http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA Safety Program

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2018 National Summary Report
Disclaimer/Quality Assurance

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. 

Trademarks or manufacturers’ names may appear in this report only because they are 

considered essential to the objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high –quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-19-028

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

HSIP 2018 National Summary Report

 

5. Report Date

October 2019

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Taha Saleem and Daniel Carter

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

University of North Carolina

Highway Safety Research Center

730 ML King Jr Blvd, CB #3430

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Summary Report

2018 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 2018 National Summary Report compiles and 

summarizes aggregate information related to the States’ progress in implementing HSIP projects. 

Progress in implementing HSIP projects is described based on the amount of HSIP funds available 

and the number and general listing of projects obligated during the 2018 reporting cycle. The HSIP 

2018 National Summary Report is not intended to compare States but to illustrate how the States

are collectively implementing the HSIP to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads 

across the nation. The HSIP 2018 National Summary Report also presents a national benefit-cost 

ratio for the HSIP. 

17. Key Words:

Highway Safety Improvement Program, reporting 

guidance, improvement category, Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan, emphasis area, national summary

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 39 

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized
ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3

HSIP Funding Approach................................................................................................................... 3

Data-Driven Safety Decision Making .............................................................................................. 5

State Safety Programs Administered Under HSIP....................................................................... 5

Methodology Types for Selected Programs Administered Under HSIP...................................... 6

HSIP Projects Overview................................................................................................................... 7

Project Cost..................................................................................................................................... 8

Functional Class and Ownership..................................................................................................... 8

Improvement Categories and Subcategories ............................................................................... 11

FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures....................................................................................... 18

SHSP Emphasis Areas.................................................................................................................... 20

2014-2018 Comparison................................................................................................................. 20

Comparison to Previous Years...................................................................................................... 23

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the HSIP.................................................................................................. 25

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Related Reports and Resources.................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A: Full Description of HSIP Improvement Categories and Subcategories for 2013 HSIP 

Reporting Guidance ...................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix B. Detailed Tables of Project Costs Summaries............................................................ 35

References .................................................................................................................................... 38
iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Chart. FAST Act annual program apportionments FY18 ($ billions).(7) ............................ 4

Figure 2. Graph. Number of State safety programs (top 9)............................................................ 6

Figure 3. Graph. Number of State safety programs (bottom 9)..................................................... 6

Figure 4. Graph. Count of PIM selected for programs administered under HSIP. ......................... 7

Figure 5. Chart. Number of projects by project cost. ..................................................................... 8

Figure 6. Chart. Number of projects by functional class. ............................................................... 9

Figure 7. Chart. Average total cost of projects by functional class. ............................................. 10

Figure 8. Chart. Number and average total cost of projects by urban/rural designation............ 10

Figure 9. Chart. Number of projects by road ownership.............................................................. 11

Figure 10. Chart. Average total cost of projects by road ownership............................................ 11

Figure 11. Chart. Number of projects by improvement category (top 11). ................................. 12

Figure 12. Chart. Number of projects by improvement category (bottom 8).............................. 13

Figure 13. Chart. Average total cost of projects by improvement category (top 11). ................. 14

Figure 14. Chart. Average total cost of projects by improvement category (bottom 8).............. 14

Figure 15. Chart. Number of intersection geometry projects by subcategory. ........................... 15

Figure 16. Chart. Number of traffic control projects by subcategory. ......................................... 16

Figure 17. Chart. Number of pedestrian and bicyclist projects by subcategory. ......................... 16

Figure 18. Chart. Number of roadway projects by subcategory. ................................................. 17

Figure 19. Chart. Number of roadside projects by subcategory. ................................................. 18

Figure 20. Chart. Number of projects by SHSP emphasis area..................................................... 20

List of Tables

Table 1. Total number and cost of 2018 projects by FHWA proven safety countermeasures. ... 19

Table 2. Total number of projects and project cost breakdown, 2014-2018............................... 21

Table 3. Number of projects and average total project cost for various project types, 2014-2018.

....................................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 4. Total number and cost of projects by year..................................................................... 24

Table 5. Weighted benefit-cost ratio for segment and intersection based projects (weight based 

on total project cost). ................................................................................................................... 26

Table 6. HSIP improvement categories and subcategories. ......................................................... 29

Table 7. Number and cost of 2018 projects by improvement category....................................... 35

Table 8. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for intersection geometry. ..................... 36

Table 9. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for intersection traffic control................ 36

Table 10. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for pedestrians and bicyclists............... 36

Table 11. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for roadway. ......................................... 37

Table 12. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for roadside. ......................................... 37
1 

Executive Summary

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

the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public 

roads. Under the Fixing America’s Transportation System (FAST) Act, Congress authorized up to 

$2.4 billion per year for States to achieve this goal through the implementation of highway 

safety improvement projects. In 2018, the States obligated approximately $4.5 billion for over 

4,700 highway safety improvement projects. 

These highway safety improvement projects come in all shapes and sizes. Some HSIP projects 

are much bigger in scope than others, while other projects include countermeasure 

installations across multiple sites. The 2018 HSIP National Summary Report provides an 

aggregate summary of the type and cost of projects across all States. Provided below are 

highlights of the States’ 2018 HSIP implementation efforts. 

Project Types

• 27 States have roadway departure programs, compared to 24 States in 2017, whereas 

26 States have intersection programs compared to 27 States in 2017. 

• Similar to 2017, States continue to use crash frequency and crash rate to identify 

projects in a majority of their safety programs. 

• Similar to 2017, States continue to use HSIP funds to address the predominant 

infrastructure-related crash types – roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian 

crashes. 

• Similar to 2017, about 75 percent of highway safety improvement projects occur on 

roads owned by the State Highway Agency. 

• On average, States obligated 42 percent of HSIP funds to address systemic safety 

improvements, which is a slight increase from 40 percent in 2017. 

• A majority (66 percent) of highway safety improvement projects falls into the following 

safety treatment categories: roadway, intersection traffic control, roadside, intersection 

geometry, and roadway signs and traffic control, compared to 73 percent in 2017. 

Project Costs

• A majority, roughly 66 percent of all HSIP projects cost less than $500,000 each, 

compared to 64 percent in 2017.

• About 32 percent of all HSIP projects cost less than $100,000, compared to 33 percent in 

2017.

• About 22 percent of HSIP projects would be considered high cost, coming in at over $1 

million each, an increase from 18 percent in 2017. These projects often include 

widening shoulders, installing cable barrier, or other miscellaneous intersection 

geometry and roadway projects. 

• Projects on rural principal arterial freeways and expressways had the highest average

total cost per project of $3.54 million (a slight reduction from an average total cost per 

project of $3.6 million in 2017), whereas projects on urban minor collectors had the 
2 

lowest average total cost per project of $0.22 million (in 2017, projects on rural local 

roads or streets had the lowest average total cost per project of $0.19 million). 

• Similar to 2017, there are fewer urban projects than rural projects, but the average total 

cost for urban projects is greater than that of rural projects. 

• Railroad projects had the highest average total cost per project of $3.1 million. Projects 

on roads owned by City and Municipal Highway Agencies had the second highest

average total cost per project of $1.2 million, while State Highway Agencies had the 

third highest average total cost per project of approximately $1.1 million. 

• Interchange design, parking, and access management have the highest average cost per 

project; whereas roadway signs and traffic control, lighting, and speed management

have the lowest average cost per project.

While the spending patterns do not change much from year to year, the number and cost of 

HSIP projects has continued to increase. There were 1,684 projects with a total cost of $1.61

billion in 2009, which rose to 4,713 projects with a total cost of $4.5 billion in 2018. Over the 

past ten years, States obligated $29.4 billion for more than 34,000 highway safety improvement 

projects. Based on a sample of 2018 HSIP projects, FHWA estimates that the benefits of these

projects outweigh the costs on a scale ranging from 4.76 to 8.64. 
3 

Background

The HSIP is a core Federal-aid highway program with the purpose to achieve a significant 

reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation 

of highway safety improvement projects. The HSIP, like other Federal-aid highway programs, is 

a Federally-funded, State-administered program. The FHWA establishes the HSIP requirements 

via 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 924 and the States develop and administer a 

program to best meet their needs. 

The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public 

roads that focuses on performance.

(1) To obligate HSIP funds, each State shall:

• Develop, implement, and update a State strategic highway safety plan (SHSP).

• Produce a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems.

• Evaluate the SHSP on a regularly recurring basis.

(2)

States are also required to submit a report that describes the progress being made to 

implement highway safety improvement projects and the effectiveness of those 

improvements.(3) States prepared the 2018 reports using the HSIP Reporting Guidance, dated 

December 29, 2016.

(4) The HSIP Reporting Guidance outlines the content and schedule for the 

annual HSIP report. The HSIP report should include, at a minimum, a discussion of each State’s:

• Program structure.

• Progress in implementing the HSIP projects.

• Progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets.

• Effectiveness of improvements.

• Compliance assessment. 

The HSIP 2018 National Summary Report compiles and summarizes aggregate information 

related to the States progress in implementing HSIP projects during the 2018 reporting cycle. 

Progress in implementing HSIP projects is described based on the amount of HSIP funds 

available and the number and general listing of projects obligated as documented in the 2018 

HSIP reports. The HSIP 2018 National Summary Report is not intended to compare States but to 

illustrate how the States are collectively implementing the HSIP to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads across the nation. The HSIP 2018 National Summary Report also 

presents a national benefit-cost ratio for the HSIP.

A summary of available funding and the number and general listing of projects from prior years 

is available in the previous year’s reports page available on the HSIP Reports website.

(5) 

HSIP Funding Approach

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act authorizes a single amount for each year 

for all the apportioned highway programs combined. That amount is apportioned among the 
4 

States and then each State’s apportionment is divided among the individual apportioned 

programs.

The FAST Act (Section 1101) authorizes a total combined amount of $41.4 billion in FY 2018 in 

contract authority to fund six formula programs (including certain set-asides within the 

programs described below): (6)

• National Highway Performance Program (NHPP). 

• Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). 

• HSIP. 

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). 

• Metropolitan Planning. 

• National Highway Freight Program (NHFP).

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of funds across programs under the FAST Act.

Figure 1. Chart. FAST Act annual program apportionments FY18 ($ billions).

(7)

HSIP receives 7 percent of the States apportionment remaining after allocations to NHPP, 

CMAQ, and Metropolitan Planning, which amounts to approximately $2.5 billion each year. The 

following sums are set-aside from the State's HSIP apportionment: 

• Railway-highway crossings -- $235 million.

(8)

• Two percent for State Planning and Research (SPR).(9)

In addition, if the High Risk Rural Roads Special (HRRR) rule applies to a State, then in the next 

fiscal year the State must obligate an amount at least equal to 200 percent of its FY 2009 HRRR 
5 

set-aside for high risk rural roads.(10) Further, States that are subject to the 23 U.S.C. 154 and 

164 penalties may also receive additional funding for HSIP projects. 

HSIP funds, as defined for the remainder of this report, includes HSIP, HRRR and penalty 

transfer funds that are available to States for the advancement of highway safety improvement 

projects. Additionally, ‘States’ refer to all States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

Data-Driven Safety Decision Making

The HSIP National Summary Report includes evaluation summary of how States are using datadriven safety decision making to support their HSIP. This includes the States’ safety programs 

administered under the HSIP and the methodologies States use to identify projects in each of 

these programs, as well as the amount of funds used for systemic improvements. On average, 

States obligated 42 percent of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements. The following 

sections and figures present information on State’s safety programs and problem identification

methodologies. 

State Safety Programs Administered Under HSIP

States provide a brief overview of each program administered under the HSIP as part of their 

annual HSIP report. The HSIP Manual defines a program as a group of projects (not necessarily 

similar in type or location) implemented to achieve a common highway safety goal.(11) For 

example, some States have one program that includes all projects resulting from the HSIP 

planning component. Other States have multiple "sub" programs. An example of a "sub" 

program may be a skid treatment program designed to reduce wet-weather-related crashes at 

different locations. Some States also refer to "sub" programs as initiatives. 

Figure 2 and figure 3 present the number of State safety programs for the 2018 reporting 

period. Most States have “Roadway Departure” (27 States) and “Intersection” (26 States) 

programs. Twenty-seven States selected 54 programs in the “Other” category. Examples of 

programs in the “Other” category are: “pavement marking improvements,” “longitudinal 

rumble strips,” and “vulnerable road users.” 
6 

Figure 2. Graph. Number of State safety programs (top 9). 

Figure 3. Graph. Number of State safety programs (bottom 9). 

Methodology Types for Selected Programs Administered Under HSIP

For each State safety program administered under the HSIP, a State can also indicate what 

project identification methodology (PIM) was used for each program, consistent with the 13 

PIMs or performance measures defined in the Highway Safety Manual.

(7) Figure 4 presents the 

number of times a particular PIM was selected by the States. It is important to note that a State

can select more than one PIM for each safety program. “Crash frequency” was selected 218

times while “Excess expected crash frequency using methods of moments” was only selected 

one time. Examples of methodologies in the “Other” category are: “Collaboration with county 

engineers” and “Hierarchical Bayesian Model.” 
7 

Figure 4. Graph. Count of PIM selected for programs administered under HSIP. 

HSIP Projects Overview

States provide project specific information for all projects obligated with HSIP funds during the 

reporting period in their annual HSIP reports. The reporting period is defined by the State and 

can be a calendar year, State fiscal year, or Federal fiscal year. For 2018, the States obligated 

$4.5 billion for 4,713 projects. These obligations utilized funds apportioned during the 2018 

fiscal year as well as HSIP funds available from previous years’ apportionments and other 

federal/state funds too. 

As per the HSIP Reporting Guidance, project specific information may include: 

• Improvement category and sub category (see Appendix A for complete descriptions). 

• Project output (e.g., miles of rumble strips). 

• Method for site selection (e.g. spot or systemic). 

• Project cost. 

• Funding category. 

• Relationship to the State's SHSP (i.e. emphasis area, strategy). 

• Roadway characteristics. 

The following sections present various summaries of the nationwide HSIP project obligations 

for the 2018 reporting cycle. Not all States have included all of the above information for each 

project in their annual HSIP reports, so the analysis of the project information is limited. Full use 

of the most recent HSIP reporting guidance will enable more complete and accurate reporting 

of national HSIP project data. In addition, HSIP projects come in all shapes and sizes. For 

example, some HSIP projects may be larger in scope than others, countermeasure installations 

across multiple sites, or non-infrastructure projects (i.e. transportation safety planning, data 

improvements). Due to the fact that cost information was not included for every project, only 

4,254 projects (90% of total) were used in the breakdown analysis. Nonetheless, the summaries 

in the following sections provide a broad scale analysis of HSIP spending for the 2018 reporting 
8 

cycle by project cost, functional classification and ownership, improvement categories and 

subcategories, and SHSP emphasis areas. 

Project Cost

As stated above, projects reporting $0 costs or projects reporting deobligated funds were

excluded from analysis (total of 459 projects). Costs ranged widely. Some projects were small in 

scope and cost, such as installing a pedestrian signal. Others were higher cost projects, such as 

resurfacing a highway or realigning a curve. Figure 5 shows the breakdown by project cost, 

grouped into general categories with breakpoints at $100,000, $500,000, and $1,000,000.

Figure 5. Chart. Number of projects by project cost. 

Roughly 66 percent of the projects had costs less than $500,000. A small percentage (12

percent) fell into the $500,000 - $1 million category. The remaining 22 percent were higher cost 

projects totaling $1 million or more. The top five sub categories selected for these higher cost 

projects are as follows: 

1. Roadway – other (71 projects).

2. Widen shoulder – paved or other (45 projects ranging from 0.43 to 29 miles treated).

3. Barrier – cable (35 projects ranging from 4.1 to 103 miles treated).

4. Barrier – other (28 projects ranging from 2.5 to 31 miles treated).

5. Modify control – two way stop to roundabout (26 projects).

5. Rumble strips – edge or shoulder (26 projects). 

In 2017, the breakdowns were similar. Over two-thirds of the projects had costs less than 

$500,000, approximately 12 percent fell into the $500,000 - $1 million category, and about 19

percent were more than $1 million. 

Functional Class and Ownership

Figure 6 through figure 10 illustrate the distribution of projects by road type. Figure 6 shows 

number of projects by functional class, following the Highway Performance Monitoring System

(HPMS) classification scheme. Figure 7 shows average total cost of projects by functional class. 
9 

Figure 8 shows the number and average total cost of projects by urban/rural designation. 

Figure 9 shows projects by road ownership. Figure 10 shows average total cost of projects by 

road ownership. If the functional class or road ownership was not indicated, the project is 

counted under the “unknown” category. Examples of classifications in the “other” category 

include multiple functional classes, State or citywide implementation, or non-infrastructure 

projects. 

Figure 6. Chart. Number of projects by functional class. 

Projects that were associated with a functional class were most often categorized as “Rural 

Major Collector” or “Urban Other Principal Arterial” (figure 6), compared to “Rural Major 

Collector” and “Rural Minor Arterial” in 2017. There were 831 projects categorized as 

“Unknown” indicating the State did not assign a functional classification to the project. 

Figure 7 shows the average total cost of projects by functional class. It is important to note that 

not every project had an associated cost, so the average is based on the number of projects 

that had cost information available. Projects categorized as “Rural Principal Arterial – Freeways 

and Expressways” had the highest average total cost per project of $3.54 million and projects 

categorized as “Urban Minor Collector” had the lowest average total cost per project of $0.21 

million. 
10

Figure 7. Chart. Average total cost of projects by functional class. 

Figure 8 illustrates the number and average total cost of projects by urban/rural designation. As 

in 2017 and 2016, there are fewer total urban projects than rural projects, but the average total 

cost of the urban projects is greater than the average total cost of the rural projects.

Figure 8. Chart. Number and average total cost of projects by urban/rural designation. 

As in 2017 and 2016, States implement most projects on roads owned by a “State Highway 

Agency” (figure 9). There were 200 projects categorized as “Unknown” (indicating that the 
11

State did not indicate road ownership for a particular project). There were 57 projects 

categorized as “Other” (mostly planning and design projects). 

Figure 9. Chart. Number of projects by road ownership. 

Figure 10 shows the average total cost of projects by road ownership. It is important to note 

that not every project had an associated cost, so the average is based on the number of 

projects that had cost information available (excluding deobligated costs). 

Figure 10. Chart. Average total cost of projects by road ownership. 

Improvement Categories and Subcategories

Under the HSIP Reporting Guidance, each project should be assigned a general improvement 

category and a subcategory under that general category. While a single project may consist of 
12

multiple project types, FHWA suggests States assign each project to only one category. The 

category chosen should align with the primary purpose of the project. Figure 11 and figure 12

show the distribution of the number of projects by general improvement category. Figure 13

and figure 14 combined show the distribution of the average cost of projects by general 

improvement category. Projects categorized as “Unknown” indicate that there was no general 

improvement category assigned by the State. Figure 15 through figure 19 show the breakdown 

of the number of projects by subcategory for five general improvement categories: intersection 

geometry, intersection traffic control, pedestrians and bicyclists, roadway, and roadside. More 

detailed tables with the cost spent in each subcategory are available in Appendix B. For ease of 

reporting, similar subcategories were grouped together. For example, in figure 15, “Auxiliary 

lanes – other” combines adding acceleration lanes, adding auxiliary through lanes, adding two 

way left turn lanes, and several other related subcategories.

Figure 11 shows the number of projects by improvement category (top 11) as classified in the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance. Based on the project information reported by the States, the top five 

improvement categories are roadway, intersection traffic control, roadside, intersection 

geometry, and roadway signs and traffic control. In 2017, the top five improvement categories 

were the same, as were the ranking of project categories. 

Figure 11. Chart. Number of projects by improvement category (top 11). 

Figure 12 shows the number of projects by improvement category (bottom 8) as classified in 

the HSIP Reporting Guidance. Note that in 2018 there were no projects reported for work zone,

multiple, or animal-related categories. There was about one-third as many alignment and

railroad grade crossing projects compared to 2017. The remaining bottom-ranking categories

were similar to 2017. 
13

Figure 12. Chart. Number of projects by improvement category (bottom 8).

Figure 13 shows the average total cost of projects by improvement category (top 11). It is 

important to note that, similar to 2017, the average is based only on the number of projects 

with costs available (projects with deobligated costs and those reporting $0 cost were 

excluded). Some notable differences in average project costs are below. 

• Interchange design – remains the top improvement category (decreased from $8.4

million in 2017 to $5.3 million in 2018).

• Parking – Two truck parking projects in 2018 made this the second-highest cost

improvement category, moved from bottom 8 in 2017 to top 11 in 2018 (increased from

$30,000 in 2017 to $5.0 million in 2018).

• Intersection traffic control – moved from the bottom 8 in 2017 to the top 11 in 2018

(increased from $560,000 in 2017 to $915,000 in 2018).

• Intersection geometry – moved from the top 11 in 2018 to bottom 8 in 2018 (however,

average cost for this category remained the same).
14

Figure 13. Chart. Average total cost of projects by improvement category (top 11). 

Based on project information reported by the States (figure 14), the lowest average HSIP cost 

projects are in the following categories: 

• Railroad grade crossings; 13 projects with cost information.

• Non-infrastructure; 264 projects with cost information.

• Roadway signs and traffic control; 305 projects with cost information.

• Lighting; 165 projects with cost information.

• Speed management; 18 projects with cost information.

Figure 14. Chart. Average total cost of projects by improvement category (bottom 8). 

The report highlights further evaluation of the intersection geometry and intersection traffic 

control categories because in 2018 (as in previous years) they ranked in the top five in terms of 
15

number of projects categorized. FHWA has also identified intersections as one of three focus 

areas for the Focused Approach to Safety effort.(12)

 

For the Intersection Geometry category in figure 15, most projects are sub categorized as 

“Intersection geometrics – other/unknown” (62 percent; 258 of 413 projects) or “Auxiliary lanes 

– add left-turn lane” (15 percent; 62 of 413 projects). Examples of projects in the “Intersection 

geometrics – other/unknown” subcategory include modify intersection corner radius and 

general intersection safety improvement projects. The “Intersection geometrics – 

other/unknown” subcategory is predominately used without any project description; therefore, 

no other information is available for these projects.

Figure 15. Chart. Number of intersection geometry projects by subcategory. 

For the intersection traffic control category in figure 16, most projects are subcategorized as 

“Modify traffic signal” (30 percent; 173 of 583 projects), “Intersection traffic control – 

other/unknown” (25 percent; 148 of 583 projects), and “Modify control to roundabout” (21

percent; 123 of 583 projects). Examples of projects in the “Intersection traffic control – 

other/unknown” category include projects described as signal and stop controlled systemic 

improvements and general intersection traffic control improvement projects. Examples of 

projects in the “Modify traffic signal” category include modernization/replacement of traffic 

signal and adding flashing yellow arrow signals. The “Intersection traffic control – 

other/unknown” subcategory is predominately used without any project description; therefore, 

no other information is available for these projects. 
16

Figure 16. Chart. Number of traffic control projects by subcategory. 

The report also highlights further evaluation of the pedestrian and bicycle category because 

infrastructure improvements in this category are of significant interest to various stakeholders. 

FHWA has also identified pedestrians and bicyclists as one of three focus areas under the 

Focused Approach to Safety effort. 

For the pedestrians and bicyclists category in figure 17, most projects are subcategorized as 

“Miscellaneous pedestrian and bicyclist improvements” (64 percent; 90 of 141 projects) and 

“Install or modify pedestrian signal” (14 percent; 20 of 141 projects). Many of the projects in 

the “Miscellaneous pedestrian and bicyclist improvements” subcategory do not have any 

project description; therefore, no other information is available for these projects.

Figure 17. Chart. Number of pedestrian and bicyclist projects by subcategory. 
17

The report also highlights further evaluation of the roadway and roadside categories because in 

2018 (as in previous years) they ranked in the top five in terms of number of projects 

categories, with roadway category being the number one category associated with HSIP

projects. FHWA has also identified roadway departure as one of three focus areas for the 

Focused Approach to Safety effort. 

For the roadway category shown in figure 18, most projects were subcategorized as “Roadway 

– other/unknown” (53 percent; 557 of 1047 projects) and “Rumble strips” (30 percent; 313 of

1047 projects). Examples of projects in the “Roadway – other/unknown” subcategory were

projects such as “restripe to revise separation between opposing lanes and/or shoulder

widths.”

Figure 18. Chart. Number of roadway projects by subcategory. 

For the roadside category in figure 19, most projects were subcategorized as “Barrier” (56 

percent; 257 of 456 projects), “Removal of roadside objects” (21 percent; 94 of 456 projects), 

and “Roadside – other/unknown” (14 percent; 63 of 456 projects). Examples of two projects in 

the “Roadside – other/unknown” subcategory were “Barrier - removal” and “Fencing.” 
18

Figure 19. Chart. Number of roadside projects by subcategory. 

FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures

In 2008, FHWA began promoting certain infrastructure-oriented safety treatments and 

strategies, chosen based on proven effectiveness and benefits, to encourage widespread 

implementation by State, tribal, and local transportation agencies to reduce serious injuries and 

fatalities on American highways. This became known as the Proven Safety Countermeasures

initiative.(14)

The Proven Safety Countermeasures includes a total of 20 treatments and strategies that 

practitioners can implement to successfully address roadway departure, intersection, and 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Among the 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures are several 

crosscutting strategies that address multiple safety focus areas.

Table 1 shows a summary of the number and costs of the 2018 HSIP projects by the most 

common FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures. It is important to note that this information is 

based on the States’ descriptions of each project. Some projects may have incorporated one or 

more of the Proven Safety Countermeasures without reporting it explicitly. Therefore, it is likely 

that these numbers are actually higher than the values shown in table 1. 
19

Table 1. Total number and cost of 2018 projects by FHWA proven safety countermeasures.

FHWA Proven Countermeasure 2018 HSIP Projects

2018 Total 

Expenditures

Median Barrier* 81 $109.1M

Roundabouts 147 $199.0M

Rumble Strips** 326 $101.9M

Road Diet 24 $70.8M

High Friction Surface Treatment 73 $56.1M

Curve Warning Signs 57 $20.4M

Backplates with Retroreflective Borders 12 $6.4M

Systemic Application of Multiple Low-Cost Countermeasures at Stop-Controlled Intersections 4 $0.94M

Corridor Access Management 27 $76.3M

Left and Right-Turn Lanes at Stop-Controlled Intersections*** 148 $123.6M

Medians and Pedestrian Crossing Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas 14 $16.4M

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 5 $1.9M

Walkways (install sidewalk) 24 $8.5M

Walkways (shoulder related projects) 193 $300M

Road Safety Audits 28 $15.1M

Note: * = cable median barriers only; ** = center line and edge line rumble strips only; *** = all auxiliary turn lane projects - both signalized and stop-controlled intersections. 
20

SHSP Emphasis Areas

Based on a review of State SHSPs, FHWA identified the eight SHSP emphasis areas common 

across most States. These emphasis areas are used in the HSIP online reporting tool for 

categorizing HSIP projects. Figure 20 presents the number of HSIP projects categorized by SHSP 

emphasis area. For consistency and national reporting purposes, State-defined SHSP emphasis 

areas were assigned to these emphasis areas, where possible. 

Approximately 37 percent of the projects were categorized as “Roadway Departure” (40

percent in 2016 and 39 percent in 2017), 30 percent were categorized as “Intersections” (29 

percent in 2016 and 31 percent in 2017), 5 percent were categorized as “Pedestrians” (4 

percent in 2016 and 2017), and 15 percent categorized as “Unknown/Other” (13 percent in 

2016 and 10 percent in 2017). Examples of other categories used by the States include: 

“Highway Infrastructure,” “Railroad,” and “Lighting.” 

Figure 20. Chart. Number of projects by SHSP emphasis area. 

2014-2018 Comparison

The number and cost of HSIP projects continues to increase each year. As shown in table 2, the 

total number of projects and cost of projects continues to increase each year from 2014 to 

2017. For 2018, the total number of projects decreased by 200 projects over 2017, but the

increasing trend in costs continued in 2018, with an increase of about $0.2 billion over 2017. 

However, the breakdown in project costs for various breakpoints was similar across years. 

Table 3 shows the 2014 through 2018 comparison of the number of projects and average total 

cost of projects for various project types highlighted in this report (does not include projects 

with deobligated funds or projects where no value was reported or the value entered was $0). 

For most project types, the number and cost of projects has increased over the five-year 

period. 
21

Table 2. Total number of projects and project cost breakdown, 2014-2018.

Year 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 2018 % 

Number of 

projects 3,348 n/a 4,188 n/a 4,468 n/a 4,943 n/a 4,713 n/a

Number of 

projects

(with cost 

info.)*

3,272 n/a 3,830 n/a 3,726 n/a 4,616 n/a 4,254 n/a

Cost of 

projects* $3.10B n/a $3.90B n/a $4.03B n/a $4.3B n/a $4.5B n/a

Average 

cost per 

project

$952K n/a $1.02M n/a $1.08M n/a $879K n/a $961K n/a

Number of 

projects 

<$100K

1,011 30% 1,374 33% 1,106 25% 1,634 33% 1,357 29% 

Number of 

projects 

$100K - 

$499K

1,054 31% 1,131 27% 1,246 28% 1,550 31% 1,432 30% 

Number of 

projects 

$500K-$1M

450 13% 445 11% 478 11% 561 11% 528 11% 

Number of 

projects 

$1M+

757 23% 880 21% 896 20% 871 18% 937 20% 

Number of 

projects 

with 

deobligated 

funds

28 1% 146 3% 256 6% 285 6% 41 1% 

Number of 

projects 

with $0 or 

blank

48 1% 212 5% 486 11% 42 1% 418 9% 

Note: For 2017 and 2018, the number of projects with cost info and cost of projects do not include projects with deobligated 

funds or where the value entered was $0. 2017 and 2018 data includes PR HSIP projects. Therefore, comparisons with previous 

years should be made with caution.
22

Table 3. Number of projects and average total project cost for various project types, 2014-2018. 

Project Type

Num. of 

Projects 

2014

Avg. 

Cost

2014

Num. of 

Projects 

2015

Avg. 

Cost

2015

Num. of 

Projects 

2016

Avg. 

Cost 

2016

Num. of 

Projects 

2017

Avg. 

Cost 

2017

Num. of 

Projects 

2018

Avg. 

Cost 

2018

Urban projects 954 $1.3M 1,236 $1.2M 1,277 $1.7M 1,179 $1.2M 1,027 $1.3M

Rural projects 1,361 $890K 1,847 $1.1M 1,683 $956K 1,920 $998k 1,661 $959K

Roadway projects 722 $955K 1,195 $671K 1,244 $1.1M 1,357 $1.1M 1,047 $940K

Intersection traffic 

control projects 505 $702k 615 $798K 608 $704K 751 $560K 583 $915K

Intersection 

geometry projects 379 $983K 559 $1.0M 458 $1.1M 439 $910K 413 $902K

Pedestrian/bicycle 

projects 118 $507K 122 $965K 180 $866K 182 $667K 141 $1.06M

Roadside projects 303 $810K 422 $893K 444 $1.2M 485 $896K 456 $960K

Note: For 2017 and 2018, the number of projects and average cost do not include projects with deobligated funds or where the value entered was zero. 2017 and 2018 data 

includes Puerto Rico HSIP projects. Therefore, comparisons with previous years should be made with caution.
23

Comparison to Previous Years

The HSIP National Summary Baseline Report 2009-2012 reported project and cost information 

for HSIP reports submitted by the States for years 2009-2012.

(13) The information from the 

baseline report is summarized below with the purpose of comparing basic cost and project 

information to the 2013 through 2018 reports. Table 4 shows that States obligated $29.4 billion 

for approximately 34,000 projects over the 10-year period. These obligations include not only 

HSIP funds apportioned during the reporting period (2009-2018), but also HSIP funds available 

from previous years’ apportionments. 
24

Table 4. Total number and cost of projects by year. 

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Num. of Projects 1,684 2,386 2,523 2,429 3,292 3,348 4,188 4,468 4,943 4,713 33,974

Num. of Projects 

(with cost info.)* 1,568 2,320 2,397 2,311 3,171 3,272 3,830 3,726 4,616 4,254 31,465

Cost of projects* $1.61B $1.46B $1.78B $1.65B $3.09B $3.10B $3.90B $4.03B $4.3B $4.5B $29.4B

Avg. Cost Per Project* $1.0M $629K $743K $722K $981K $952K $1.0M $1.1M $940K $1.05M $912K

Note: * = For 2017 and 2018, the number of projects with cost info and cost of projects do not include projects with deobligated funds or where the value entered was zero. 

2017 and 2018 data includes Puerto Rico HSIP projects. Therefore, comparisons with previous years should be made with caution.
25

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the HSIP

FHWA also conducted a national evaluation of the HSIP to estimate expected program results 

using the project information from the 2018 HSIP reports. The purpose of the evaluation was to 

estimate a national benefit-cost ratio for the HSIP. The HSIP national benefit-cost ratio provides 

an indication of the program’s national impact and the benefits the public can expect from 

investments in the HSIP. 

The evaluation methodology makes use of the full project listing information from 50 States

plus the District of Columbia and associated crash modification factors (CMFs) from the CMF 

Clearinghouse, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the Highway Performance 

Monitoring System (HPMS), the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), FHWA, and various 

reports. Puerto Rico was also excluded, given that road improvement project needs and costs 

deviate from those in the continental U.S. The following steps indicate how to apply the 

selected methodology for HSIP projects with complete data:

1. Calculate the estimated crash reduction for each project group.

a. Estimate a “before” crash rate using data from FARS, HPMS, and HSIS.

b. Identify appropriate CMFs from the CMF Clearinghouse.

2. Calculate the monetary benefit for each project category by converting crash savings to

dollar amounts.

a. The crash cost values in the 2018 analysis are based on the crash severity values

recommended by Harmon et al. in a recent FHWA resource entitled “Crash Costs

for Highway Safety Analysis.”(15) The values for each combination of crash

severities (e.g., K, KA, KAB, etc.) were calculated using information from Council

et al. and the methodology reported in a memo written by Bhagwant Persaud to

FHWA.(16,17)

3. Divide annual monetary benefit by the annualized project cost to calculate the benefitcost ratio.

a. Assume a service life per treatment type using information from the Service Life

and Crash Cost User Guide available on the CMF Clearinghouse.

4. Calculate a program wide benefit-cost ratio by averaging the ratios from all project

groups.

a. Weight the average based on HSIP funds spent for a project to account for

project groups which were more prevalent in the data.

For this reporting cycle, it was possible to calculate the expected project level benefit cost 

ratios for 946 segment and intersection-based projects, which is approximately 20 percent of 

the projects listed in the 2018 HSIP Project Database. Table 5 presents the weighted results 

(based on amount of HSIP funds that were spent for that project). Many projects had a range of 
26

years for the assumed service life, so the table presents the BC ratio according to the minimum 

and maximum service lives.

The values in the bottom row of table 5 (ranging from 4.76 to 8.64) represent the range of BC 

ratios for the HSIP program for segment and intersection-based improvement projects, 

depending on the minimum or maximum service life of the treatment and discount rate. 

Comparatively, the ranges for the 2016 and 2017 HSIP project listings were 4.36 to 6.51 and 

6.09 to 11.24, respectively.

Table 5. Weighted benefit-cost ratio for segment and intersection based projects (weight 

based on total project cost).

Weighted B/C 

Ratio (min 

Service Life, 

3% discount 

rate)

Weighted B/C 

Ratio (max 

Service Life, 

3% discount 

rate)

Weighted B/C 

Ratio (min 

Service Life, 

7% discount 

rate)

Weighted B/C 

Ratio (max 

Service Life, 

7% discount 

rate)

685 Segment-based HSIP 

Projects (weighted on 

segment project cost)

7.02 10.50 5.61 7.59

261 Intersection-based 

HSIP Projects (weighted 

on intersection project 

cost)

3.46 3.75 2.55 2.70

946 Segment & 

Intersection-based HSIP 

Projects (weighted on 

segment & intersection 

project cost)

6.03 8.64 4.76 6.24

Many projects could not be included in analysis because they were either missing key data 

elements (e.g., number of miles or intersections treated, CMF, project cost, etc.) or were noninfrastructure projects. The calculated benefit-cost ratio for each of the 946 projects relied 

heavily on assumptions for each project regarding the applicable CMF, service life, crash rate, 

and injury severity cost.

Summary

The HSIP is a performance-driven program that uses data and analysis to target safety 

resources. This HSIP 2018 National Summary Report shows that in 2018, States directed HSIP 

funds to address the predominant infrastructure-related crash types: roadway departure, 

intersection and pedestrian crashes, similar to previous years. On average, States obligated 42 

percent of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements. While the basic characteristics (rural 

and urban, improvement categories, and SHSP emphasis areas) of HSIP spending remains fairly 
27

consistent from year to year, the number and cost of HSIP projects has continued to increase 

over the 10-year period from 1,684 projects with a total cost of $1.61 billion in 2009 to 4,713

projects with a total cost of $4.5 billion in 2018. Based on a sample of 2018 HSIP projects, 

FHWA estimates that the benefits of the HSIP outweigh the costs on a scale ranging from 4.76

to 8.64.
28

Related Reports and Resources

FHWA, FAST Act Apportionment Fact Sheet

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/apportionmentfs.cfm

FHWA, HSIP Apportionment Notices

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/

FHWA, HSIP FAST Act Fact Sheet

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm

FHWA, HSIP Reporting Guidance, December 29, 2016 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/hsip_reporting_guidance.cfm

FHWA, HSIP Online Reporting Tool

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/onrpttool/

FHWA, HSIP National Summary Baseline Report 2009-2012

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/nsbrpt_2009_2012.cfm

FHWA, HSIP 2013 National Summary Report

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/nsbrpt2013.cfm

FHWA, HSIP 2014 National Summary Report

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2014/hsip_natl2014.pdf

FHWA, HSIP 2015 National Summary Report

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2015/hsip_natl2015.pdf

FHWA, HSIP 2016 National Summary Report

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2016/hsip_natl2016.pdf

FHWA, HSIP 2017 National summary Report

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2017/fhwasa18031.pdf

FHWA, 2018 State HSIP Reports

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/
29

Appendix A: Full Description of HSIP Improvement Categories

and Subcategories for 2013 HSIP Reporting Guidance

Table 6. HSIP improvement categories and subcategories. 

Category Subcategory

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
30

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 signmounted

Intersection flashers – add advance emergency vehicle 

warning sign-mounted

Intersection flashers – add advance heavy vehicle warning 

sign-mounted

Intersection flashers – add advance intersection warning signmounted

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 (doubleup and/or oversize)
31

Intersection signing – add enhanced regulatory sign (doubleup 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)
32

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
33

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
34

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
35

Appendix B. Detailed Tables of Project Costs Summaries

Table 7. Number and cost of 2018 projects by improvement category. 

Improvement Category

Number 

of 

Projects

Total Cost of 

Projects*

Average Total 

Cost*

Total HSIP Cost of 

Projects*

Average HSIP 

Cost*

Access Management 36 $107,313,140.81 $2,980,920.58 $37,833,493.64 $1,050,930.38

Advanced Technology and ITS 39 $53,290,759.44 $1,366,429.73 $33,091,283.49 $848,494.45

Alignment 27 $76,567,495.27 $2,835,833.16 $39,353,482.52 $1,457,536.39

Interchange Design 36 $189,100,014.94 $5,252,778.19 $79,281,548.71 $2,202,265.24

Intersection Geometry 413 $372,572,510.16 $902,112.62 $227,264,169.11 $554,302.85

Intersection Traffic Control 584 $534,407,246.61 $915,080.90 $311,909,695.91 $535,927.31

Lighting 165 $76,680,248.75 $464,728.78 $70,041,056.32 $427,079.61

Non-Infrastructure 264 $157,582,795.74 $596,904.53 $131,930,677.75 $517,375.21

Parking 2 $10,091,574.00 $5,045,787.00 $4,938,458.00 $2,469,229.00

Pedestrian and Bicyclists 146 $155,315,159.49 $1,063,802.46 $85,337,878.44 $651,434.19

Railroad Grade Crossings 13 $9,653,459.00 $742,573.77 $6,492,792.00 $499,445.54

Roadside 456 $437,880,982.93 $960,265.31 $339,921,173.27 $757,062.75

Roadway 1,047 $983,918,890.66 $939,750.61 $458,352,998.33 $441,999.03

Roadway Delineation 164 $127,153,590.93 $775,326.77 $104,641,771.76 $638,059.58

Roadway Signs and Traffic Control 305 $161,758,671.33 $530,356.30 $101,663,552.15 $340,011.88

Shoulder Treatments 203 $305,437,849.52 $1,504,619.95 $208,506,107.93 $1,032,208.46

Speed Management 18 $5,104,055.79 $283,558.66 $4,956,059.92 $275,336.66

Unknown/Other 336 $696,280,769.89 $3,220,761.32 $70,217,030.56 $895,204.40

Total 4,254 $4,460,109,215.27 $1,048,450.69 $2,315,733,229,81 $575,909.78

Note: * = not all States provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or deobligated funds were excluded.
36

Table 8. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for intersection geometry. 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn lane 62 $74,621,775.79

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn lane 14 $8,782,386.00

Auxiliary lanes - other 53 $87,564,927.65

Intersection geometrics - modify skew angle 14 $5,644,987.56

Intersection geometrics - other/unknown 258 $161,637,548.70

Intersection geometrics - realignment to improve 

offset 12 $34,320,884.45

Total 413 $372,572,510.20

Note: Not all States provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or 

deobligated funds were excluded.

Table 9. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for intersection traffic control. 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost

Intersection flashers and signing 87 $21,521,889.00

Intersection traffic control - other/unknown 148 $149,518,515.50

Modify control to roundabout 123 $199,031,260.30

Modify traffic signal 173 $126,643,470.90

Modify traffic signal timing or phasing 48 $33,791,700.00

Pavement markings 4 $399,410.87

Total 583 $531,207,246.60

Note: Not all States provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or 

deobligated funds were excluded. One project with a blank subcategory was also excluded from table 7, but is included in table 

5. 

Table 10. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost

Install or modify crosswalk 14 $6,650,914.19

Install or modify pedestrian signal 20 $19,296,452.35

Install sidewalk 17 $8,470,204.08

Miscellaneous pedestrian and bicyclist 

improvements

90 $80,743,437.87

Total 141 $115,161,008.50

Note: Not all States provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or 

deobligated funds were excluded. Five projects with blank subcategories were also excluded from table 8 but are included in

table 5. 
37

Table 11. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for roadway. 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost

Pavement surface 83 $199,829,278.00

Roadway - other/unknown 557 $433,695,938.40

Roadway narrowing (road diet, roadway 

reconfiguration) 20 $70,790,474.63

Roadway widening 60 $161,358,761.90

Rumble strips 313 $104,261,265.50

Superelevation / cross slope 14 $13,983,172.27

Total 1,047 $983,918,890.70

Note: Not all States provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or 

deobligated funds were excluded.

Table 12. Number and cost of projects by subcategory for roadside. 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost

Barrier 257 $279,560,113.80

Barrier end treatments 30 $28,766,681.61

Curb and drainage improvements 2 $324,013.00

Removal of roadside objects 94 $56,883,503.42

Roadside grading 10 $24,051,944.00

Roadside – other/unknown 63 $48,294,727.10

Total 456 $437,880,982.90

Note: Not all States provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or 

deobligated funds were excluded.
38

References

1. Federal Highway Administration. (2016, February). Fast Act HSIP Fact Sheet.

Washington, D.C. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm

2. 23 U.S. Code § 148. Highway safety improvement program

3. 23 U.S.C. 148(h)

4. Highway Safety Improvement Program Reporting Guidance, Date Issued: December 29,

2016, Effective Date: 2017 Reporting Cycle. Accessed April 2019 at

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/hsip_reporting_guidance.pdf.

5. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) –

Reporting. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/

6. Federal Highway Administration. (2019, March). Fast Act Funding, Washington, D.C.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/funding.cfm

7. AASHTO. (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.

8. 23 U.S.C. 130(e)

9. 23 U.S.C. 505(a)

10. 23 U.S.C. 148(g)

11. Federal Highway Administration. (2010, January). Highway Safety Improvement Program

Manual, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-SA-09-029, Washington,

D.C. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/

12. Federal Highway Administration, Focused Approach to Safety.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fas/

13. Smith, S. (2013, December). Highway Safety Improvement Program, National Summary

Baseline Report: 2009-2012, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWASA-14-006, Washington, D.C.

14. Federal Highway Administration. (2018, November). Proven Safety Countermeasures.

Washington, D.C. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/

15. Harmon, T., Bahar, G., and Gross, F. (2018, January). Crash Costs for Highway Safety

Analysis, Federal Highway Administration, Report FHWA-SA-17-071, Washington, D.C.

16. Council, F., Zaloshnja, E., Miller, T., and Persaud, B. (2005, October). Crash Cost

Estimates by Maximum Police-Reported Injury Severity Within Selected Crash

Geometries, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HRT-05-051, Washington, D.C.

17. Persaud, B. (2014, November). How to convert value of a statistical life to cost per crash

by severity, crash type and speed limit, Federal Highway Administration Draft Memo for

DCMF Evaluations (unpublished). 
For More Information:

Visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip

FHWA, Office of Safety

Karen Scurry 

karen.scurry@dot.gov

609-637-4207

FHWA-SA-19-028