Page 1 of 46

OHIO

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 46

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................. 2

Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 7

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 7

Program Methodology .....................................................................................................................12

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................18

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................18

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................21

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................27

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................27

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................32

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................35

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................36

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................36

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................36

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................41

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................42
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 46

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section[HSIP], shall not be subject 

to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other 

purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed 

in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.”

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, 

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court 

proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence 

at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 46

Executive Summary

Traffic deaths and crashes across Ohio have been rising as the statewide economy continues to improve. 

However, in 2018, Ohio had 1,068 traffic deaths and 7,627 serious injuries, representing a 9% decrease in 

fatalities and a 13.0% decrease in serious injuries compared to 2017.

Ohio’s safest year in history was 2013 when the state dropped below 1,000 traffic deaths for the first time since 

it began collecting records in 1935. However, traffic deaths rose 2% in 2014, 10% in 2015, 2% in 2016, 4% in 

2017, but saw a 9% decrease in 2018. Although the top common factors in these crashes have long been 

roadway departure, speed, alcohol, seatbelts and young drivers, over the past four years the state has seen a 

rise in the number of deaths involving pedestrians, older and distracted drivers.

To respond to these trends, Ohio’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan Steering Committee has moved from 

quarterly to bi-monthly meetings, and now communicates via email on a bi-weekly basis to share crash trend 

information and discuss strategies and investments. The committee includes members from 15 key safety 

organizations operating at the local, state and federal level including: Ohio County Engineers Association; Ohio 

Association of Regional Councils; Ohio Department of Public Safety; Federal Highway Administration; Ohio 

State Highway Patrol; Federal Motor Carrier Administration; and AAA. These organizations then feed the 

information to a network of hundreds of other stakeholders who are getting more actively involved in the SHSP.

Below is a summary of the state’s enhanced and coordinated efforts to address the increase in crashes 

statewide.

Ohio Launches Action Teams and New Programs to Address Emerging Crash Trends 

Active Transportation Team

Ohio’s Active Transportation Plan is in its fifth year of implementation. As a result, ODOT has increased its 

investments in data collection projects to quantify the amount of bicycle and pedestrian travel across the state. 

This data will help ODOT and its partners better pinpoint where travel is occurring so we can collectively target 

our pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure investments.

In 2017, ODOT and the Ohio Department of Health launched the state’s first Active Transportation educational 

program. “Your Move Ohio” is a statewide campaign to educate the public on the rules of the road and 

encourage more Ohioans to walk, bike and bus safely. ODOT continued the campaign in 2018, but with a 

focus on pedestrian safety. In 2019, the focus is on bundling these messages and campaign materials into one 

website that can be marketed to our safety partners across the state for use in their communities.

In fall 2019, ODOT will be launching its Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program using up to $10M in HSIP 

funds. This program will provide municipalities within the state assistance and funding to systematically 

implement low-to-medium cost proven pedestrian safety countermeasures along high-risk facilities such as 

collectors and arterials. Countermeasures will include Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, Pedestrian Hybrid 

Beacons, Refugee Islands, Curb bump outs, high-visibility crosswalk markings, among others. This program 

will be utilizing a combination of project bundling and consultant support to accelerate delivery across the state 

and streamline the delivery process of these proven, lifesaving countermeasures.

Older Road User Action Team

Ohio’s Older Road User Action Team is in its 4th year of action plan development and implementation. The 

team is continuing to work on implementation of several critical strategies including: increasing the knowledge 

of medical providers, law enforcement and licensing personnel on the recognition, assessment, and reporting 

of older at-risk drivers. The team is working hard to engage the Ohio BMV on this issue.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 46

In 2018, the team successfully launched a statewide education campaign to raise awareness for how aging 

can affect our ability to drive. The goal is to educate older Ohioans, families, friends and caregivers about the 

signs of declining safe driving skills — either due to normal aging or a medical condition; resources available to 

evaluate safe driving skills; and how to plan for retirement from driving. In 2019, ODOT has been working with 

AAA, AARP, Safe Communities and Ohio Occupational Therapists to promote the campaign through CarFit 

Events around the state.

Distracted Driver Task Force

In April 2019, the Governor of Ohio declared distracted driving a major initiative of his administration based on 

recommendations from the Ohio Distracted Driving Task Force, which was launched through the state’s SHSP 

in the summer of 2018.

It included 30 people representing a broad range of interests including: law enforcement, victims, highway 

safety advocates, engineers and educators. This group was tasked with making recommendations to reduce 

the growing number of traffic deaths, injuries and crashes caused by distracted driving in Ohio. They made 

recommendations by reviewing data and research, what other states are doing and recommended strategies.

The Governor has endorsed all of the recommendations, which can be found at the following link: 

https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/media/news-and-media/042519

The Task Force Report can be found here: 

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/OHOOD/2019/04/24/file_attachments/1198896/Ohio%20Distracte

d%20Driving%20Task%20Force%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

Driver Education SHSP Committee

In 2018, ODOT and its partners created a Strategic Highway Safety Plan Education Committee to review traffic 

safety education in the state, including driver education curriculum and public outreach. The committee 

developed a variety of fact sheets and videos that can be used by Ohio’s Driving Instructors to teach novice 

drivers. All the materials will be available on a public web site sometime during the fall of 2019. In the 

meantime, here is a link to the new materials: 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/HighwaySafety/SHSP/DriverEdCommittee

/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2FDivisions%2FPlanning%2FProgramManagement%2FHighwaySafety%

2FSHSP%2FDriverEdCommittee%2FFinal%20Materials%20for%20Drivers%20Ed&FolderCTID=0x012000F5

A5719227003B4783212C315AE1D31A&View={9B16357B-B193-4D2B-BCA8-CA6121AD6CF8}

Increased Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Freeway and Portable Message Signs

Since 2015, Ohio has been using its Freeway and Portable Message Signs to post safety messages and the 

number of traffic deaths on Ohio roads. The state leverages the message boards with a bi-weekly email to 

SHSP stakeholders that encourages organizations to use and share the same coordinated message.

ODOT posts messages every other week, and the messages are synced to the communication calendar 

published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Messages are selected, and sometimes 

developed, by a committee from ODOT, the Ohio Department of Public Safety, Federal Highway 

Administration and Ohio State Highway Patrol.

In September 2017, Ohio launched a website to support this effort, which allows the public to develop and 

submit safety messages that support SHSP emphasis areas. The winners are selected by the statewide 

committee and publicized to further incentivize the effort and spread information. ODOT routinely works with 

the Public Information Office to promote the web site and solicit new ideas.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 46

Increased Local Government Engagement

In late 2018, ODOT hired a full-time coordinator and kicked off a Local Safety Assistance Program. This 

program provides local governments and metropolitan planning organizations in the state the technical 

assistance and consultant support necessary for the development of County and Regional Safety Plans. These 

plans are helping local agencies identify and understand the safety issues occurring within their communities. 

They are helping identify priority safety locations to target investments. And they are outlining robust multidisciplinary action plans aimed at addressing severe crashes and reducing fatalities.

So far, Ohio has initiated 20 safety studies or RSAs, 9 regional or county safety plans, and 2 systemic safety 

improvement analyses for local governments.

Once a plan is completed, project sponsors can submit abbreviated or formal safety applications for HSIP 

funds. Abbreviated safety applications can be submitted year-round for non-complex safety improvements that 

are $500,000 or less. Formal safety applications for higher dollar, more complex improvements can be 

submitted in April and September each year. Funding is available for all phases of project development. So far, 

Ohio has funded 4 projects from the effort.

Lastly, ODOT has received additional State Safety funds for State Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021. These 

additional funds will be used along with the Federal HSIP funds to help advance more Safety programs and 

projects on Ohio's roadways.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 46

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of 

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to 

advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

ODOT has established the Highway Safety Improvement Program to create a process which emphasizes 

safety of the traveling public by analyzing the crash statistics on Ohio’s state and local highway system. The 

Department utilizes AASHTOWare Safety Analyst to identify intersections and highway sections with the 

potential for safety improvement. Each of the 12 District Safety Review Teams (DSRT) reviews these 

prioritized locations as part of a Safety Annual Work Plan (SAWP) and accepts the plan. In addition, the 

Districts perform safety studies to determine the causes of crashes at locations. The DSRT strives to identify 

crash patterns and recommend countermeasures to reduce the severity and long-term average frequency of 

crashes. 

Safety projects are not limited to the state highway system. Proposed local projects on public roads are also 

evaluated and prioritized to improve safety as outlined in the application and selection process. These projects 

are reviewed and approved by the DSRT.

Upon recommendation from the District Safety Review Teams, eligible projects are submitted to ODOT Central 

Office for funding consideration, and evaluated and prioritized based on uniform and objective criteria. Projects 

which contribute most to improving safety and reducing the severity and long-term average frequency of 

crashes are considered for funding and further development. Twice a year, a listing of all newly approved 

safety projects is produced. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program historically receives approximately $100 million annually of 

combined Federal and State funding. The actual level of funding designated for the program is determined by 

the Funds Management Committee and the Director, and is contingent on available state and federal 

revenues. The funding is used to implement countermeasures at identified crash locations on Ohio’s roadways 

to ensure safety is the primary consideration in the design, development, and operation of this program.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• Other-Direct Sub-Allocation to CEAO 
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 46

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP. 

Local governments can qualify for funding and technical assistance to address SHSP emphasis areas and 

prioritized safety locations through the HSIP programs administered by ODOT ($100M annually), the County 

Engineers Association ($12M annually) and Local Technical Assistance Program ($2M).

Local Road Safety Initiative

To encourage local governments to apply for these funds and overcome capacity constraints at the local level, 

in 2018 ODOT’s Highway Safety Program launched its Local Safety Assistance program. This program 

provides local governments and metropolitan planning organizations in the state the technical assistance and 

consultant support necessary for developing County and Regional Safety Plans, conducting safety 

studies/road safety audits, and developing systemic safety improvement projects

• County & Regional Safety Plans are helping local agencies identify and understand the safety issues 

occurring within their communities. They are helping identify priority safety locations to target 

investments. And they are outlining robust multi-disciplinary action plans aimed at addressing severe 

crashes and reducing fatalities and identify available resources for implementation. 

• Safety Studies and Road Safety Audits are almost always required to apply for HSIP within Ohio. 

Through ODOT’s Local Safety Assistance program, local agencies are provided with the technical 

assistance to complete the studies necessary to apply for HSIP funds at no cost to them. 

• Systemic Safety Project Development can be a challenge at the local level, whether that’s conducting a 

systemic analysis to managing the construction process. ODOT’s Highway Safety Program provides 

technical assistance on the development of these projects and is working to streamline the project 

delivery process. 

CEAO Safety Program

ODOT also works with the Ohio County Engineers Association to administer a separate safety program ($12 

million of HSIP funds) dedicated to making improvements on county-maintained roads. This funding can be 

used to make spot and systemic improvements tied to the SHSP. Applications are accepted once a year by 

CEAO and scored using criteria developed in conjunction with ODOT.

CEAO subdivides the $12 million in to several smaller funding categories. Each county is permitted to program 

eligible construction projects up to $5 million overall for spot safety improvements. In addition to spot safety 

improvements, CEAO provides up to $300,000 per county for each guardrail project, $150,000 per county for 

each pavement marking project, $75,000 per county for each raised pavement marker project, and $15,000 

per county for curve signage upgrade projects.

Township Sign Grants

ODOT also sets aside $2M annually to upgrade safety-related signs on township roads. The grants are 

administered by LTAP.

This program was developed to address intersection and curve systematic signage upgrades for townships 

with a high number of severe crashes. The top 100 townships (for severe crashes) are invited to apply each 

year. Funding is capped at $50,000 for any one township. Funding is provided at 100% so no local matching 

funds are required. Township or county forces install the signs at their own cost.

There are 1,308 townships in Ohio and 226 of these have participated and completed signage installations 

since 2015.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 46

Identify which internal partners (e.g., State departments of transportation (DOTs) 

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP)

Describe coordination with internal partners.

ODOT’s Office of Program Management accepts applications – accompanied by safety studies – from ODOT 

District Offices and local governments twice a year. Applications must be submitted through the District 

Offices, which have a multi-disciplinary committee that reviews and approves them for Central Office 

consideration. Projects are then reviewed and selected for funding by the Safety Review Committee in Central 

Office, which includes expertise in safety, planning, geometric design, and traffic operations.

Priority is given to any project that improves safety at a roadway location with high frequency, severity and rate 

of crashes. Projects are scored based on: 

• Expected Crash Frequency

• Ratio of Observed Fatal and Serious Injuries to Observed Total Crashes

• Relative Severity Index 

• Equivalent Property Damage Only Index

• Volume to Capacity Ratio

• Benefit-Cost Ratio (anticipated savings in crash costs, property damage, injuries and fatalities relative 

to the cost of the improvement plus cost of maintenance for the life of the project). 

• Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding Percentage

Funding awarded through the program is used to make traditional safety improvements at spot locations, such 

as intersections, and along sections or corridors throughout the state. Consideration is also given to lowervolume, lower-crash local roads with identified needs and cost-effective countermeasures.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Regional Planning Organizations (e.g. MPOs, RPOs, COGs)

Describe coordination with external partners. 

SHSP Steering Committee

Ohio’s SHSP Steering Committee represents the state’s largest coordination effort with external partners. The 

committee includes members from 15 key safety organizations operating at the local, state and federal level 

including: Ohio County Engineers Association; Local Transportation Assistance Program, Ohio Association of 
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 46

Regional Councils (MPOs and RTPOs); Ohio Department of Public Safety; Ohio State Highway Patrol; Federal 

Highway Administration; Ohio State Highway Patrol; Federal Motor Carrier Administration; and Ohio 

Department of Health. These organizations then feed the information to a network of hundreds of other 

stakeholders who are getting more actively involved in the SHSP and helping to guide ODOT’s HSIP efforts. In 

2018, Ohio also added AAA to this committee’s membership.

MPO/RTPO Pilot Project

Ohio is piloting a program with the state’s MPOs and RTPOs to get more local governments involved in the 

HSIP. In 2017, Ohio formed a working group tasked with developing a process to provide more safety analysis 

assistance to local governments. Many MPOs and RTPOs publish prioritize safety lists, however, too few local 

governments use this analysis to conduct reviews, make recommendations and apply for HSIP funding. This 

collaborative project seeks to close that gap. In August 2018, the working group started the process of 

assigning consultants to MPOs and RTPOs to assist in this process.

SHSP Task Forces and Committees

ODOT is currently managing three special task forces or committees that are reviewing, making 

recommendations and implementing strategies associated with preventing Pedestrian, Older Driver and 

Distracted Driving deaths. A fourth committee to review driver education curriculum and provide updated 

videos and training materials completed its work in February 2019. More detail can be found in the executive 

summary. 

Local Safety Assistance Program

In late 2018, the Ohio Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Program kicked off its Local Safety 

Assistance program. This program provides local governments and metropolitan planning organizations in the 

state the technical assistance and consultant support around transportation safety issues and helps educate 

local governments on available HSIP resources and the SHSP. For more information on the Local Safety 

Assistance Program, see question 6.

Describe other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to 

elaborate. 

Ohio uses a focused approach to safety that targets resources based on the greatest need and greatest 

opportunity for improvements. We also promote the use of proven, cost-effective, systemic and systematic 

safety solutions that target critical, severe-crash types such roadway departure and intersections crashes. 

These focus areas are embodied in both the HSIP and the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

We advanced the HSIP through the balanced deployment and implementation of a host of traditional spot 

safety investments and a host of systemic and systematic safety investments.

ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and Safety Analyst Implementation

Each year, ODOT staff reviews the top safety locations in Ohio. Ohio is one of the first states in the country to 

fully implement AASHTOWare Safety Analyst and use it to prioritize safety locations across Ohio. Safety 

Analyst uses state-of-the-art statistical methodologies to identify roadway locations and safety improvements 

with the highest potential for reducing crashes. The software systems flag spot locations and road segments 

that have higher-than-predicted crash frequencies. It also flags locations for review based on crash severity. 

This methodology is more efficient and cost effective and will allow the department to study fewer locations yet 

address more crashes each year.

ODOT has developed eight priority lists based on rural and urban roadway types. The urban system covers all 

streets, roads, and highways located within incorporated areas with populations greater than 5,000. The 
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 46

suburban system is the network outside the incorporated area but still within the urban boundaries designated 

by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Bureau defines two types of urban areas based on population. Small urban 

areas are urban places with a population or 5,000 or more and not located within any urbanized area. An 

urbanized area is an area with a population of 50,000 or more. As might be expected, the rural functional 

classification system covers all other streets, roads, and highways that are not located within the boundaries of 

small urban and urbanized areas.

The priority lists are:

1. Rural Intersection Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they 

have a higher-than-predicted crash frequency for each intersection. Approximately, the Top 25 

locations will be studied. 

2. Rural Non-Freeway Peak Searching Excess Segment Locations: These locations were selected 

because they have a higher-than-predicted crash frequency for this roadway type. Approximately, the 

Top 25 locations will be studied. Only crashes indicated on the OH-1 crash report form as being nonintersection crashes were included in this analysis. 

3. Rural Freeway Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they have a 

higher-than-predicted crash frequency for this roadway type or interchange location. Approximately, the 

Top 25 locations will be studied. 

4. Urban Intersection Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they 

have a higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for each intersection. Approximately, the 

Top 25 locations will be studied. 

5. Urban Non-Freeway Peak Searching Excess Segment Locations: These locations were selected 

because they have a higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for this roadway type. 

Approximately, the Top 25 locations will be studied. Only crashes indicated on the OH-1 crash report 

form as being non-intersection crashes were included in this analysis. 

6. Urban Freeway Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they have a 

higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for this roadway type or interchange location. 

Approximately, the Top 25 locations will be studied. 

7. Suburban Intersection Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they 

have a higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for each intersection. Approximately, the 

Top 25 locations will be studied. 

8. Suburban Non-Freeway Peak Searching Excess Segment Locations: These locations were selected 

because they have a higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for this roadway type. 

Approximately, the Top 25 locations will be studied. Only crashes indicated on the OH-1 crash report 

form as being non-intersection crashes were included in this analysis. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Abbreviated Application

In 2018, ODOT continued a process that was initialized in 2016 to implement low cost safety improvements 

faster. These requests are less than $500,000 that are either standalone projects or existing projects located 

on a priority location. This is part of an initiative to make safety improvements on all programmed projects.

Systemic and Systematic Safety Program

The Ohio Department of Transportation spends approximately $15 million annually of the $102 million program 

on systemic and systematic safety improvements. These are safety improvements that can be installed across 

hundreds of road miles for a relatively small public investment. Systematic safety improvements are low cost 

improvements that are complete at similar locations to address a specific type of crash pattern. Systemic 

safety improvements are those improvements that are constructed system-wide to reduce the likelihood of a 

crash of occurring based on roadway features, traffic volumes or other features such as speed limit or land use 

type.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 46

Examples of systemic and systematic project types are Curve Signing Upgrade, Edge Line Rumble Stripes, 

Cable Barrier, Signal Upgrade, Intersection Signing Upgrade, Wider Pavement Markings, and Guardrail End 

Treatment Upgrade Projects.

Safe Routes to School Program

ODOT uses $4 million from the Transportation Alternatives Program to fund Ohio’s Safe Routes to School 

Program. Again, this is separate and in addition to the $102 million ODOT HSIP program. Funds can be used 

on any public roadway if the school has completed a School Travel Plan. The School Travel Plan outlines 

where investments should be made for a specific school district.

Other Programs

Small portions of ODOT’s state funding are used for work zone enforcement, OVI checkpoints, and other 

educational opportunities (Federal HSIP funding is no longer available for education or enforcement activities). 

Although money is not specifically set aside for the High-Risk Rural Roads Program in Ohio at this time, we still 

encourage agencies to apply for funding through our traditional application process. Any projects that are 

prioritized based on the HRRR Program are funded through the ODOT’s HSIP Program ($102 million).

ODOT also combines HSIP funding with other funding sources (such as MPO and ORDC) to make safety 

improvements.

Program Methodology

Does the State have an HSIP manual or similar that clearly describes HSIP planning, 

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

Safety_Analysis_Guidelines.pdf

Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidance.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Other-State HSIP Program

• Other-CEAO HSIP Program

• Other-State High Risk Rural Road

• Other-State Abbreviated HSIP Application

Program: Other-State HSIP Program

Date of Program Methodology:3/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 46

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-(Total Fatal and Serious Inuries) / Total Crashes

• Other-Volume to Capacity Ratio

• Relative severity index

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this 

program? 

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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). 

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-CEAO HSIP Program

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2011

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 46

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Other-Rural County Highway System 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Other-Amount of Funding Requested

• Relative severity index

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this 

program? 

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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). 

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-State High Risk Rural Road

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2008

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 46

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Fatal and All Injury Crashes Only Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-(Fatal and Serious Injuries) / Total Crashes

• Relative severity index

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this 

program? 

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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). 

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-State Abbreviated HSIP Application

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 46

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this 

program? 

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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). 

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Cost Effectiveness:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 10

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Rumble Strips

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

• Upgrade Guard Rails

• Wrong way driving treatments

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 46

• Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP)

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

ODOT safety staff participate in bi monthly meetings with the Autonomous Vehicle, Connected Vehicle and 

Transportation Systems Management & Operations (AV/CV TSMO) Group. Additionally, the Ohio HSIP 

Program has been supportive in ITS technologies and AV/CV will be included in the SHSP update in 2020. 

Example projects include the following: Freeway queue warning system with driver messages, freeway camera 

monitoring equipment, and ramp wrong way driver alert systems.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts? 

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts. 

Ohio uses AASHTOWare Safety Analyst (Safety Analyst) to prioritize the roadway network within the state. 

Safety Analyst faithfully implements Part B of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM).

All projects submitting for State HSIP Program funds are required to complete a Part C analysis included in the 

HSM. Additionally, ODOT has developed policy guidance to implement HSM for all projects. The level of 

analysis varies depending on the complexity of the project. For smaller projects, basic crash analysis is 

required. This includes identifying if the location is a priority location and reviewing general observed crash 

trends. For larger projects, Part C analysis is added as a requirement to understand the change in long term 

crash frequency.

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period. 

Yes. Please reference ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and Safety Analyst Implementation 

section in question #12 for details. Previously there were six priority list classifications, but we have since 

transitioned to eight priority lists.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 46

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

Enter the programmed and obligated funding for each applicable funding category. 

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $126,360,467 $67,715,150 53.59%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$29,072,814 $29,072,814 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$27,075,969 $27,075,969 100%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$143,154,064 $109,958,779 76.81%

State and Local Funds $67,094,085 $62,106,329 92.57%

Totals $392,757,399 $295,929,041 75.35%

How much funding is programmed to local (non-state owned and operated) or tribal 

safety projects?

21%

How much funding is obligated to local or tribal safety projects? 

21%

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects? 

$1,958,628

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects? 

$1,840,430

For the Programmed projects:

Safety Program Training – We hired a consultant to review existing safety training courses and 

recommend/develop updated materials. $70,975
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 46

Crash Data Logging - Project includes logging and processing crash data for use in statewide crash data 

systems. $16,718

Regional County Safety Plans – We funded several county safety plans to provide a framework for identifying, 

analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on all public roads. The process results in a prioritized 

list of issues, factors, actions, and improvements that can be used to reduce fatalities and serious injuries 

across a region’s roadway network. $424,857

Streetlight Data – We invested in the data to get better ADT/Volume information on local roads within Ohio. It 

also gives us the ability to identify safety issues on these facilities and better allocate safety project funding. 

The pedestrian and bicycle volume metrics included within the system supports improved identification of highrisk facilities/locations base on exposure and advanced understand of crash risk for non-motorized users. $1M

Ped/Bike Design Guidance – Hiring a consultant to complete a statewide pedestrian & bicycle design guidance 

best practices review. $29,940

US Bike Route Workshops – We held the workshops to explain the US Bike Route System and the steps 

necessary to designate it within each community. $36,615

County Active Transportation Plans – Developing county-wide plans that focus on critical bicycle and 

pedestrian connections and gaps. Information used to guide safety infrastructure investments. $96,579

Statewide AT Policy Review - The project will begin with a national scan of bicycle and pedestrian laws. The 

scan will identify best practices and states that Ohio may look to for guidance if it undertakes changes to the 

ORC’s bicycle and pedestrian regulations. $63,290

D08 Pedestrian Systemic Analysis - Pedestrian systemic safety analysis with D8. $219,654

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas 

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during 

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

Discuss impediments to obligating HSIP funds and plans to overcome this challenge in 

the future. 

In FFY 2018, Ohio obligated 100% of its HSIP funds (2018 Apportionment). For FFY 2019, Ohio has obligated 

approximately 14%. The obligation rate is low in part due to Ohio's use of Advance Construction (AC) financing 

method, as this type of authorization is not counted as obligation of Federal funds until the AC funds are 

converted.

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on 

which the State would like to elaborate. 

Ohio has had several instances over the past year where we had to use state funds to support enforcement 

and education programs that are no longer eligible for HSIP funding. All the projects are tied to the state’s 

SHSP and emphasis areas that FHWA has encouraged us to address holistically using engaging engineering, 
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 46

enforcement, education, and emergency response (4 E's). Yet, we can’t use federal funds to supplement the 

associated costs.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 46

General Listing of Projects

List the projects obligated using HSIP funds for the reporting period. 

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

104166 - 

D06 GR End 

Treat FY18

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

35 Locations $114760.67 $176769.67 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing 

guardrail end 

treatments to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

102061 - 

HAM-VAR 

Signal 

Upgrades

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Congestion detection / traffic 

monitoring system

51 Intersections $1355847.7

4

$1506497.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther25,00

0

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and visibility 

to reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes

76938 - FAI 

US 33 

05.60(Carrol

l Area)

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade intersection to 

interchange

1 Interchange

s

$6395969.2

8

$40054927.0

8

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

44,55

4

60 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Replacemen

t of 

signalized 

intersection 

with grade 

separated 

intersection 

to reduce 

congestion 

and queue 

related 

crashes

102380 - 

D08 GR 

FY2018

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

600 Locations $1038424.2

7

$1972693.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing 

guardrail end 

treatments to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

103543 - 

HOC US 33 

11.700 

Ramp Clear

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - no control to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1165346.1 $1554111.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

2,782 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

a 

roundabout 

to reduce 

angle and 

rear end 

crashes
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 46

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

103736 - 

D01 GR 

FY2018

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

87 Locations $197914.34 $762133.35 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing 

guardrail end 

treatments to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

95716 - 

HEN/LUC 

US 24 

0.00/11.53 

Resurf

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

5.91 Miles $199739.69 $2443661.87 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

19,86

6

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install 

pavement 

treatments to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

98689 - 

HAM CR 67 

2.19 Duck 

Creek Rd 

Ext

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Interchange

s

$2500000 $7876096.78 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther38,23

2

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Realign 

intersection 

to reduce 

angle and 

rear end 

crashes

92900 - 

BRO SR 41 

1.93 Safety

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 1 Locations $2588596.5

6

$3857835.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,644 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Realign 

intersection 

to reduce 

angle and 

rear end 

crashes

107508 - 

D09 TSG 

FY2019

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

9 Intersections $83193.6 $88773.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,100 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and visibility 

to reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes

101301 - 

GRE CR 17 

2.23

Interchange 

design

Installation of new lane on ramp 2 Lanes $539999.92 $1370693.1 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Minor Arterial 23,43

6

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

through 

traveled 

lanes to 

reduce 

congestion 

and queue 

related 

crashes

104003 - 

LOR SR 

0010C 

00.50

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Lanes $414000 $561552.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

31,14

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 

reduce rear 

end crashes
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 46

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

105882 - 

ATH US 50 

8.640

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane (free-flow)

1 Approaches $234000 $281286 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,02

9

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 

reduce rear 

end and left 

turn crashes

104407 - 

CLE IR 275 

9.50

Interchange 

design

Installation of new lane on ramp 1 Lanes $1311379.3

4

$2063480.16 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate83,28

3

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Extending 

ramp lengths 

to reduce the 

number of 

rear end 

crashes

101212 - 

GRE US 68 

9.43

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

0.57 Miles $1374156.6 $1526840.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,852 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Installation 

of bicycle 

and 

pedestrian 

facilities

94632 - CLA 

SR 235 0.23

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1 Signal 

heads

$2665040.3

1

$3461312.21 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 12,12

8

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Installation 

of pedestrian 

signal 

equipment

101977 - 

POR SR 

0014 18.06

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

2 Lanes $1112945.3

9

$1335598.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 12,04

5

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 

reduce rear 

end crashes

103505 - 

HAM SR 

126 19.40

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $2159432.4

4

$2399369.36 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

53,63

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and visibility 

to reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes

94494 - 

WAR SR 48 

8.80 Mason 

Morrow Mill

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

3 Lanes $391931.78 $2691003.89 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther16,86

6

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 

reduce rear 

end crashes

102062 - 

HAM VAR 

HFST 

Locations

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

3 Curves $284053.66 $315615.17 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 21,00

0

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install 

pavement 

treatments to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

102183 - 

SUM SR 

0091 09.59

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify freeflow turn lane1 Lanes $693000 $838653 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,07

8

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 46

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

reduce rear 

end crashes

103594 - 

CLE CR 98 

0.11

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 2 Signal 

heads

$49727.25 $55252.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,33

7

25 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Installation 

of pedestrian 

signal 

equipment

88665 - CUY 

IR 090 03.56 

Interchange

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1 Interchange

s

$2359999.1 $3943557.05 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate85,14

2

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

through 

traveled 

lanes to 

reduce 

congestion 

and queue 

related 

crashes

76282 - FRA 

US 40 4.69

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

1.57 Miles $3870000 $18651815.7

7

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,92

4

45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

through 

traveled 

lanes to 

reduce 

congestion 

and queue 

related 

crashes

25594 - FRA 

IR 70 3.41

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

4.22 Miles $1132171.6

9

$57307774.3

2

State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate67,70

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Constructing 

through 

traveled 

lanes to 

reduce 

congestion 

and queue 

related 

crashes

100995 - 

LUC US 24 

15.78 Turn 

Lanes

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

2 Lanes $396628.6 $670298.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther24,59

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 

reduce rear 

end crashes

89122 - 

HAM CR 90 

0.60 Pippin 

Rd Phase 1

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

1.24 Miles $2499999.9

9

$6449646.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,67

8

35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

a Two Way 

Left Turn 

Lane to 

reduce the 

number of 

head-on, 

sideswipe 

meeting, 

rear end and 

turning-
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 46

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

related 

crashes

103373 - 

D02 GR 

NHS

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

96 Locations $792637.26 $792637.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing 

guardrail end 

treatments to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

99489 - 

GRE SR 4 

1.54

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1 Approaches $75158.82 $1848362.05 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther25,65

3

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 

reduce rear 

end and left 

turn crashes

102149 - 

SCI SR 73 

19.63

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

2 Curves $149377.03 $1043198.25 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Major Collector 2,296 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Installation 

of curve 

signage to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

101251 - 

GRE Central 

State FY18

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new crosswalk 1 Crosswalks $36054.21 $578165.44 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Major Collector 2,855 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Installation 

of pedestrian 

signal 

equipment

80963 - GEA 

US 422 

13.04 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

2 Lanes $571104.12 $994724.28 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther15,21

6

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 

reduce rear 

end crashes

104752 - 

WOO SR 64 

0.89 PHB

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1 Signal 

heads

$281451.91 $409746.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 17,95

2

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Installation 

of pedestrian 

signal 

equipment

101003 - 

WOO SR 

199 29.10 

Carronade 

Rdabt

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $768531.38 $970161.95 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,433 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

a 

roundabout 

to reduce 

angle and 

rear end 

crashes

103744 - 

WOO US 20 

8.87 Turn 

Lane Sfty

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $333131.63 $389936.51 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther13,21

3

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Constructing 

turn lanes to 

reduce rear 

end and left 

turn crashes
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 46

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

97680 - SCI 

US 23 10.57

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

0.91 Miles $27039.88 $2996232.69 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther19,50

1

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install 

pavement 

treatments to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

98551 - SHE 

SR 47 14.51

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $191174.13 $249996.83 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Collector 19,41

6

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and visibility 

to reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes

102035 - 

SAN SR53 

6.02 sgnl 

Sfty

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - modify 

signal mounting (spanwire to 

mast arm)

1 Intersections $217711.44 $241901.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 11,39

8

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and visibility 

to reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes

103706 - 

LAW-52-

15.03 AND 

VARIOUS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

6 Intersections $1064372.2

5

$1248948.23 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

26,05

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and visibility 

to reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 46

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

Present data showing the general highway safety trends in the State for the past five 

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 1,080 1,017 1,121 989 1,006 1,110 1,132 1,179 1,068

Serious Injuries 10,186 9,654 9,780 9,231 8,785 9,079 9,207 8,762 7,627

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.970 0.910 0.990 0.880 0.890 0.980 0.950 0.990 0.930

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.110 8.620 8.680 8.190 7.790 7.990 7.760 7.330 6.660

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

110 124 135 113 106 149 160 171 154

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

704 697 773 751 682 700 725 726 675
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 46

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 46

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 46

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

FARS was used for the number of fatalities and State data was used for the fatality rate and number of nonmotorized fatalities.

To the maximum extent possible, present this data by functional classification and 

ownership. 

Year 2018

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

31 183 0.34 2.03

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

7 41 0.33 2.04

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

64 346 1.41 7.62

Rural Minor Arterial 78 455 1.82 10.71

Rural Minor Collector 45 253 2.78 15.88

Rural Major Collector 181 1,052 2.3 13.43

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 46

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

95 634 1.74 11.66

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

83 700 0.32 2.74

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

30 201 0.45 3.09

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

146 1,474 1.06 10.69

Urban Minor Arterial 148 1,479 1.08 10.78

Urban Minor Collector 5 45 0.88 8.97

Urban Major Collector 104 885 1.07 8.79

Urban Local Road or 

Street

64 634 0.62 6.26
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 46

Year 2018

Roadways Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

401 2,550 0 0

County Highway 

Agency

120 791 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

48 309 0 0

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

512 4,822 0 0

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 10 55 0 0

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Unknown 11 168 0 0

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1055.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 46

See additional comments.

Number of Serious Injuries:8348.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

See additional comments.

Fatality Rate:0.910

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

See additional comments.

Serious Injury Rate:7.210

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

See additional comments.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:816.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

See additional comments.

In 2018, Ohio saw its first decrease in traffic fatalities since 2013 after experiencing four consecutive years of 

rising deaths. Although this is a great shift, the five year rolling average for most of the state's targets has 

grown over the past few years due to the increases.

After reviewing historical crash trends, external factors and through consultation with ODOT's partners, the 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan Steering Committee recommended that Ohio move to a 2 percent annual 

reduction target across all five categories.

Although the 2% annual target will be difficult to achieve across all five categories, the SHSP Steering 

Committee feels it's an aspirational target, but achievable. Therefore, the target that Ohio has set forth for each 

of the performance measures is a 2% reduction from the 2014-2018 baseline.

Describe efforts to coordinate with other stakeholders (e.g. MPOs, SHSO) to establish 

safety performance targets. 

ODOT has established a replicable annual process to review the previous year’s targets and establish new 

targets. This process is outlined in an annual letter to our partners, which includes the SHSP Steering 

Committee, The Ohio Department of Public Safety (HSP), MPOs and RTPOs. We also conduct meetings and 

discussions with various partners to set both state and regional targets for the year. ODOT has developed an 

automated spreadsheet tool that allows MPO’s and RTPO’s to analyze regional crash data and explore their 

own performance targets.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 46

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Goals and Targets below are based on the five-year rolling average.

Number of Fatalities

2018 Target: 1,051

2018 Actual: 1,099

State did not meet target. This is a result of fatalities increasing from 2014-2017. 2018 was the first year of 

decline in fatalities since 2013. However, Ohio did make significant progress in 2018 having fewer fatalities 

than 2017.

Number of Serious Injuries

2018 Target: 9,033

2018 Actual: 8,692

State met target.

Fatality Rate

2018 Target: 0.91

2018 Actual: 0.95

State did not meet target. This is due to the increase in fatalities and although VMT has increased, the rates at 

which they have increased has been less than the fatalities.

Serious Injury Rate

2018 Target: 8.01

2018 Actual: 7.51

State met target.

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries

2018 Target: 840

2018 Actual: 858

State did not meet target. This is a large part due to the four consecutive years of rising pedestrian fatalities. 

2018 was the first year of decline for pedestrian fatalities since 2013.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 46

Applicability of Special Rules

Does the HRRR special rule apply to the State for this reporting period? 

No 

Ohio's fatality rate on the three functional classifications of rural roads decreased from 2.3 to 2.1, therefore the 

Special Rule does not apply. This information was released in the December 18, 2018 memo from FHWA.

2011-2015 five year average fatality rate = 2.3

2013-2017 five year average fatality rate = 2.1

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

166 123 154 177 166 178 166

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

741 763 796 790 861 821 774
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 46

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

Ohio routinely evaluates crash trends, quarterly and annually, to determine the effectiveness of its Highway 

Safety Improvement Program. In 2018, Ohio had 1,068 traffic deaths, representing a 9.4% decrease and 7,627 

serious injuries, representing a 13% decrease respectively compared to 2017. 2018 represented the first year 

of declining fatalities in since 2013 when Ohio had its lowest number of fatalities. This was also reflected in the 

trend for pedestrian fatalities. Ohio saw its first year of declining pedestrian fatalities since 2013.

The safety benefits are calculated by using the total number of crashes by year and severity. Crash costs were 

calculated for 2017 and 2018 based on the Highway Safety Manual methodologies. For each year, the crash 

severity was multiplied by its associated cost and then summed for all severity levels. The difference between 

these two values equates to the safety benefits between the two years and is equal to a decrease of $259 

million. ODOT receives a total of $77 million in Federal HSIP dollars annually on safety projects. The ratio of 

the safety benefits and program cost equates to a benefit-cost ratio of 3.38.

We also track our statewide progress in implementing systematic safety treatments that target serious crash 

types and roadway features that can potentially increase the likelihood of crashes. This program element has 

been successful in reducing crashes based on the naïve before-and-after results for the different systematic 

treatments. In addition, we have increased our efforts to complete systematic projects on locally maintained 

roads by working with MPOs, County Engineers and LTAP to provide technical assistance and funding for local 

road safety improvements.

What other indicators of success does the State use to demonstrate effectiveness and 

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 46

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Roadway Departure Roadway 

Departure

614 3,601 0.53 3.09

Intersections Intersections 277 3,583 0.24 3.07

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 126 532 0.11 0.46

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 20 165 0.02 0.15

Motorcyclists Motorcycle 

Involved

161 903 0.14 0.78

Work Zones Work Zone 

Related

22 147 0.02 0.13
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 46

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 46

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 46

In 2018, ODOT selected a contractor to identify, develop, and implement an appropriate approach to beforeafter safety project evaluation that can be applied to ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

projects or any other completed project(s) of interest to ODOT. The evaluation approach will quantify project 

effectiveness in terms of crash frequency reduction and percentage crash frequency reduction overall, by

crash severity level, and by crash type. The recommended project evaluation approach will be:

• Scientifically sound 

• Applicable to evaluation of individual projects and to crash modification factor (CMF) development 

• Consistent with HSM guidance, FHWA HSIP requirements, and ODOT needs and preferences 

The project has completed a literature review and surveyed other states for best practices. Results have been 

posted here:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/HighwaySafety/HSIP/Pages/HSIPEval.asp

x 

Four (4) projects were piloted with the following methods to determine project safety performance:

• Simple Before-and-After Method 

• Before-and-After Study with Traffic Volume Correction 

• Empirical Bayes Method 

o AASHTOWare Safety Analyst 

o Ohio’s Economic Crash Analysis Tool (ECAT) 

o IHSDM 

The project team is currently reviewing the results of the pilot projects to identify the method best suited for 

Ohio in the future.
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 46

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

None
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 46

Compliance Assessment

What date was the State’s current SHSP approved by the Governor or designated State representative? 

 11/04/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2014 To: 2019

When does the State anticipate completing it’s next SHSP update? 

 2020

The next SHSP Update must be completed by November 2020.

Provide the current status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts using the table below. 

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 95 100 95 100 95

Route Number (8) 100 95

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 95

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 95

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 95 100 95

Surface Type (23) 100 95 100 95

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 95 100 95 100 95

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 95 100 95 100 95

Segment Length

(13)

100 95

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 95

Functional Class 

(19)

100 95 100 95 100 95

Median Type (54) 100 95

Access Control (22) 100 95
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 46

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 95

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 95 100 95

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 95 100 95

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 95 100 95 100 95

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100 95

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100 95

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100 95

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 95

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 95

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 95

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 95

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 46

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 95.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 95.00

*Based on Functional Classification

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026. 

The Location Based Response System (LBRS) is an initiative of the Geographically Referenced Information Program (OGRIP). The LBRS establishes partnerships between State and County government for the creation of spatially 

accurate street centerlines with address ranges and field verified site specific address locations.

A project is underway to collect missing LBRS data, verify/update current LBRS datasets and incorporate LBRS data into the official ODOT Road Inventory (RIMS).

With the ultimate goal of reducing fatalities, injuries and traffic crashes statewide, the LBRS projects’ accurate, timely, reliable road inventory data as well as seamless integration among all highway safety stakeholders will make traffic 

crash analysis and emergency response more effective and efficient.

The project is currently in the collection phase.

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period? 

No

HSIP program assessments were completed in both 2017 and 2018. No formal assessment is planned for 2020. The next HSIP program assessment is anticipated in 2021, after the SHSP update is completed in 2020.

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2021
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 46

Optional Attachments 

Program Structure:

Safety_Analysis_Guidelines.pdf

Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidance.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 46

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

Emphasis area: means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process.

Highway safety improvement project: means strategies, activities and projects on a public road 

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects: are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule: applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which 

data are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance 

dated February 13, 2013.

Performance measure: means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to 

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

Programmed funds: mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.

Roadway Functional Classification: means the process by which streets and highways are 

grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on 

safety data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.

Systematic: refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across 

a system.

Systemic safety improvement: means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high 

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

Transfer: means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal 

year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.