U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
MAP-21 - Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Note: This document was superseded on 12/29/16 by Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reporting Guidance
February 13, 2013, Office of Safety
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (P.L. 112-141) continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a core program and, on a national basis, authorized a significant increase in the funding for highway safety improvement projects. HSIP is authorized under section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C. 148) with implementing regulations at 23 CFR Part 924.
To track HSIP implementation efforts, an annual report on HSIP implementation and effectiveness is required under 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15. Given the purpose of the HSIP and the new performance management requirements MAP-21 established under 23 U.S.C. 150, it is important that States select and implement projects that will contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries, consistent with their State safety performance targets. The HSIP annual report will serve as the mechanism to report on safety performance targets pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(e). The States are encouraged to use the HSIP reports to demonstrate the success of their safety programs and to communicate to others within their States about the importance of a continued focus on improving highway safety.
This document provides guidance to States in meeting the HSIP reporting requirements under 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15. States may satisfy HSIP reporting requirements by submitting their reports through the HSIP Online Reporting Tool. While 23 U.S.C. 148(h) also includes a requirement to address railway-highway crossings, States should collect and include this information in the report required under 23 U.S.C. 130(g). At the option of the State, the HSIP and the railway-highway crossings reports required under Sections 148 and 130, respectively, may be submitted separately, or combined into one report with two distinct sections. (See guidance for the Railway-Highway Crossing Reporting requirements dated TBD 2012, for additional information on the railway-highway crossings report.)
This guidance supersedes the May 15, 2009, "Highway Safety Improvement Program Reporting Guidance."
Attachment 1: USDOT Website Requirements
Attachment 2: HSIP Report Template
Attachment 3: General Listing of Projects
Attachment 4: Highway Safety Improvement Categories
Attachment 5: Other Project Listing Categories
The HSIP reporting guidance provides information to States on the reporting frequency and schedule, content and structure, and protection of data from discovery and admission into evidence.
Pursuant to 23 CFR 924.15, a State shall submit its HSIP report to the FHWA Division Administrator no later than August 31 of each year. This date coincides with the railway-highway crossing report required under 23 U.S.C. 130(g). As 23 U.S.C. 148 (h)(3) requires the USDOT to post the HSIP reports to a USDOT Web site, States should ensure their reports are compatible with USDOT Web site requirements (see attachment 1).
The HSIP report should be no more than 10 pages in length, excluding the general listing of projects. FHWA's online reporting tool is available to support the annual HSIP reporting process. Additional information is available on the FHWA Web site at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/onrpttool/. The HSIP report template included in Attachment 2 reflects the online reporting tool content. Reporting into the HSIP Online Reporting Tool meets all report requirements and USDOT Web site compatibility requirements.
Pursuant to 23 CFR 924.15, the report shall be for a defined one-year reporting period. The State, in consultation with the FHWA Division Office, may define the reporting period based on calendar year, Federal fiscal year, or State fiscal year. Performance measure data should be reported on a calendar year basis.
The report should address all projects implemented with HSIP funds, including local projects and non-infrastructure projects. In addition, States should report on explicit safety projects identified through the STIP but implemented with other funding sources. States are encouraged to coordinate with their State highway safety office, planning organizations, and local government agencies to obtain all relevant information to ensure complete HSIP reporting.
The HSIP report should consist of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the effectiveness of the improvements. The content and structure of each section is described below.
The report should briefly describe the structure of the State's HSIP. At a minimum, this should include program administration and program methodology.
The report should briefly describe how the HSIP funds are allocated in the State (e.g., centrally or via districts/regions). If the HSIP is administered at the district level, the report should describe the funding allocation process (e.g., formula, crash data). The report should include any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the last reporting period (e.g., multidisciplinary HSIP steering committee). In addition, the report should indicate how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of the HSIP. For example, are local or tribal road (non-State owned and operated) projects identified using the same methodology as State roads? If not, the report should describe how local and tribal road projects are identified under the program methodology section below. Lastly, the report should explain overall coordination and collaboration with internal (e.g., State DOT Bureaus, Divisions) and external (e.g., MPOs, regional planning organizations) partners as it relates to the HSIP.
The program and project identification processes must be developed in consultation with the FHWA Division Administrator. (23 CFR 924.7(b)) Because these processes likely will not change on an annual basis, it is recommended that they be submitted to the Division Administrator under separate cover from the annual HSIP report and be referenced in the FHWA/State Stewardship and Oversight Agreement. The Division Administrator should maintain a copy of current program and project identification processes. For the purposes of the annual HSIP report, States should indicate the date the program methodology was last updated and submit a brief summary of the following key elements for each group of similar types of projects, either by crash type or countermeasure, being implemented under the HSIP (e.g. high risk rural roads, median crossover, intersection, safe corridor, horizontal curve):
Data used, including:
Crash (e.g., all crashes, fatal only, fatal plus serious injury, fatal plus all injuries)
Exposure (e.g., traffic volume, population)
Roadway (e.g., geometry, pavement condition, any Fundamental Data Elements [1])
Project Identification Methodology (e.g., frequency, equivalent property damage only, critical rate, safety performance functions, Empirical Bayes)
Extent to which local roads are addressed as part of each group of similar project types
Project prioritization process (e.g., incremental benefit cost ratio, ranking based on net benefit, processes to prioritize non-infrastructure projects)
The report should also describe the process used to identify potential countermeasures (e.g., engineering study, road safety assessment). The report should indicate the extent to which systemic improvements are implemented as part of the HSIP (e.g., proportion of spot location vs. systemic improvements) and should indicate the type of systemic improvements implemented as part of the HSIP, if applicable. The report should identify any HSIP methodology practices that were introduced during the last reporting period to advance HSIP implementation efforts (e.g., Highway Safety Manual, road safety audits, systemic approach).
States should describe the progress in implementing HSIP projects during the specified reporting period. This description should include the HSIP funds programmed for highway safety improvement projects and the number and general listing of the types of projects initiated.
For the purpose of the report, the term "HSIP funds" includes those funds that are available (programmed) to implement highway safety improvement projects that have been identified as part of the State's HSIP. At a minimum, this would include projects obligated using HSIP funds (23 U.S.C. 148), High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) funds (from SAFETEA-LU) or those funds obligated under the HRRR special rule in 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1), penalty funds (from 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164), and remaining TEA-21 or SAFETEA-LU incentive grant funds (from 23 U.S.C. 163 and 406, respectively). In addition, the report should include other non-safety funds (i.e. STP, NHPP, State, local) that are programmed to implement highway safety improvement projects. Railway-Highway Crossing funds are addressed under separate reporting requirements.
Programmed funds are those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for the reporting period to be expended on highway safety improvement projects. States should not only report programmed funds, but also the amount of programmed funds that were obligated during the specified reporting period.
This information could be presented in a format similar to that illustrated below. If this format is used, it should be supplemented with a narrative briefly describing the information presented. The report should also discuss any impediments to obligating HSIP funds and plans to overcome this challenge in the future, including a description of any funds transferred in to or out of the HSIP in accordance with the Uniform Transferability Provision under 23 U.S.C. 126.
HSIP Project Funding | ||
|---|---|---|
| Reporting Period MM/DD/YYYY to MM/DD/YYYY | ||
Funding Category |
Programmed* |
Obligated |
HSIP (Section 148) |
|
|
HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) |
|
|
HRRR Special Rule |
|
|
Penalty Funds - Section 154 |
|
|
Penalty Funds – Section 164 |
|
|
Incentive Grants - Section 163 |
|
|
Incentive Grants (Section 406) |
|
|
Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP) |
|
|
State and Local Funds |
|
|
Total |
|
|
* Programmed funds refer to those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.
The report should briefly describe the amount of HSIP funds, either in dollar amounts or on percentage basis, programmed and obligated to local or tribal safety projects for the specified reporting period. Local and tribal safety projects are those projects implemented on non-State owned and maintained roadways. Also, the report should briefly describe the amount of HSIP funds, either in dollar amounts or on percentage basis, programmed and obligated for non-infrastructure safety projects for the specified reporting period.
Pursuant to 23 CFR 924.15, States shall provide the number and general listing of the types of projects obligated using HSIP funds for the reporting period. For each project obligated with HSIP funds, the following information should be provided:
Improvement Category (see attachment 4)
Project output (e.g., miles of rumble strips)
Project cost
Funding category
Relationship to the State's strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) (i.e. emphasis area, strategy)
Roadway characteristics (i.e. functional classification, average annual daily traffic (AADT), speed, ownership)
Attachment 3 illustrates how this information can be presented in a tabular format. If a table like this is used, it should be supplemented with a narrative briefly describing the information presented.
The improvement category and sub-category should align with the list of highway safety improvement projects in Attachment 4. The list of highway safety improvement projects in Attachment 4 is similar to that used in the HSIS [2] Multistate Safety Improvement Database and can be used to identify common countermeasure installations across States for national evaluation purposes. While a single project may consist of multiple project types, each project should be assigned to only one category. The category chosen should align with the primary purpose of the project. For example, if a State recently completed a pavement overlay at intersection A to improve the skid resistance on the approaches to the intersection, this project would be categorized as pavement surface - high friction surface under the roadway category since that was the primary purpose of the project.
The project output will vary depending on the type of project implemented. For example, if a State recently completed a rumble strip project, the project output would be the miles of rumble strips installed for that project. On the other hand, if the county had a project to improve pedestrian accommodations at ten intersections in its region, the project output would be 10 intersections.
The project cost should reflect both the total cost of each project, as well as the amount of HSIP funds used for each project.
The funding category should reflect the source of funds used to implement the highway safety improvement project. If multiple funding categories are used, the category associated with the most significant portion of funding should be selected. For example, if a State funds 60 percent of the project cost with HSIP funds and the remaining 40 percent with STP funds, the HSIP funding category should be selected.
For each HSIP project, the State must demonstrate the relationship to the State's SHSP. States should not only link each project to the appropriate SHSP emphasis area (i.e. intersection, roadway departure), but also the strategy that most closely aligns with the primary purpose of the project.
The State should provide the roadway characteristics associated with each project. Specifically, functional classification, AADT, posted speed and roadway ownership are key factors in the evaluation process. This information applies to infrastructure projects only.
States should describe the progress in achieving annual safety performance targets, when established. Further information regarding the establishment of safety performance targets will be the subject of future rulemaking and guidance. This description should include an overview of general highway safety trends and the application of special rules.
States must present and describe information showing the general highway safety trends in the State by number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(1)(C). States should use the 5-year rolling average of these performance measures to meet this requirement and should present a minimum of five years of data. For the rate information, States should provide fatalities and serious injuries per hundred million vehicle miles traveled (HMVMT)). In addition, to the maximum extent possible, this information should be presented by functional classification and ownership. States can also report separately on trends for urbanized and rural areas.
States should report the following information related to the high risk rural road safety and older drivers special rules described in 23 U.S.C. 148(g):
High Risk Rural Road Safety:If the high risk rural road safety special rule applies to a State, the HSIP report should:
To determine the applicability of the older driver special rule under 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(2), FHWA will use data States provide on the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65, in accordance with the "Older Driver Special Rule Guidance," which is forthcoming. The State should include the calculations performed, verifying how the Older Driver Special Rule applies. If the Older Driver Special Rule applies, the State should describe how it will meet the requirements to address the increase in older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries in their respective SHSP.
While 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(F)(i) requires States to establish an evaluation process to analyze and assess results achieved by highway safety improvement projects, States are not required to report evaluation results from individual project locations. Rather, this section should describe the effectiveness of projects carried out as part of the HSIP in the following three areas:
In addition, States should provide any other information that demonstrates the effectiveness and success of the HSIP. For example, in some instances, successful implementation of programs, strategies and/or treatments may lead to policy level changes, whereby safety treatments are applied across all projects and not only safety-specific projects. Such changes should be noted in the annual report, as they represent a shift in safety culture.
States should present information regarding SHSP emphasis areas that relate to the HSIP and describe trends in emphasis area performance measures (i.e. fatalities and serious injuries).
Many States group similar types of projects for HSIP implementation. Projects may be grouped by crash type or countermeasure category (e.g., median barrier). States should report on the overall effectiveness of these groups of similar projects. For example, if a State has been implementing median barrier improvements for the past several years, trends in cross median crashes should be presented.
Many States are beginning to implement treatments on a systemic basis. States should also report on the effectiveness of these treatments in reducing the target crash type. For example, if a State has been targeting horizontal curve crashes by implementing chevron warning signs on a systemic basis for the past several years, the State should report on the effectiveness (i.e. percent reduction of targeted crash type) of this treatment.
Section 148(h)(4) mandates that data compiled or collected for the preparation of the HSIP Report "...shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in an action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports..." This information is also protected by 23 U.S.C. 409 (discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys).
HTML Submissions
HyperText Markup Language (HTML) is the publishing language of the World Wide Web. Information submitted in the form of HTML files (i.e. Web pages) needs to be coded to meet the industry standards for HTML and the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The standards for HTML are contained in the "Recommendations" of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Submitted pages can meet either the HTML 4.01 (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/) or XHTML 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/) standards. The W3C has a free markup validation service (http://validator.w3.org/) which should be used to check the files. It is particularly important that any data tables in the Web pages follow the markup standards for tables. The HTML 4.01 specifications for table markup can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html.
One of the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act is that the information on Federal Government Web sites be accessible to persons with disabilities. The technical standards for Web sites can be found in section 1194.22 &qout;Web-based intranet and internet information and applications." A guide to the standards is available on the U.S. Access Board's Web site at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm. Again, it is important that the requirements contained in 1194.22(g) and 1194.22(h) for data tables be followed. These sections require that row and column headers of data tables are identified and that through markup, the data cells are associated with the correct headers. There are techniques in HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 to meet these requirements.
Reporting into the HSIP Online Reporting Tool meets all report requirements and USDOT website requirements.
Download Word File: hsipreporttemplate.docx, 44 KB
[State]
Highway Safety Improvement Program
[Year] Annual Report
Program Administration
How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State?
[] Central
[] District
[] Other:
If District, how are the HSIP funds allocated?
[] Formula
[] Crash data
[] Other:
Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. Check all that apply.
[] Design
[] Planning
[] Maintenance
[] Operations
[] Governor's Highway Safety Office
[] Other:
Briefly describe coordination with internal partners.
Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. Check all that apply.
[] Metropolitan Planning Organizations
[] Governor's Highway Safety Office
[] Local Government Association
[] Other:
Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the last reporting period.
[] Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee
[] Other:
Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which the State would like to elaborate.
Program Methodology
Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.
[] Median Barrier
[] Horizontal Curve
[] Skid Hazard
[] Roadway Departure
[] Local Safety
[] Left-turn Crash
[] Intersection
[] Bicycle Safety
[] Low-Cost Spot Improvements
[] Pedestrian Safety
[] Shoulder Improvement
[] Segments
[] Safe Corridor
[] Rural State Highway
[] Red Light Running
[] Sign Replacement and Improvement
[] Right Angle Crash
[] Other:
For each program checked above, enter the following information:
Program:
Date of Program Methodology:
What data types were used in the program methodology? Check all that apply
Crashes
[] All crashes
[] Fatal crashes only
[] Fatal and serious injury crashes only
[] Other:
Exposure
[] Traffic
[] Volume
[] Population
[] Lane miles
[] Other:
Roadway
[] Median width
[] Horizontal curvature
[] Functional classification
[] Roadside features
[] Other:
What project identification methodology was used for this program? Check all that apply.
[] Crash frequency
[] Expected crash frequency with Empirical Bayes (EB) adjustment
[] Equivalent property damage only (equivalent property damage only (EPDO) crash frequency)
[] Relative severity index
[] Crash rate
[] Critical rate
[] Level of service of safety (LOSS)
[] Excess expected crash frequency using safety performance functions (SPFs)
[] Excess expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
[] Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
[] Probability of specific crash types
[] Excess proportions of specific crash types
[] Other:
Are local roads (non-State owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as State roads?
If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
[] Competitive application process
[] Selection committee
[] Other:
Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
?Relative Weight in Scoring
?Rank of Priority Consideration
Ranking based on benefit/cost (B/C)
Available funding
Incremental B/C
Ranking based on net benefit
Cost effectiveness
Other
What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? If the State does not implement systemic improvements, enter zero.
Highway safety improvement program funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that apply.
[] Cable median barriers
[] Rumble strips
[] Traffic control device rehabilitation
[] Pavement/shoulder widening
[] Install/Improve Signing
[] Install/improve pavement marking/delineation
[] Upgrade guard rails
[] Clear zone improvements
[] Safety edge
[] Install/improve lighting
[] Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal
[] Other:
What process is used to identify potential countermeasures?
[] Engineering Study
[] Road Safety Assessment
[] Other:
Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the last reporting period.
[] Highway Safety Manual
[] Road Safety Audits
[] Systemic Approach
[] Other:
Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which the State would like to elaborate.
Funds Programmed
Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.
Enter the programmed and obligated funding for each applicable funding category.
HSIP Project Funding |
||
Reporting Period MM/DD/YYYY to MM/DD/YYYY |
||
Funding Category |
Programmed* |
Obligated |
HSIP (Section 148) |
|
|
HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) |
|
|
HRRR Special Rule |
|
|
Penalty Funds - Section 154 |
|
|
Penalty Funds – Section 164 |
|
|
Incentive Grants - Section 163 |
|
|
Incentive Grants (Section 406) |
|
|
Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP) |
|
|
State and Local Funds |
|
|
Total |
|
|
How much funding is programmed to local (non-State owned and maintained) safety projects?
How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?
How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?
How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting period?
How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting period?
Discuss any impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to overcome such impediments in the future.
Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation progress on which the State would like to elaborate.
General Listing of Projects
List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period.
| Project | Improvement Category (see Attachment 4) | Output (i.e. #, miles) | HSIP Cost* | Total Cost | Funding Category^ | Functional Classification**,^ | AADT** | Speed** | Roadway Ownership^ | Relationship to SHSP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emphasis Area^ | Strategy | ||||||||||
Overview of General Safety Trends
Present data showing the general highway safety trends in the State for the past five years.
Performance Measures* |
[Year] |
[Year] |
[Year] |
[Year] |
[Year] |
Number of fatalities |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of serious injuries |
|
|
|
|
|
Fatality rate (per HMVMT) |
|
|
|
|
|
Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) |
|
|
|
|
|
*States should use a 5-year rolling average to present the performance measures
To the maximum extent possible, present this data by functional classification and ownership.
Function Classification |
[Year] |
|||
Number of fatalities |
Number of |
Fatality rate |
Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roadway Ownership |
[Year] |
|||
Number of fatalities |
Number of |
Fatality rate |
Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to elaborate.
Application of Special Rules
Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65.
Older Driver |
[Year] |
[Year] |
[Year] |
[Year] |
Fatality rate (per capita) |
|
|
|
|
Serious injury rate (per capita) |
|
|
|
|
Fatality and serious injury rate (per capita) |
|
|
|
|
Does the older driver special rule apply to the State?
If yes, describe the approach to include respective strategies to address the increase in those rates in the State SHSP.
What indicators of success can the State use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway Safety Improvement Program? Select all that apply.
[] B/C ratio
[] Policy change
[] Other:
What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? Select all that apply.
[] Shift focus to fatalities and serious injuries
[] Organizational changes
[] More systemic projects included in HSIP
[] Other:
Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period.
SHSP Emphasis Areas
For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures.
HSIP-related |
Number of fatalities |
Number of |
Fatality rate |
Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Groups of similar project types
Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.
HSIP Sub-program Types |
Number of fatalities |
Number of |
Fatality rate |
Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systemic Treatments
Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.
Systemic improvement |
Number of fatalities* |
Number of |
Fatality rate |
Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*For the target crash type
Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate.
Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional).
[Insert project evaluation table]
| Project | Improvement Category (see Attachment 4) |
Output (i.e. #, miles) |
HSIP Cost* | Total Cost | Funding Category^ | Functional Classification**,^ | AADT** | Speed** | Roadway Ownership**^ | Relationship to SHSP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emphasis Area^ | Strategy | ||||||||||
*If other than HSIP funding category is selected, this column should be zero.
**These fields apply to infrastructure projects only. For non-infrastructure projects, enter N/A for functional classification, AADT, speed and roadway ownership.
^See attachment 5 for category selections.
Highway Safety Improvement Project Categories
(Source: HSIS Safety Improvements Database)
While a single project may consist of multiple project types, each project should be assigned to only one category and sub-category combination. The category chosen should align with the primary purpose of the project.
Category |
Sub-category |
|---|---|
Access management |
Access management - other |
| Change in access – close or restrict existing access | |
| Change in access – miscellaneous/unspecified | |
| Grassed median - extend existing | |
| Median crossover - close crossover | |
| Median crossover - directional crossover | |
| Median crossover - relocate existing | |
| Median crossover - unspecified | |
| Raised island - install new | |
| Raised island - modify existing | |
| Raised island - remove existing | |
| Raised island – unspecified | |
Advanced technology and ITS |
Advanced technology and ITS - other |
| Congestion detection / traffic monitoring system | |
| Dynamic message signs | |
| Over height vehicle detection | |
Alignment |
Alignment - other |
| Horizontal curve realignment | |
| Horizontal and vertical alignment | |
| Vertical alignment or elevation change | |
Animal-related |
Animal related |
Interchange design |
Acceleration / deceleration / merge lane |
| Convert at-grade intersection to interchange | |
| Extend existing lane on ramp | |
| Improve intersection radius at ramp terminus | |
| Installation of new lane on ramp | |
| Interchange design - other | |
| Ramp closure | |
| Ramp metering | |
Intersection geometry |
Auxiliary lanes – add acceleration lane |
| Auxiliary lanes – add auxiliary through lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – add left-turn lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – add right-turn lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – add right-turn lane (free-flow) | |
| Auxiliary lanes – add slip lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – add two-way left-turn lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – extend acceleration/deceleration lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – extend existing left-turn lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – extend existing right-turn lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – miscellaneous/other/unspecified | |
| Auxiliary lanes – modify acceleration lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – modify auxiliary through lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – modify free-flow turn lane | |
| Auxiliary lanes – modify left-turn lane offset | |
| Auxiliary lanes – modify right-turn lane offset | |
| Auxiliary lanes – modify turn lane storage | |
| Auxiliary lanes – modify turn lane taper | |
| Auxiliary lanes – modify two-way left-turn lane | |
| Intersection geometrics – miscellaneous/other/unspecified | |
| Intersection geometrics – modify intersection corner radius | |
| Intersection geometrics – modify skew angle | |
| Intersection geometrics – realignment to align offset cross streets | |
| Intersection geometrics – realignment to increase cross street offset | |
| Intersection geometrics – re-assign existing lane use | |
| Intersection geometry - other | |
| Splitter island – install on one or more approaches | |
| Splitter island – remove from one or more approaches | |
| Splitter island – unspecified | |
| Through lanes – add additional through lane | |
Intersection traffic control |
Intersection flashers – add “when flashing” warning sign-mounted |
| Intersection flashers – add advance emergency vehicle warning sign-mounted | |
| Intersection flashers – add advance heavy vehicle warning sign-mounted | |
| Intersection flashers – add advance intersection warning sign-mounted | |
| Intersection flashers – add miscellaneous/other/unspecified | |
| Intersection flashers – add overhead (actuated) | |
| Intersection flashers – add overhead (continuous) | |
| Intersection flashers – add stop sign-mounted | |
| Intersection flashers – modify existing | |
| Intersection flashers – remove existing | |
| Intersection signing – add basic advance warning | |
| Intersection signing – add enhanced advance warning (double-up and/or oversize) | |
| Intersection signing – add enhanced regulatory sign (double-up and/or oversize) | |
| Intersection signing – miscellaneous/other/unspecified | |
| Intersection signing – relocate existing regulatory sign | |
| Intersection traffic control - other | |
| Modify control – all-way stop to roundabout | |
| Modify control – modifications to roundabout | |
| Modify control – no control to roundabout | |
| Modify control – no control to two-way stop | |
| Modify control – remove right-turn yield | |
| Modify control – reverse priority of stop condition | |
| Modify control – traffic signal to roundabout | |
| Modify control – two-way stop to all-way stop | |
| Modify control – two-way stop to roundabout | |
| Modify control – two-way yield to two-way stop | |
| Pavement Markings – add advance signal ahead | |
| Pavement markings – add advance stop ahead | |
| Pavement markings – add dashed edge line along mainline | |
| Pavement markings – add lane use symbols | |
| Pavement markings – add stop line | |
| Pavement markings – add yield line | |
| Pavement markings – miscellaneous/other/unspecified | |
| Pavement markings – refresh existing pavement markings | |
| Modify traffic signal – add additional signal heads | |
| Modify traffic signal – add backplates | |
| Modify traffic signal – add backplates with retroreflective borders | |
| Modify traffic signal – add closed loop system | |
| Modify traffic signal – add emergency vehicle preemption | |
| Modify traffic signal – add flashing yellow arrow | |
| Modify traffic signal – add long vehicle detection | |
| Modify traffic signal – add railroad preemption | |
| Modify traffic signal – add wireless system | |
| Modify traffic signal – miscellaneous/other/unspecified | |
| Modify traffic signal – modernization/replacement | |
| Modify traffic signal – modify signal mounting (spanwire to mast arm) | |
| Modify traffic signal – remove existing signal | |
| Modify traffic signal – replace existing indications (incandescent-to-LED and/or 8-to-12 inch dia.) | |
| Modify traffic signal timing – left-turn phasing (permissive to protected/permissive) | |
| Modify traffic signal timing – left-turn phasing (permissive to protected-only) | |
| Modify traffic signal timing – adjust clearance interval (yellow change and/or all-red) | |
| Modify traffic signal timing – general retiming | |
| Modify traffic signal timing – signal coordination | |
|
Systemic improvements – signal-controlled |
| Systemic improvements – stop-controlled | |
Lighting |
Continuous roadway lighting |
| Intersection lighting | |
| Lighting - other | |
| Site lighting – horizontal curve | |
| Site lighting – intersection | |
| Site lighting – interchange | |
| Site lighting – pedestrian crosswalk | |
Miscellaneous |
Miscellaneous |
Non-infrastructure |
Educational efforts |
| Enforcement | |
| Data/traffic records | |
| Non-infrastructure - other | |
| Outreach | |
| Road safety audits | |
| Training and workforce development | |
| Transportation safety planning | |
Parking |
Modify parking |
| Parking - other | |
| Remove parking | |
| Restrict parking | |
| Truck parking facilities | |
Pedestrians and bicyclists |
Crosswalk |
| Install new "smart" crosswalk | |
| Install new crosswalk | |
| Install sidewalk | |
| Medians and pedestrian refuge areas | |
| Miscellaneous pedestrians and bicyclists | |
| Modify existing crosswalk | |
| Pedestrian beacons | |
| Pedestrian bridge | |
| Pedestrian signal | |
| Pedestrian signal - audible device | |
| Pedestrian signal – Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon | |
| Pedestrian signal - install new at intersection | |
| Pedestrian signal - install new at non-intersection location | |
| Pedestrian signal - modify existing | |
| Pedestrian signal - remove existing | |
| Pedestrian warning signs - add/modify flashers | |
| Pedestrian warning signs – overhead | |
Railroad grade crossings |
Grade separation |
| Model enforcement activity | |
| Protective devices | |
| Railroad grade crossing gates | |
| Railroad grade crossing signing | |
| Railroad grade crossings - other | |
| Surface treatment | |
| Upgrade railroad crossing signal | |
| Widen crossing for additional lane | |
Roadside |
Barrier end treatments (crash cushions, terminals) |
| Barrier transitions | |
| Barrier - cable | |
| Barrier - concrete | |
| Barrier- metal | |
| Barrier - other | |
| Barrier - removal | |
| Curb or curb and gutter | |
| Drainage improvements | |
| Fencing | |
| Removal of roadside objects (trees, poles, etc.) | |
| Roadside grading | |
| Roadside - other | |
Roadway |
Install / remove / modify passing zone |
| Pavement surface – high friction surface | |
| Pavement surface - miscellaneous | |
| Roadway narrowing (road diet, roadway reconfiguration) | |
| Roadway - other | |
| Roadway - restripe to revise separation between opposing lanes and/or shoulder widths | |
| Roadway widening - add lane(s) along segment | |
| Roadway widening - curve | |
| Roadway widening - travel lanes | |
| Rumble strips - center | |
| Rumble strips – edge or shoulder | |
| Rumble strips - transverse | |
| Rumble strips – unspecified or other | |
| Superelevation / cross slope | |
Roadway delineation |
Improve retroreflectivity |
| Longitudinal pavement markings - new | |
| Longitudinal pavement markings - remarking | |
| Delineators post-mounted or on barrier | |
| Raised pavement markers | |
| Roadway delineation - other | |
Roadway signs and traffic control |
Curve-related warning signs and flashers |
| Sign sheeting – upgrade or replacement | |
| Roadway signs and traffic control - other | |
| Roadway signs (including post) – new or updated | |
Shoulder treatments |
Widen shoulder – paved or other |
| Pave existing shoulders | |
| Shoulder grading | |
| Shoulder treatments - other | |
Speed management |
Modify speed limit |
| Radar speed signs | |
| Speed detection system / truck warning | |
| Speed management - other | |
| Traffic calming feature | |
Work Zone |
Work zone |
Funding Categories
HSIP (Section 148)
HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU)
HRRR Special Rule
Penalty Funds - Section 154
Penalty Funds- Section 164
Incentive Grants - Section 163
Incentive Grants (Section 406)
Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)
State and Local Funds
Relevant SHSP Emphasis Area
Instituting graduated licensing for younger drivers
Ensuring drivers are licensed and fully competent
Sustaining proficiency in older drivers
Curbing aggressive driving
Reducing impaired driving
Keeping drivers alert
Increasing driver safety awareness
Increasing seat belt use and improving airbag effectiveness
Making walking and street crossing easier
Ensuring safer bicycle travel
Improving motorcycle safety and increasing motorcycle awareness
Making truck travel safer
Increasing safety enhancements in vehicles
Reducing vehicle-train crashes
Keeping vehicles in the roadway
Minimizing the consequences of leaving the road
Improving the design and operation of highway intersections
Reducing head-on and across-median crashes
Designing safer work zones
Enhancing emergency medical capabilities to increase survivability
Improving information and decision support systems
Creating more effective processes and safety management system
Other
Functional Classification
Rural Principal Arterial - Interstate
Rural Principal Arterial - Other
Rural Minor Arterial
Rural Major Collector
Rural Minor Collector
Rural Local Road or Street
Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate
Urban Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways
Urban Principal Arterial - Other
Urban Minor Arterial
Urban Major Collector
Urban Minor Collector
Urban Local Road or Street
Other
Roadway Ownership
State Highway Agency
County Highway Agency
Town or Township Highway Agency
City of Municipal Highway Agency
State Park, Forest, or Reservation Agency
Local Park, Forest or Reservation Agency
Other State Agency
Other Local Agency
Private (Other than Railroad)
Railroad
State Toll Authority
Local Toll Authority
Other Public Instrumentality (e.g., Airport, School, University)
Indian Tribe or? Nation
Other
[1] Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program, dated August 1, 2011, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/memohsip072911/
[2] Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), http://www.hsisinfo.org/
[3] This information collection has been assigned OMB control number 2125-0025 under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
