dollars between state and local systems that is consistent with the distribution of severe crashes. Two key considerations that support the dedication of funding for local systems are 1) a focus on safety projects developed by local agencies, as opposed to state projects that happen to include local legs, and 2) the need to add a risk-based entry to their safety program.

E. Are safety considerations a factor for your agency when prioritizing all projects?

Why: It is important to add safety measures to your system that extend beyond already-established safety projects.

How: A number of state and local road authorities have indicated that they are adding safety to their systems beyond implementing safety projects funded through their safety improvement programs. Two examples are 1) Incorporating low-cost safety strategies into ongoing pavement preservation and reconstruction projects (enhanced edge lines or edge rumbles) as standard features to more widely distribute proven effective safety countermeasures. 2) Adding a safety component to the prioritization process for pavement preservation and reconstruction projects. For example, if a group of two-lane rural roadways were being considered for reconstruction in an agency’s Capital Improvement Program, and if lane-departure crashes along rural roads are documented as a priority, those roads with the highest density of these crashes or considered to be the most at-risk based on a systemic risk assessment would be considered a higher priority than comparable roads with either lower densities of crashes or a lower risk rating.