For too long, the work of saving lives on our roads has been divided by jurisdiction. Cities often carry the vision — and urgency — for safer streets, but not always the authority to deliver them. States control many of the most dangerous roadways, along with the funding, policies, and standards that shape how those roads function. While state departments of transportation (DOTs) are asked to balance multiple objectives, including mobility and economic activity, the result has too often been a system where safety is fragmented, responsibility is diffused, and high-risk arterials fall between the cracks.
That’s starting to change. Across the country, more attention is being focused on how states and cities can better align goals, share data, and design for safety as one system rather than many. Below are 10 concrete ways to accelerate that shift — and make safe streets the rule, not the exception.
10. Direct State Funding to Biggest Safety Needs
9. Treat Speed as a Systemic Safety Problem
8. Make Safe Speeds the Standard Across All Jurisdictions
7. Redesign Arterials with Land Use and Community Needs
6. Build Flexibility into State Design Standards
5. Advance Quick Builds Through State Leadership
4. Invest in Local Capacity, Not Just Projects
3. Use MPOs to Turn Plans into Coordinated Action
2. Plan as One Network, Not Competing Jurisdictions
1. Lead and Communicate Through a Safe System Approach
10. Direct State Funding to Biggest Safety Needs
States control a large share of transportation funding through federal formula programs, which pay for many transportation projects nationwide. This includes the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) which provides more than $3 billion per year in dedicated safety funding and puts states in the position of deciding which safety strategies, locations, and risks receive sustained attention.
States and local governments generally agree on where severe crashes are occurring. State DOTs often bring robust data systems and network-wide analysis, while local governments also contribute place-based priorities and day-to-day understanding of how streets function. The challenge is not identifying risk, but aligning state-controlled funding and decision-making with local safety priorities — particularly around speed, where states retain key authority.
Massachusetts DOT’s Safety Action Planning Primer helps cities and towns develop local safety plans that directly connect to MassDOT’s HSIP. The Primer clarifies expectations for risk identification and project development, making it easier for communities to move from planning to funded implementation.
This image from MassDOT shows the foundation of strategies to reduce serious injuries and fatalities from crashes. Safety Action Planning Primer, page 8.
Massachusetts backs this safety support for locals with its investments: it was one of only five states that directed more than 30% of its HSIP funding toward speed management strategies, signaling how formula dollars can be used deliberately to address the leading contributors to fatal crashes.
Aligning state-controlled formula funding with local needs is not an innovation — it is the basic responsibility that comes with state control over safety programs.
9. Treat Speed as a Systemic Safety Problem
Speed is often framed primarily as an individual behavior issue to be addressed with public education. But this minimizes the systemic changes we need to deter unsafe speeds, such as self-enforcing road designs, appropriate speed limits, and technologies to encourage drivers’ safe behavior, many of which are influenced by state policies.
Like most states across the nation, one-third of Nevada’s fatal crashes are linked to high speeds. Nevada DOT’s Speed Management Action Plan brings together planners, engineers, law enforcement, public health experts and policymakers to confront a culture in which speeding is normalized. The plan guides statewide safety priorities, including how speed-related countermeasures are selected and where they are deployed. Nevada integrates the plan into its Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and performance management process, focusing resources where speed contributes most to fatal and serious injury crashes.
Nevada’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan presents specific actions and outputs, such as the Safe Speeds Actions on page 12.
Rather than relying on enforcement or education alone, Nevada’s approach combines roadway design and infrastructure measures, systemic speed management strategies, and systemic interventions for high-crash corridors, moving beyond reactive responses to embed more meaningful speed management priorities into everyday decision-making.
8. Make safe speeds the standard across all jurisdictions
For decades, many states relied on the “85th-percentile” rule to set speed limits based on how fast people already drive rather than on safety or surrounding context. In many states, this approach was embedded in law. In urban settings, however, it fails because it bases speeds on the behavior of the fastest drivers, not what is safe for people walking, biking, and driving in busy, complex streets.
To fix this, California gives communities new authority to set speeds based on safety, land use, and the needs of everyone using the street — not just how fast drivers travel. Assembly Bill 43 grounded this statewide reform in local Vision Zero data. Communities should not need legislative fixes to prioritize safety, yet in many states, they still do.
Inspired by the work in Ohio cities, including Columbus, leaders at the Ohio DOT are moving away from speed-setting practices rooted in outdated roadway classifications rather than safety. ODOT is giving local governments more flexibility on both speed limits and street design, through tools like its Context Classification Guide that better aligns roadway design and target speeds with surrounding land use and community needs. These shifts are paired with significant investment: $25 million statewide through ODOT’s Target Speed Pilot to support design strategies that support safer 25 mph travel on urban streets.
Beyond laws and funding, state standards also shape what local transportation engineers are allowed - and expected - to do in everyday practice. While the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) governs how traffic control devices are applied nationwide, it is often the framework used to justify speed-setting decisions. In late 2023, the 11th Edition of the MUTCD modernized speed zoning by explicitly allowing a more context-sensitive approach, including consideration of adjacent land use, crash history, and safety needs. It also supports traffic calming and design changes to prevent speeding.
States are required to adopt the updated MUTCD, so these changes matter. States such as Ohio and California have incorporated the new guidance through state MUTCD supplements, making it easier for cities to set safer speeds without seeking special approval. The 11th Edition creates a stronger baseline for safety — but only if states fully embrace and use these tools to support lower speeds where risk is highest.
When states update speed-setting rules and design frameworks to reflect safety and context, they enable faster, more consistent progress across jurisdictions.
7. Redesign Arterials with Land Use and Community Needs
Many of the most dangerous streets in the U.S. are older state-owned arterials originally designed to move vehicle traffic quickly. Over time, however, these routes have been supplanted by the interstate highway system, and these “legacy highways” have evolved into arterial streets providing access to commercial corridors. These roads are used very differently from the original purpose for which they were designed, but investment has not been made to address their new function safely. Cities from Tampa, Florida to Fremont, California are reframing urban corridors to reflect today’s reality: places where people need to be able to walk, bike, wait for buses, and cross the street safely.
Caltrans (the California DOT) is rethinking how we build so Californians can have more mobility options and less exposure to driving-related risks and harms.
Illinois DOT (IDOT) describes this philosophy in their commitment to Context Sensitive Solutions, which explicitly calls on designers to move beyond rigid standards and “we’ve always done it this way” thinking. IDOT’s guidance directs staff to look at how roads function within their surrounding communities, and elevates multimodal and transit considerations as core components of roadway projects — not add-ons. Sidewalks, bikeways, and access to transit are treated as essential where there is demonstrated need, particularly on state routes that function as local streets.
Many state-owned arterials now function as community streets as well as travel corridors. In most states, however, legislative funding priorities still favor new highway construction over updating older facilities whose role has fundamentally changed FHWA provides Resources for Transforming Legacy Highways to help them meet modern safety standards, ensure access for everyone using them, and serve as a centerpiece of community economic revitalization.
6. Build Flexibility into State Design Standards
Urban streets are fundamentally different from highways, yet state design standards do not always reflect that reality. Allowing flexibility in design guidance is critical to supporting local Vision Zero implementation at scale. Too often, communities must seek time-consuming design exceptions to depart from outdated standards, even when safer designs are clearly warranted.
Minnesota’s DOT Facility Design Guide offers a good example. It organizes roadway design around context and modal priorities and explicitly supports lower-speed, multimodal design in urban environments.
Oregon’s Blueprint for Urban Design helps engineers match lane widths, target speeds and design elements to surrounding land use and urban context, rather than defaulting to highway-era assumptions. Designers are encouraged to look beyond vehicle throughput and consider how shorter trips and walking, biking, and transit access influence safety, mobility, and long-term system performance.
Embedding urban context into design standards, removes barriers for local safety projects and empower engineers to design for safety.
5. Advance Quick Builds Through State Leadership
Quick builds allow communities to test and deliver safety projects faster and at lower cost. States can help normalize this smart approach by offering technical support, funding, and reducing risk for local governments.
Washington State DOT’s (WSDOT) Quick Build Guide for Partner Agencies outlines how interim safety treatments can be planned, approved, and implemented on a shorter timeline than traditional capital projects. The agency pairs this guidance with training and technical assistance, helping local agencies build the skills and confidence needed to deliver quick-build projects safely and effectively. WSDOT supports this work through grant programs such as Safe Routes to School and The Sandy Williams Connecting Communities Program, which explicitly allow and encourage quick-build approaches. WSDOT also has a strong Local Programs team to help with capacity (more below). By aligning guidance, training, and funding, states signal that quick builds are a standard, supported tool for delivering safety improvements.
4. Invest in Local Capacity, Not Just Projects
Even the strongest state policies and funding programs fall short if local agencies lack the capacity to implement them. Engineers, planners, and operations staff need practical training — not just guidance documents — to translate Safe System principles into everyday decisions about speed, design, and operations.
Alongside funding, MassDOT equips local staff with clear, accessible guidance on how roadway design influences speed and safety. The Massachusetts Safe Speeds Roadway Treatment Technical Toolkit pairs roadway treatments, such as lane narrowing, with expected speed reductions, cost ranges, and links to design guidance. Just as important, MassDOT has integrated target speed thinking into its Project Development and Design Guide, reinforcing the expectation that designers align target speed, operating speed, and context throughout project development — not just at the end.
Every state has a Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) with a mandate to support local agencies, though focus and capacity vary. Louisiana offers a strong example, with its LTAP closely tied to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan and to support local and regional implementation.
3. Use MPOs to Turn Plans into Coordinated Action
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) can turn shared safety goals into coordinated action when they move beyond planning and act as connectors.
The San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission leads a Vision Zero Working Group to support nine counties and 100 municipalities in the region. Along with providing technical assistance, they maintain regional safety-related data and analysis tools and support coordination toward federal grant opportunities such as the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program.
The Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization is also using a SS4A planning grant to support local jurisdictions to develop Comprehensive Safety Action Plans that align with regional and state priorities. Similarly, the Missoula Metropolitan Planning Organization in Montana coordinates safety priorities across the region toward Vision Zero. This supports a consistent safety framework across jurisdictions, reduces duplication, and helps local projects move more quickly from planning to implementation.
2. Plan as One Network, Not Competing Jurisdictions
Planning as one transportation network helps states and local governments focus on roads where risk is highest — regardless of who owns them. Because serious and fatal crashes are concentrated on a small share of streets, many of which are state- or county-owned, treating safety as a network-wide responsibility enables clearer priorities, accountability, and coordinated action.
The High Injury Network (HIN) is an entry point. A community’s HIN, and Vision Zero Action Plan, should track and share the full picture of the most dangerous roads, regardless of who owns them. This means explicitly identifying – not obscuring – which high-injury corridors are state- or county-owned.
Jersey City and Minneapolis demonstrate how clearly identifying which high-injury roads are owned by other agencies can turn a barrier into a catalyst for coordination. Naming ownership in plans, maps, and priority lists helps shift the conversation from “we don’t control that road” to “this is where people are being killed, and we need joint action.”
Formal coordination can remove long-standing barriers to safety delivery. In Chicago, a Memorandum of Understanding with the Illinois Department of Transportation streamlines safety improvements on nearly 400 miles of state-owned roads. The agreement clarifies roles, shortens approval timelines, and enables proven safety countermeasures to move forward more quickly — particularly on corridors critical to people walking, biking, and using transit.
Planning as one network means naming the hardest problems and putting them in the open: mapping state-owned roads in local High Injury Networks, prioritizing them in Vision Zero plans, and creating clear mechanisms for shared action. When states acknowledge these corridors as common priorities, coordination becomes more practical, less political, and far more likely to save lives.
1. Lead and Communicate Through a Safe System Approach
Strong safety policies matter — but they do not deliver results on their own. In large, complex transportation agencies, progress stalls when good ideas remain on paper or are applied unevenly. Changing outcomes requires more than plans and commitments; it requires clear ownership, aligned leadership, and shared responsibility across agencies and jurisdictions.
Washington State shows what system-level leadership can look like in practice. Rather than sitting in one agency, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission brings together WSDOT, the State Patrol, cities, counties, public health, education, and other partners. The Commission’s Target Zero Plan is explicit that reacting to tragedies one corridor at a time is not enough.
System-level coordination does not dilute state responsibility — it sharpens it. State DOTs still control key levers: how safety-designated funds such as HSIP are spent, how design standards are applied, and how safety is weighted in project decisions. Using those tools consistently is not aspirational; it is the minimum required for accountability. It also creates the conditions for aligned local action, such as Bellevue, Washington’s safe speeds and safety camera programs.
It has also enabled advocates, led by Transportation Choices Coalition, to advance a Megaproject for Safety — a long-term, investment-ready strategy, grounded in data, to make the dangerous Washington state-owned urban arterials safer. Framed as essential infrastructure rather than optional safety add-ons, the effort has already secured early funding commitments, including $100 million in the state budget.
Vision Zero results don’t hinge on one champion or one administration. They succeed when states and local governments operate as one safety system — with shared expectations, consistent tools, and clear accountability. When Safe System principles guide decisions at every level, progress becomes durable, scalable, and visible where it matters most: on the streets.
Taken together, these actions point to a clear path forward. Saving lives on our roads works best when states and cities move beyond silos and operate as one safety system — aligning funding, standards, and decisions with the places where harm is happening. When that coordination is in place, progress is not only possible, it becomes easier to sustain.
Explore more stories and lessons from Vision Zero in the US in the US as we mark Vision Zero Network's 10-year anniversary. |