Page 1 of 40

MARYLAND

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 55

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence............................................................. 3

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 6

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................22

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................22

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................24

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................33

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................33

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................38

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................44

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................45

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................45

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................46

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................50

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................51

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................54

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................55
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 55

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. 407 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.”
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 55

Executive Summary

Summary Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CY 2020

• The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division.

• The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, 

to identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience 

and, as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. 

• HSIP Staff is located in the Planning, Engineering and Highway Safety Office portions of MDOT.

• HSIP is administered centrally via Statewide Competitive Application Process. 

• Local roads were not allocated HSIP funds in CY 2020 yet but a new program was established in 2020 and 

local roads will be allocated HSIP fund starting from CY2021.

• The Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) along with the Maryland Transportation Authority and the 

Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services are important partners with the Maryland State Highway 

Administration (SHA) in the HSIP process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and several regional planning 

organizations along with local governments, various police agencies and academic organizations also 

coordinate with the SHA. 

• Programs administered under the HSIP 

1. Median Barrier 

2. Horizontal Curve 

3. Skid Hazard 

4. Roadway Departure 

5. Left-turn crash 

6. Intersection Crash Data 

7. Low Cost Spot Improvements 

8. Pedestrian Safety 

9. Rural State Highway 

10. Right Angle Crash 

11. Highway Sections 

• The data types used in the HSIP program methodology are vehicle crashes, traffic volume and highway 

mileage.

• The project identification methodology used in the HSIP program are crash frequency and relative severity 

index.

• The HSIP projects are advanced for implementation by a SHA selection committee. The criteria considered 

are Safety, Congestion, Operations and Local Support. This will be revised in the future.

• Engineering studies and Road Safety Assessments are used to identify potential countermeasures.

• The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies that are related to the HSIP.

• Reporting period for HSIP funding is CY 2020. 

• All police crash reports used for the crash database are in electronic format as of January 1, 2015

• The general listing of projects includes various traffic control, roadside, lighting, intersection geometry and 

pedestrian-bicyclist access projects.

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of fatalities have increased from 505 

(FARS) in 2016 to 573 (MD) in 2020 (annual format) and that the number of serious injuries (MD) have 

decreased from 3,167 in 2016 to 2,707 in 2020 (annual format). Please note that all 2019 FARS totals are 

preliminary at the time of this report. 2020 FARS totals are not available with state totals being used instead at 

the time of the report. Please also note that during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020 VMT dropped for about 

24%, but the number of serious injuries didn’t drop at the same rate and the number of fatalities increased
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 55

instead. The impact of the Pandemic on fatal and serious injury crashes seems significant and please use 

caution when analyzing safety performance in CY2020.

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of non-motorized fatalities have increased 

from 124 (FARS) in 2016 to 146 (MD) in 2020 (annual format) and that the number of non-motorized serious 

injuries (MD) have decreased from 486 in 2016 to 426 in 2020 (annual format). Please see above note on 

2019-20 FARS totals and impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

• Overall five-year average crash trends for the individual functional classification and roadway ownership are 

shown in tables in the annual report.

• Maryland maintains the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce 

fatalities by at least 50 percent in the next two decades.

• “To begin, the development team conducted one-on-one interviews with key traffic safety partners across 

Maryland. Safety partners included leaders from government agencies, education and outreach professionals, 

local law enforcement, and emergency services agencies. During the interviews, the team solicited insight into 

the status of traffic safety initiatives and current and future safety priorities for Maryland roadways.” 

“Information gathered from this safety partner survey helped refine goals, solicit new/updated action steps, 

identify emerging issues, and examine the progress of each SHSP Emphasis Area.” (2021-25 SHSP). 

• Older Driver and pedestrian (65 and older) Fatalities increased from 82 in 2013 to 130 in 2019 (FARS – 

annual numbers. 2019 FARS totals are preliminary at the time of this report). Serious Injuries increased from 

235 in 2013 to 265 in 2019 (MD – annual numbers).

• The State measures effectiveness of the HSIP by the change in fatalities and serious injuries.

• Overall yearly crash trends for the individual SHSP (Strategic Highway Safety Program) emphasis areas are 

shown in tables in the annual report.

• All Maryland counties along with Baltimore City are now provided a three-year listing of pedestrian involved 

crashes which includes a summary of serious injury and fatal crashes on state highways along with a detailed 

listing for local roads.

• Maryland’s current SHSP was approved by the Governor or designated State representative in January 2021.

• The years being covered by the current SHSP are 2021 to 2025. 

• Maryland anticipates completing its next SHSP update by 2025. 

• The status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts are shown in tables in 

the annual report.

• MDOT SHA has implemented Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and 

LRS data for HPMS submission. This year MDOT SHA used Roads and Highways for their HPMS submission. 

With the Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manager intersection data, and data gaps, we will be 

able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026.

• In conjunction with the Esri R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline (OMOC) 

program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of data 

between jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate authority. We have begun a 

pilot conflation process between MDOT SHA and two county jurisdictions to test process and develop the 

protocols that will be used for the integration of the remaining counties of Maryland. This geometry will be the 

base of the R&H data model. This data sharing and cooperation between the local and state jurisdictions will 

better allow us to identify and fill data gaps, with the appropriate, authoritative information.

• FHWA has authorized several pilots to investigate developing methodologies to more accurately calculate 

local AADTs for lower functionally classified roadways. MIRE FDEs require this type of data, while the local 

jurisdictions do not have the wherewithal nor need to completely capture and maintain this type of data. 

Therefore, the need to develop better proxies or models to better estimate these AADTs for local roads is an 

ongoing activity.

• Following in Federal law, 23 U.S.C. 148(i), an HSIP Implementation Plan was developed in CY 2020 to define 

strategies and projects that will result in Maryland reaching or making substantial progress toward achieving its 

Safety Performance Targets for FY2021 and beyond.
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 55

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. 

The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division.

Emphasis on Maryland’s highways is placed on improving the safety of intersections, sections and ramps that 

are identified as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs) or through Road Safety Audits, on 

implementing proven blanket safety improvements on a systematic basis, and on applying systemic approach 

to identify and improve areawide locations with low-cost, proven countermeasures proactively. Safety 

improvements include the installation of rumble strips and median barriers; upgrading signs, signals, and 

markings; improving lighting; improving geometrics; and highway and bridge widening, resurfacing, 

rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

The processes used to identify locations, referred to in the HSIP as hazardous locations, which have abnormal 

accident experience. Those locations, referred to herein as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs), 

include intersections, spots and sections where the combination of accident frequencies and/or rates are 

significantly higher than those at similar locations. The identification of CSILs is based on all police reported 

collisions, i.e., those crashes reported by law enforcement agencies across Maryland to the Maryland State 

Police. Information from these reports is entered into a statewide accident database for analysis.

The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) typically identifies 

CSILs only on the state maintained highway system. Several local jurisdictions use the accident data, which 

MDOT SHA provides to all of the jurisdictions annually, to identify similar location on their road systems.

The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, to 

identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience and, 

as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. Locations 

identified by the District Engineers as having a combined safety/capacity problem although not necessarily 

qualifying as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations, also can be included as candidate Fund 76 Program 

projects. The MDOT SHA Administrator makes the final project selection.

Maryland's Fund 76 Spot Improvement Program was developed under the guidelines set forth in 23 CFR 924, 

and was designed to address the most critical highway safety problems statewide through a systematic and 
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 55

unbiased approach. The Fund 76 Program is under the direction of the MDOT SHA's Deputy 

Administrator/Chief Engineer for Operations, with program development and assistance from the Office of 

Traffic and Safety.

Through the Fund 76 process, accident data for all State highways is reviewed annually, and all sections and 

intersections experiencing abnormally high accident rates are studied to determine what countermeasures are 

applicable. In addition, listings of accidents on local roads are sent to the local governments for their use.

Systemic countermeasures are applied in the Fund 76 Program. In addition, MDOT SHA is developing a 

Systemic Approach Program following the FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool. We identified 

statewide focus crash types and risk factors, screened and prioritized candidate locations, selected 

corresponding countermeasures, and prioritized systemic improvement projects for each facility type. The 

systemic projects are currently under review and will start to be implemented in the near future. 

In Maryland about 1⁄4 fatalities and serious crashes occurred on roadways maintained by local agencies and 

HSIP fund need to be allocated to them to improve traffic safety on local roadways. MDOT SHA developed the 

HSIP Local Fund Program and stared the application in FFY2021. Multiple projects from various Counties in 

Maryland were reviewed and selected by MDOT SHA. Starting from FFY2022, local projects will be 

implemented with support from HSIP in Maryland.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Engineering

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

MDOT SHA developed the HSIP Local Fund Program in FFY2021. Draft Guideline and application forms were 

provided to local agencies. Eligible Counties must have a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). Cities and 

municipalities can also participate through their county. For the first 1~2 years or the new program, we would 

support systemic improvement only and spot improvement will be eligible in later years. The application was 

due by July 1 each year and MDOT SHA reviewed and selected projects based on systemwide data, with 

emphasis on characteristics frequently present in severe crashes, and identified and prioritized locations 

across the roadway network for implementation. The selected local project will be supported with HSIP fund in 

the next federal fiscal year starting from October 1. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Districts/Regions

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Maryland State Highway District Offices

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Within the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) the State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) 

Office of Traffic and Safety (OOTS) and Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering (OPPE) along with the 
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 55

Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) provided leadership, support, 

and coordination for Maryland's highway safety projects in CY 2019. Part of MDOT SHA and MVA's 

responsibility is to work with other State agencies to address highway safety issues. This effort results in a 

multi-agency approach which includes the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Maryland Institute for 

Emergency Medical Services and others that have roles in highway safety problems. The seven MDOT SHA 

District Offices also provide a network of field personnel willing to coordinate and provide technical assistance 

to local agencies.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-External partners including MPOs, local government, police agencies and academic 

organizations were included in the 2016-20 SHSP planning process

Describe coordination with external partners.

As stated in the 2021-2025 SHSP (Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan), stakeholder groups which 

included HSIP external partners participated in the development of the SHSP to identify, develop, and finalize 

strategies for the 2021-2025 SHSP. Stakeholder groups have coordinated in the collection and maintaining of 

safety data for all public roads and processes for advancing the State's capabilities for safety data collection 

and analysis through the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee’s (TRCC).

.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

The HSIP manual is currently a draft and it is being updated to include process for funding local agencies.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Right Angle Crash

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Skid Hazard
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 55

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 55

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 55

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 

• All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 55

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 

• All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 55

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Opeartions:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 55

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

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
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 55

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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? 
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 55

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 

• All crashes • Volume
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 55

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume • Roadside features
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 55

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 

• All crashes • Volume • Functional classification
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 55

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/20/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 55

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

program?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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).

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

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 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 55

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Saftey:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 27

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Other-Raised Pavement Markings 

• Other-Roadway line striping

• Other-Sidewalk Upgrades

• Other-Traffic Barrier Upgrades

• Upgrade Guard Rails

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

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

• Engineering Study

• 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. 

We have a Connected & Automated Vehicle (CAV) program in Maryland. Various CAV projects were evaluated 

for HSIP eligibility and several projects will be supported by HSIP fund in FFY2022.

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.

The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies as part of the HSIP Planning Process.
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 55

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $24,873,399 $24,873,399 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$97,626,413 $97,626,413 100%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $122,499,812 $122,499,812 100%

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

safety projects?

0%

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

0%

MDOT SHA developed a HSIP Local Fund Program in FFY2021. Several local safety projects were submitted 

to MDOT SHA by various Counties in FFY2021. MDOT reviewed and selected local projects eligible for HSIP. 

The selected local safety projects will be implemented with HSIP fund in FFY 2022.

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

0%

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

0%
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 55

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.

none at this time
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 55

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

ADA Sidewalk Upgrades in Baltimore 

and Harford Counties

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps $212000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians

Traffic Barrier Upgrades at Various 

Location in Caroline, Cecil, Kent, 

Queen Anne's and Talbot Counties

Roadside Barrier - other $1253286.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Removal, Replacing, and New 

Installation of Raised Pavement 

Markings at Various Location in Anne 

Arundel, Calvert, Charles, and St. 

Mary’s Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Raised 

pavement 

markers

$1253967 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install and/or Replace RPM's in 

Allegany, Garrett & Washington 

Counties – Various Locations

Roadway 

delineation

Raised 

pavement 

markers

$881452 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Roadway Line Striping in Carroll, 

Frederick, and Howard Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation -

other

$2609006.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MOD/INSTALL/RECON OF LIGHTING 

- DO, SO, WI, WO, CO, CE, KE, QA, 

TA, BA, HA

Lighting Lighting - other $423360 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-195 at MD 295 and MD170 

Interchange Lighting Reconstruction

Lighting Interchange 

lighting

$4121889.7

7

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Phase I: MD 210 from MD 228 to Old 

Fort Road

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

$1466930.6

1

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 210 from Swan Creek 

Road/Livingston Road to Palmer 

Road/Livingston Road – Traffic Control 

Device Safety Enhancements – Phase 

II

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

$1112622.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 147 at Joppa Road Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$3870564.9

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 43 at Honeygo Boulevard Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$4836607.8

9

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 55

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

MD 223 (Woodyard Road) from 1000’ 

South of Victoria Drive to 265’ North of 

Sherwood Drive 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk $2831710.7

3

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians

Pavement Marking Corridor Line 

Striping at Various Locations in 

Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico and 

Worcester Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1079790 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Thermoplastic Thinline Striping at 

Various Locations in Montgomery and 

Prince George’s Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1055199.4

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Thermoplastic Thinline Striping at 

Various Locations in Montgomery and 

Prince George’s Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1055199.4

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Line Striping at Various Locations in 

Montgomery and Prince George’s 

Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1140150 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Line Striping at Various Locations in 

Montgomery and Prince George’s 

Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1140150 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Waterborne Paint Striping at Various 

Locations in Anne Arundel, Calvert, 

Charles and St. Mary’s Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$346775 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Waterborne Paint Striping at Various 

Locations in Anne Arundel, Calvert, 

Charles and St. Mary’s Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$346775 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement Marking Corridor Line 

Striping at Various Locations in 

Allegany and Garrett Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1636100 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 55

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Pavement Marking Corridor Line 

Striping at Various Locations in 

Allegany and Garrett Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1636100 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Thermoplastic Thinline Striping at 

Various Locations in Washington 

County

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1387713.7 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 140 (Reisterstown Road) from 

Stocksdale Avenue to Pleasant Hill 

Road 16 Inch & 20 Inch Water 

Transmission Main and Resurfacing

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$346781.4 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 5 from Curtis drive to North of 

Suitland Parkway & MD 637 from MD 5 

to North of Suitland Parkway Urban 

Reconstruction

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$681288.35 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 5 Point Lookout Road from the 

Causeway to South of Camp Brown 

Road - WIDENING AND 

REHABILITATION

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

$139923.4 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Thermo Thinline Paint Stripping at 

Various Locations in Anne Arundel, 

Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's 

Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$770000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Thermo Thinline Paint Stripping at 

Various Locations in Anne Arundel, 

Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's 

Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$770000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

US 50 from Table Roack Road to the 

West Virginia State Line - Safety and 

Resurfacing

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$235554.5 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 169 from Hammonds Ferry Road to 

MD 648E - Safety and Resurfacing

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$27956.3 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 55

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

MD 695A Broening Highway from 

Maryland Avenue to East of Ralls 

Avenue - SAFETY AND RESURFACE

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$366087 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Traffic Barrier Upgrades at Various 

Locations in District 4

Roadside Barrier - other $1613250 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Traffic Barrier Upgrades at Various 

Locations in District 4

Roadside Barrier - other $1613250 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-70 Eisenhower Memorial Highway 

0.44 Miles East of Boyd Road to Ashton 

Road - Safety and Resurfacing

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$597457.5 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guard Rail Upgrades at Various 

Locations in Montgomery and Prince 

George's Counties

Roadside Barrier- metal $1516419 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guard Rail Upgrades at Various 

Locations in Montgomery and Prince 

George's Counties

Roadside Barrier- metal $758209.5 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guard Rail Upgrades at Various 

Locations in Montgomery and Prince 

George's Counties

Roadside Barrier- metal $758209.5 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 213 from Mill Stream Branch to 

Gravel Run - Safety and Resurfacing

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$89467 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 26 at Old Annapolis Road/Water 

Street Road -Geometric Improvements 

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$305988.1 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 55

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

MD 261 from 9th Street to the Anne 

Arundel County Line - 2 Lane 

Reconstruction

Roadway Roadway - other $64818 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-70 Washington County Line to 

Grindstone Run Structure No. 10135 - 

RESURFACE & REHABILITATION

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$999328.5 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 32 (Sykesville Road) at Johnsville 

Road and Bennett Road - 

GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$319505.03 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

IS 68 Westbound from US 40 Alt. 

(Baltimore Avenue) to Maryland 

Avenue -Widen and Resurface

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

$2582885 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Areawide Traffic Barrier Upgrades in 

District 7 

Roadside Barrier - other $2516637.9

4

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Areawide Traffic Barrier Upgrades in 

District 7 

Roadside Barrier - other $1193482.7

6

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Modification/Installation/Reconfiguratio

n of Signing in District 3, 4 & 5

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

$2254430.5

4

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Modification/Installation/Reconfiguratio

n of Signing in District 3, 4 & 5

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

$5236695.3

4

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals at 

Various Locations in District 4

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$1300026.2

7

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 55

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals at 

Various Locations in District 4

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$349650.35 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals at 

Various Locations in District 4

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$4053669.9 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals at 

Various Locations in Districts 6 & 7

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$1280162 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals at 

Various Locations in Districts 6 & 7

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$4101021 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals in 

Districts 1 & 2

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$1382718.6 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals in 

Districts 1 & 2

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$3961857.5

6

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Modification/Installation/Reconstructio

n of Traffic Signals in District 3 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$2485035.8

4

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Modification/Installation/Reconstructio

n of Traffic Signals in District 3 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$5534390.7

3

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

US 29 from St. Andrews Way to 

Stewart Lane - Safety and Resurfacing

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$611915.75 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 55

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

US 219 Garrett Highway at Mosser 

Road - Geometric Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$319505.03 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

MD 198 Sandy Spring Road from Van 

Dusen Road to 8th Street - Safety and 

Resurfacing

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$284746.1 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals -

Statewide

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$1941747.3

4

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals -

Statewide

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$6158316.4

7

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 132 W. Belair Ave from MD 462 to 

US 40 - Safety and Resurfacing with 

Minor Drainage and ADA Upgrades

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$639908.4 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Lighting in 

Districts 6 & 7

Lighting Lighting - other $1230217.5

4

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mod/Install/Recon of Lighting in 

Districts 6 & 7

Lighting Lighting - other $3599437.3

4

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

US 40 Dual Highway from Walnut 

Street to Eastern Blvd Sidewalks - 

Phase 1 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk $739440.89 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians

Traffic Barrier Upgrades at Various 

Locations in Allegany, Garrett, and 

Washington Counties

Roadside Barrier - other $5213076.9

1

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 55

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

I-68 National Freeway at Greene Street 

SAFETY/OPERATIONAL 

IMPROVEMENTS AND RESURFACE

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$825922.84 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 68 (Lappans Road) from MD 65 to 

Barnes Road - Safety and Resurfacing 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$393872.6 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 32 Patuxent Parkway at Dorsey 

Run Road Interchange - Safety and 

Resurfacing 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$246582.6 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 32 from Guilford Road to Middle 

Patuxent River – Safety and Resurface 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$1401239.4 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Modification, Installation, and 

Reconstruction of Signals & Lighting in 

District 5 – Areawide

Lighting Lighting - other $1513282.5

3

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Modification, Installation, and 

Reconstruction of Signals & Lighting in 

District 5 – Areawide

Lighting Lighting - other $4205331.3

5

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

MD 32 Main Street to Macbeth Way -

Geometric Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$319505.03 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

I-95 from Baltimore/Howard County 

Line to MD 100 Ramps - Safety and 

Resurfacing 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$2287834 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e.

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

US 301 from MD 290 to Kent County 

Line - Safety and Resurfacing 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - other

$690297 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 55

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Modification, Installation, and 

Reconstruction of Lighting in District 3 

– Areawide 

Lighting Lighting - other $1069868.3

3

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Modification, Installation, and 

Reconstruction of Lighting in District 3 

– Areawide 

Lighting Lighting - other $2904256.5

5

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 55

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 511 465 442 520 522 558 512 521 573

Serious Injuries 3,312 2,957 3,053 2,598 3,167 3,347 3,233 3,122 2,707

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.900 0.820 0.780 0.890 0.880 0.930 0.860 0.870 1.133

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.870 5.240 5.410 4.533 5.370 5.588 5.422 5.193 5.351

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

102 114 106 108 124 128 137 133 146

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

402 396 432 372 486 563 527 506 426
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 55

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 55

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 55

2012-2019 fatalities: FARS 2019 ARF

2020 fatality: State data

*State includes pedestrian type/non-motorist types 01, 02, 03 only. (Benchmark Reports/Profiles).

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

ownership.

Year 2019

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

18.8 38.4 0.88 1.79

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

36.8 123 3.11 10.03

Rural Minor Arterial 38.8 139.2 2.18 7.81

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 55

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 Minor Collector 11.4 55.4 1.37 6.75

Rural Major Collector 30.2 108.2 1.89 6.76

Rural Local Road or 

Street

17.8 76.8 1.05 4.52

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

62.6 449.4 0.4 2.91

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

44.2 174.4 0.66 2.61

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

167 874 1.54 8.05

Urban Minor Arterial 81.6 528 1.09 7.02

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 35.2 247.4 0.83 5.83

Urban Local Road or 

Street

28 236.2 0.88 7.38
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 55

Year 2019

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

376.4 1,781

County Highway 

Agency

106.8 738

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

26.8 226.6

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency 0 2.8

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g.

Airport, School, 

University)

1.4 6.8

Indian Tribe Nation

2020 crash data were not finalized by the time we submitted the Annual Report to FHWA and 2019 crash data 

were applied as the latest crash data.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:466.6
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 55

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which presented a new 

methodology to determine highway safety performance targets. Unlike the TZD design, annual targets for the 

new SHSP will be set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over 

time are set using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate 

future targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure 

targets will be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing 

increasing trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, 

continuing with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average.

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2015-2019, e.g., the 2021 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target 

for 2019-2023; and the 2023 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target for 2021-2025.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

Number of Serious Injuries:2263.9

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which presented a new 

methodology to determine highway safety performance targets. Unlike the TZD design, annual targets for the 

new SHSP will be set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over 

time are set using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate 

future targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure 

targets will be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing 

increasing trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, 

continuing with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average.

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2015-2019, e.g., the 2021 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target 

for 2019-2023; and the 2023 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target for 2021-2025.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

Fatality Rate:0.774

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which presented a new 

methodology to determine highway safety performance targets. Unlike the TZD design, annual targets for the 

new SHSP will be set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over 

time are set using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate 

future targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure 

targets will be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing 

increasing trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, 

continuing with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average.

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2015-2019, e.g., the 2021 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 55

for 2019-2023; and the 2023 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target for 2021-2025.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

Serious Injury Rate:3.815

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which presented a new 

methodology to determine highway safety performance targets. Unlike the TZD design, annual targets for the 

new SHSP will be set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over 

time are set using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate 

future targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure 

targets will be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing 

increasing trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, 

continuing with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average.

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2015-2019, e.g., the 2021 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target 

for 2019-2023; and the 2023 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target for 2021-2025.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:554.7

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which presented a new 

methodology to determine highway safety performance targets. Unlike the TZD design, annual targets for the 

new SHSP will be set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over 

time are set using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate 

future targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure 

targets will be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing 

increasing trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, 

continuing with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average.

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2015-2019, e.g., the 2021 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target 

for 2019-2023; and the 2023 target is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target for 2021-2025.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

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

safety performance targets. 

" To begin, the development team conducted one-on-one interviews with key traffic safety partners across 

Maryland. Safety partners included leaders from government agencies, education and outreach professionals, 

local law enforcement, and emergency services agencies. During the interviews, the team solicited insight into 
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 55

the status of traffic safety initiatives and current and future safety priorities for Maryland roadways.” 

“Information gathered from this safety partner survey helped refine goals, solicit new/updated action steps, 

identify emerging issues, and examine the progress of each SHSP Emphasis Area.”[1]

The list of stakeholder safety partner agencies is as follows:

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

AAA Mid-Atlantic

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Baltimore County Police Department

Baltimore Metropolitan Council

BWI Airport

Calvert County Police Department

Carroll County Department of Health

Carroll County Department of Public Works 

Cecil County Department of Public Works

Chesapeake Region Safety Council-NSC

Crash Center for Research and Education

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Harford County Sheriff’s Office

Howard County Fire & Rescue

Howard County Government

Johns Hopkins University

MADD

Maryland Department of Agriculture

Maryland Department of Health

Maryland Department of Transportation

Maryland Farm Bureau
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 55

Maryland Highway Safety Office

MD Institute for Emergency Medical Services 

Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration

Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association

Maryland State Police

Maryland State Highway Administration

Maryland Transportation Authority Police

Montgomery County Engineering and Planning

Montgomery County Police Department

Morgan State University

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Prime Engineering

Prince George’s County Dept. of Public Works

Prince George’s County Fire & Rescue

University of MD Medical Center

University of Maryland National Study Center

Washington College

Washington Regional Alcohol Program [2]

[1] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2021-25 PG 3

[2] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2021-25 Appendix A

The process stakeholders from SHSP were consulted to establish safety performance targets

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 55

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2021 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.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 425.7 537.2

Number of Serious Injuries 3029.4 3115.2

Fatality Rate 0.750 0.935

Serious Injury Rate 5.372 5.385

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

465.8 635.2

Motor vehicle crashes continue to present a major public health concern in the U.S. and in Maryland, 

representing a leading cause, or among the top ten causes, of death for all age groups under 65. Crash trends 

are largely attributable to corresponding fluctuations in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from economic 

upturns and downturns. For example, with increased Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on Maryland roadways, the 

number of vehicles and drivers on the road creates greater exposure in environments, where risky driver 

behavior escalates negative outcomes.

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT experienced a decrease; however 

2019 reversed this trend with increased VMT and fatalities. In 2019, the state experienced 60.1 billion vehicle 

miles traveled, and with 535 fatalities that year the fatality rate was 0.89 deaths per every 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled. Maryland has experienced a downward trend in serious injuries for more than the past decade. 

Some reasons for the fluctuations in serious injury trends can be attributed to changes in how law enforcement 

is trained and submitting injury severity information on the Maryland crash report (ACRS). Year-to-year 

fluctuations are a challenging measure to track and comment on as most trends, whether positive or negative, 

occur over longer periods of time and are affected by changes in national, state, and local policies; 

transportation investments; safer vehicles and newer technologies; and shifts in generational and cultural 

norms.

Maryland is not alone, with increases in pedestrian fatalities also noted nationally, indicating a larger trend 

throughout the country that is reflected at the state and local level. Mirroring national trends, Maryland has 

steadily experienced increases in fatalities and serious injuries in its most vulnerable road users—nonmotorists (pedestrians and bicyclists). While Maryland does not have an exposure measure to determine 

precisely an increase in road use by pedestrians and bicyclists, Maryland has increased pedestrian and 

bicyclist facilities year after year and is experiencing similar trends in changes in transportation mode use seen 

nationally.

MDOT monitors these fluctuations and works diligently to prevent injuries and fatalities by implementing the 

strategies in the Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

In the 2019 report, the targets were based on Maryland 2016-2020 SHSP. In this report, we applied the 2021-

2025 SHSP and the targets are updated to: Number of Fatalities - 466.6; Number of Serious Injuries - 2,263.9; 

Fatality Rate - 0.774; Serious Injury Rate - 3.815; Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious 

Injuries - 554.7.
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 55

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

82 106 123 116 116 113 130

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

235 258 172 263 279 248 265

2020 crash data were not finalized by the time we submitted the Annual Report to FHWA and 2019 crash data 

were applied as the latest crash data. If we got the chance, we will update the Report with 2020 crash data 

afterwards.
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 55

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

the State's program level evaluations.

2020 crash data were not finalized by the time we submitted the Annual Report to FHWA and 2019 crash data 

were applied as the latest crash data.

Program Type: Wet Surface Crashes

Target Crash Type: Wet Road

2017 Fatalities - 82

2018 Fatalities – 93

2019 Fatalities – 70

2017 Serious Injuries - 461

2018 Serious Injuries – 552

2019 Serious Injuries – 368

For Wet Surface crashes, the Fatalities decreased for 17% and Serious Injuries for 25% during the 2017-19 

period.

Program Type: Left Turn Crashes

Target Crash Type: Left Turn

2017 Fatalities - 33

2018 Fatalities – 30

2019 Fatalities - 25

2017 Serious Injuries - 269

2018 Serious Injuries – 260

2019 Serious Injuries – 222

For Left Turn crashes, the Fatalities decreased for 32% and Serious Injuries for 21% during the 2017-19 

period.

Program Type: Angle Crashes

Target Crash Type: Angle

2017 Fatalities - 76

2018 Fatalities - 77

2019 Fatalities - 73

2017 Serious Injuries - 618

2018 Serious Injuries – 576

2019 Serious Injuries – 538

For Angle crashes, the Fatalities decreased for 4% and Serious Injuries for 15% during the 2017-19 period.
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 55

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period.

Work continues on an updated process for project selection and evaluation for the HSIP program. An HSIP 

Implementation Plan is created to identify activities, strategies, and projects that would improvement safety 

performance in Maryland.

In the past year much more safety projects were developed and start to be implemented. Various offices, 

including but not limited to OOTS Design Office, Planning Office, Federal Aid, Districts, meet regularly to track 

progress of HSIP projects and push the projects forward to meet the obligation goal.

In addition, following the HSIP Implementation Plan, MDOT SHA developed the HSIP Local Fund Program in 

FFY2021. Draft Guideline and application forms were provided to local agencies. Eligible Counties must have 

a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). Cities and municipalities can also participate through their county. For the 

first 1~2 years or the new program, we would support systemic improvement only and spot improvement will 

be eligible in future years. The application was due by July 1 each year and MDOT SHA reviewed and selected 

projects based on systemwide data, with emphasis on characteristics frequently present in severe crashes, 

and identified and prioritized locations across the roadway network for implementation. The selected local 

project will be supported with HSIP fund in the next federal fiscal year starting from October 1.

MDOT SHA is also developing a Systemic Approach Program following the FHWA Systemic Safety Project 

Selection Tool. We identified statewide focus crash types and risk factors, screened and prioritized candidate 

locations, selecting corresponding countermeasures, and prioritized systemic improvement projects for each 

facility type. The systemic projects are currently under review and will start to be implemented in the near 

future.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2019

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 Run-off-road 163.2 694.6 0.28 1.17

Intersections Intersections 141 1,129.8 0.24 1.91

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 114 422.2 0.19 0.71

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 10.8 68.2 0.02 0.11

Aggressive Driving All 39 180.2 0.07 0.3

Occupant Protection All 112.4 423 0.19 0.71
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 55

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)

Distracted Driving All 181 1,509.8 0.3 2.55

Impaired Driving All 162 449.8 0.27 0.76
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 55

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fatalities

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 55

2020 crash data were not finalized by the time we submitted the Annual Report to FHWA and 2019 crash data 

were applied as the latest crash data.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Fatality Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 55

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 55

Compliance Assessment

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

 01/31/2021

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2021 To: 2025

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

 2025

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 55

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

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 90 100 90

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 98 50

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

95 95

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

50 50

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

35 35

AADT Year (80) [82] 25 25

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

75 75

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 55

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

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 99.33 72.50 72.50 100.00 100.00 94.44 87.78 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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.

MDOT SHA has implemented Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and LRS data for HPMS submission. This year MDOT SHA used Roads and Highways for their HPMS submission. With the 

Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manager intersection data, and data gaps, we will be able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026.

• In conjunction with the Esri R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline (OMOC) program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of data between 

jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate authority. We have begun a pilot conflation process between MDOT SHA and two county jurisdictions to test process and develop the protocols that will be used for 

the integration of the remaining counties of Maryland. This geometry will be the base of the R&H data model. This data sharing and cooperation between the local and state jurisdictions will better allow us to identify and fill data gaps, with 

the appropriate, authoritative information.

• FHWA has authorized several pilots to investigate developing methodologies to more accurately calculate local AADTs for lower functionally classified roadways. MIRE FDEs require this type of data, while the local jurisdictions do not 

have the wherewithal nor need to completely capture and maintain this type of data. Therefore, the need to develop better proxies or models to better estimate these AADTs for local roads is an ongoing activity.
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 55

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

MDOT SHA HISP_Version 3.0.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 55

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.