Page 1 of 57

OHIO

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 57

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 20

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 20

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 23

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 29

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 29

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 42

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

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 46

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 46

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 47

Year 2017.............................................................................................................................................................. 47

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 51

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 52
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 57

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 57

Executive Summary

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

2017, Ohio had 1,180 traffic deaths and 8,763 serious injuries, representing a 4% increase in fatalities and a 

5.0% decrease in serious injuries compared to 2016. While deaths rose across all crash categories, last year 

Ohio saw increases in deaths involving Older Drivers, Distracted Drivers, and Non-seatbelt usage.

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

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

4% last year. Although the top common factors in these crashes have long been roadway departure, speed, 

alcohol, seatbelts and young drivers, over the past four years the state has seen a rise in the number of deaths 

involving pedestrians, older and distracted drivers.

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

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

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

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

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

State Highway Patrol; Federal Motor Carrier Administration; and Ohio Department of Health. These 

organizations then feed the information to a network of hundreds of other stakeholders who are getting more 

actively involved in the SHSP. 

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

statewide.

Ohio Launches Action Teams to Address Emerging Crash Trends 

Active Transportation Team

Ohio’s Active Transportation Plan is in its fourth year of implementation. As a result, the department has 

increased its investments in data collection projects to quantify the amount of bicycle and pedestrian travel 

across the state. This data will help ODOT and its partners better pinpoint where travel is occurring so we can 

collectively target our pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure investments.

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

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

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

focus on pedestrian safety. The campaign is a mix of paid advertising, public relations and social media. The 

goal is to reach as many Ohio motorists as possible to reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities in the 

Buckeye State.

Older Road User Action Team

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

team is working on implementation of several critical strategies including: reviewing national licensing 

standards and best practices; strengthening the assessment process to evaluate a driver’s ability to drive 

safely; and increasing the knowledge of medical providers, law enforcement and licensing personnel on the 

recognition, assessment, and reporting of older at-risk drivers.

So far in 2018, the team has successfully launched a statewide education campaign to raise awareness for 

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

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

available to evaluate safe driving skills; and how to plan for retirement from driving.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 57

The BMV is revising its reporting forms to make it easier for law enforcement and medical professionals to 

report concerns once they are identified. And the team is developing an educational video for law enforcement 

officers.

Distracted Driver Task Force

Last year marked Ohio’s fourth consecutive year of rising traffic deaths (1,180 in 2017). There is little doubt 

that distracted driving is playing a role.

To address this concern, ODOT and the Ohio Department of Public Safety launched a task force in June 2018 

to analyze the problem and make recommendations. Recommendations will be completed by the end of this 

year and provided to the incoming gubernatorial administration.

Other states, including Oregon, Illinois, and Michigan have launched similar task force structures to bring 

together key stakeholders to examine this growing problem. The task force will meet three to four times in 2018 

to exchange information, and develop policy and program recommendations. The task force includes law 

enforcement, advocates, research institutions and educators.

Driver Education SHSP Committee

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

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

asked to review the current state of practice and make recommendations on how we can modernize and 

improve driver and public education by the end of this year. The deadline coincides with a statewide review of 

driver education curriculum, which is underway at the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

The committee will meet three to four times in 2018 to identify which topics are the most critical to driver and 

public education, and how those topics should be communicated. The committee’s input will be used to 

develop simple, user friendly materials that can be communicated across multiple platforms. 

Increased Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Freeway and Portable Message Signs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administration and Ohio State Highway Patrol.

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

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

committee and publicized to further incentivize the effort and spread information.

Increased Local Government Engagement

ODOT has identified a full-time position to develop a Local Road Safety Program for Ohio. The program is 

intended to help facilitate and streamline the delivery of Highway Safety Program resources to local and 

regional planning organizations across the state.

The need for this locally focused effort has never been more important. More than half of all crashes in Ohio 

occur on locally maintained roads. Yet, it can be difficult to get resources and funding down to the local level 

because many entities lack the resources to analyze crash patterns, develop solutions and apply for safety 

improvement funds.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 57

The program will focus on promoting priority safety lists and providing the technical assistance needed to help 

local governments apply for HSIP funds.

As shown in some of the examples above, there are many infrastructure treatments that are now resulting from 

the different task forces and committee ideas that have been shared. The Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) funded infrastructure projects are continually advancing to support these efforts.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 57

Introduction

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

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

crashes.

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

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

are reviewed and approved by the DSRT.

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

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

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

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

safety projects is produced. 

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

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

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

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

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

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 57

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

Other-Direct Sub-Allocation to CEAO 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

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

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

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

Local Road Safety Initiative

To encourage local governments to apply for these funds, ODOT recently launched a Local Road Safety 

Initiative to facilitate and streamline the delivery of HSIP resources to local and regional planning organizations 

across the state. It can be difficult to get resources and funding down to the local level because many entities 

lack the resources to analyze crash patterns, develop solutions and apply for safety improvement funds.

To jump-start this new program, ODOT created a position to manage this effort and set goals to increase the 

number of locally sponsored projects developed through the ODOT administered Highway Safety Improvement 

Program. ODOT is providing a pool of consultants to assist planning organizations and local governments with 

completing Road Safety Audits and safety studies needed to apply for HSIP funds. Additionally, we have hired 

two consultants to assist county engineers and other local officials in developing Local Road Safety Plans. The 

program is intended to identify a region’s safety needs for the local road system and recommend safety 

improvements that could be funded through the Highway Safety Improvement Program. We have hired a 

consultant to assist ODOT in conducting systemic safety analyses and countermeasure identification for the 

local road network.

CEAO Safety Program

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

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

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

CEAO and scored using criteria developed in conjunction with ODOT.

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

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

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

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

per county for curve signage upgrade projects.

Township Sign Grants

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

administered by LTAP.

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

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

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

funds are required. Township or county forces install the signs at their own cost.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 57

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP)

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

of crashes. Projects are scored based on: 

• Expected Crash Frequency

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

• Relative Severity Index 

• Equivalent Property Damage Only Index

• Volume to Capacity Ratio

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

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

• Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding Percentage

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

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency

FHWA

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 57

Describe coordination with external partners.

SHSP Steering Committee

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

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

including: Ohio County Engineers Association; Local Transportation Assistance Program, Ohio Association of 

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

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

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

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

MPO/RTPO Pilot Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHSP Task Forces and Committees

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

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

Distracted Driving deaths. A fourth committee has been established to review driver education curriculum and 

make recommendations on how we can modernize and improve driver and public education by the end of 

2018. More detail can be found in the executive summary. 

Local Road Safety Program

ODOT has identified a full-time position to develop a Local Road Safety Program for Ohio. The program is 

intended to help facilitate and streamline the delivery of Highway Safety Program resources to local and 

regional planning organizations across the state.

The need for this locally focused effort has never been more important. More than half of all crashes in Ohio 

occur on locally maintained roads. Yet, it can be difficult to get resources and funding down to the local level 

because many entities lack the resources to analyze crash patterns, develop solutions and apply for safety 

improvement funds.

The program will focus on promoting priority safety lists and providing the technical assistance needed to help 

local governments apply for HSIP funds.

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 57

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and Safety Analyst Implementation

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

fully implement Safety Analyst and use it to prioritize safety locations across Ohio. Safety Analyst uses stateof-the-art statistical methodologies to identify roadway locations and safety improvements with the highest 

potential for reducing crashes. The software systems flags spot locations and road segments that have higherthan-predicted crash frequencies. It also flags locations for review based on crash severity. This methodology 

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

crashes each year.

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

streets, roads, and highways located within urban boundaries designated by the U.S. Census Bureau. The 

Bureau defines two types of urban areas based on population. Small urban areas are urban places with a 

population or 5,000 or more and not located within any urbanized area. An urbanized area is an area with a 

population of 50,000 or more. As might be expected, the rural functional classification system covers all other 

streets, roads, and highways that are not located within the boundaries of small urban and urbanized areas. 

Approximately, $80 million is used to fund projects through this program.

The priority lists are:

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

have a higher-than-predicted crash frequency for each intersection. Approximately, the Top 50 

locations will be studied. 

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

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

Top 50 locations will be studied. Only crashes indicated on the OH-1 crash report form as being nonintersection crashes were included in this analysis. 

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

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

Top 50 locations will be studied. 

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

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

Top 50 locations will be studied. 

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

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

Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied. Only crashes indicated on the OH-1 crash report 

form as being non-intersection crashes were included in this analysis. 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 57

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

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

Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Abbreviated Application

In 2017, ODOT continued a process that was initialized in 2016 to implement low cost safety improvements 

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

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

anticipate spending approximately $5 million annually for these types of improvements.

Systemic and Systematic Safety Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

type.

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

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

Treatment Upgrade Projects.

Safe Routes to School Program

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

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

on any public roadway as long as the school has completed a School Travel Plan. The School Travel Plan 

outlines where investments should be made for a specific school district.

Other Programs

Small portions of ODOT’s state funding ($102 million) are used for work zone enforcement, OVI checkpoints, 

and other educational opportunities (Federal HSIP funding is no longer available for education or enforcement 

activities). Although money is not specifically set aside for the High Risk Rural Roads Program in Ohio at this 

time, we still encourage agencies to apply for funding through our traditional application process. Any projects 

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

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

improvements.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidance.pdf

HSIP Procedures Manual.pdf
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 57

Safety Study Guidelines.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Other-State HSIP Program

Other-CEAO HSIP Program

Other-State High Risk Rural Road

Other-State Abbreviated HSIP Application

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Other-State HSIP Program 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Other-Volume to Capacity Ratio

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

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

Yes

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

Yes
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 57

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Other-CEAO HSIP Program 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2011 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Other-Amount of Funding Requested
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 57

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Other-State High Risk Rural Road 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/1/2008 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Fatal and All Injury Crashes 

Only Volume Functional classification 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 57

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Other-(Fatal and Serious Injuries) / Total Crashes

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Other-State Abbreviated HSIP 

Application 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 57

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 10.0

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Upgrade Guard Rails
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 57

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

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

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

Program has been supportive in ITS technologies historically. Example projects include the following: Freeway 

queue warning system with driver messages, freeway camera monitoring equipment, and ramp wrong way 

driver alert systems.

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

required. This includes identifying if the location is a priority location and reviewing general observed crash 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 57

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

crash frequency. HSM analysis will be fully implemented in SFY 2019.

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 57

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $124,919,479 $37,719,823 30.2%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $29,251,780 $29,251,780 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $40,688,476 $40,688,476 100%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$79,550,226 $19,814,501 24.91%

State and Local Funds $59,044,948 $25,768,555 43.64%

Totals $333,454,909 $153,243,135 45.96%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

27%

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

27%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

$2,340,836

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

$1,213,890
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 57

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Funding Programmed to Non-Infrastructure Safety Projects

$600,000 – Local Road Safety Plans

We have hired two consultants to assist county engineers and other local officials in developing Local Road 

Safety Plans. The program is intended to identify a region’s safety needs for the local road system and 

recommend safety improvements that could be funded through the HIS Program.

$500,000 – Local Systemic Analysis

We have hired a consultant to assist ODOT in conducting systemic safety analyses and countermeasure 

identification for the local road network.

$26,946 - Statewide Pedestrian & Bicycle Design Guidance Best Practices Review

We hired a consultant to assist with this process.

Funding Obligated to Non-Infrastructure Safety Projects

$1,178,874 – LBRS Update

The purpose of this project is to collect missing road inventory data collected through our Location Based 

Response System for the State of Ohio. The project will finish the remaining counties that are missing from the 

system so we can have a reliable road inventory system on the state and local network. This non-infrastructure 

project involves collecting missing LBRS data, verify/update current LBRS datasets and incorporate LBRS data 

into the official ODOT Road Inventory (RIMS). The goal of this project is to complete the collection of MIRE 

Fundamental data elements for segments on the local system. 

$35,016 – HSIP Project Evaluation

Consultant contract to develop a methodology for evaluating projects completed with Highway Safety 

Improvement Program funds. It will also apply the methodology to three years’ worth of projects completed 

under the program.

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%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

In FFY 2016, Ohio obligated 96.7% of its HSIP funds. For FFY 2017, Ohio has obligated approximately 30%. 

This decrease is due to making sure the penalty funds are first obligated before the HSIP Fast Act funds. The 

penalty funds are due to open container policies that have been instituted and repeat offender laws not being 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 57

in conformance with the Federal laws. We have taken note of this decrease and are working to make sure 

more projects are obligated using the HSIP funds.

Additionally, the obligation rate is also low in part due to Ohio's use of the Advance Construction (AC) financing 

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

converted.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

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

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

SHSP and emphasis areas that FHWA has encouraged us to address holistically using engaging engineering, 

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

associated costs.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 57

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

76938 - FAI US 

33 05.60(Carroll 

Area)

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to interchange

1 Interchanges $6395969.28 $40375043.94 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

40,140 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing new 

interchange to 

reduce the 

number of 

intersection 

crashes

92747 - WOO US 

20 4.63 

Resurf/Bridge

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Approaches $270000 $3733265.25 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

14,362 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes

92895 - RIC SR 

0097 06.01

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

0.68 Miles $727487.38 $4116506.5 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

8,308 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes

94749 - D08 

Signals with ROW

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

10 Intersections $1970910.88 $1970910.88 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

25,676 40 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

96227 - MED IR 

0071 24.02 

(SR303 RmpClr)

Interchange 

design

Extend existing lane on 

ramp

0.2 Miles $165240 $3010004.2 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

53,331 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Extending ramp 

lengths to reduce 

the number of rear 

end crashes

97177 - BRO SR 

125 9.47 Safety

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to align offset 

cross streets

1 Intersections $762699.48 $871563.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

8,504 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Realign 

intersections to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes

98464 - D11-GRFY2017Roadside Barrier- metal 12.15 Miles $60082.12 $1576338.39 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

0 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing guardrail 

to address issue 

of roadway 

departure crashes

100742 - POR SR 

0044 14.86

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Approaches $370679.19 $589456.31 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

7,844 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes

101144 - D02 

TSG FY2017

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $189458.66 $314650.38 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

21,910 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

101844 - D06 

Regional 

Pedestrian 

Signals

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 390 Signal heads $590822.64 $590822.64 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Installation of 

pedestrian signal 

equipment

103814 - D10 

FY2017 Type A 

GR Anchors

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

8 Locations $452583.13 $452583.13 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

14,698 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing guardrail 

end treatments to 

address issue of 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 57

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

roadway 

departure crashes

105000 - FRA IR 

270 0.00/49.63 

Cable

Roadside Barrier - cable 6.15 Miles $372414.06 $372414.06 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

73,463 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Installing cable 

median barrier to 

reduce the 

likelihood of cross 

median crashes

83793 - LOR SR 

0254 00.01

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0.42 Miles $813472.26 $5932822.96 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,310 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

Two Way Left 

Turn Lane to 

reduce the 

number multiple 

vehicle crashes

85078 - SUM SR 

0091 21.11

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic 

signal to roundabout

1 Intersections $639083.7 $5744729.58 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

10,688 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

roundabout to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes

88516 - FUL 

20A/64 23.94/0.25 

Resurf

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $1272006.03 $3378126.56 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,076 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

96167 - WOO 

Rossford SRTS 

Sdwlk/Sign

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.22 Miles $136657.05 $136657.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 45 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Installation of 

sidewalks

102271 - BRO 41-

3.42_ROS 35 

RampA_SCI 140

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

5.32 Miles $60516.67 $248511.35 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,628 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install pavement 

treatments to 

reduce roadway 

departure crashes

103678 - D04 GR 

FY2018A

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

44 Locations $314632.2 $314632.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

6,942 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing guardrail 

end treatments to 

address issue of 

roadway 

departure crashes

76266 - HOL US 

62 26.06

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0.45 Miles $5547356.85 $6294001.02 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

9,034 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

Two Way Left 

Turn Lane to 

reduce the 

number multiple 

vehicle crashes

84620 - FRA IR 

270 31.70 Part 

1&2

Interchange 

design

Installation of new lane on 

ramp

1 Ramps $4217264.96 $12593693.07 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

183,662 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes

85076 - SUM 

Cleve-Mass Road 

Phase 1

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

0.4 Miles $284595.75 $2270534.62 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

15,417 25 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 57

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

92528 - CUY IR 

077/SR 082 

02.82/11.59

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $1250000 $4385141 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

72,808 60 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

93794 - SCI SR 

140 7.20 Safety

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

2 Curves $867444.84 $1082822.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,066 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Widening 

shoulder to 

address issue of 

roadway 

departure crashes

95706 - DEL 

Gemini Parkway 

Ext

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.06 Miles $3000000 $12340039.36 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Minor 

Arterial

16,973 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes

96355 - WOO SR 

199 27.97 

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $1448311.03 $1864344.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

3,572 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

roundabout to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes

96496 - D10 

General System 

GR FY2018

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

10 Locations $297214.11 $1026611.24 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

5,318 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing guardrail 

end treatments to 

address issue of 

roadway 

departure crashes

97167 - FRA SR 3 

21.17

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Approaches $833292.51 $1129596.19 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,442 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end crashes

99435 - CUY SR 

082 03.54 Safety

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

re-assign existing lane use

1 Ramps $1041917.48 $1173596.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

30,908 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end crashes

99474 - SCI SR 

104 11.96

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane2 Approaches $1442389.15 $1463897.3 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,148 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes

101003 - WOO 

SR 199 29.10 

Carronade Rdabt

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $790775.47 $1020493.94 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,522 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

roundabout to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes

101064 - ROS US 

23 & 35 Various

Access 

management

Change in access - close 

or restrict existing access

1 Intersections $41648.81 $115319.98 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

24,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce the 

number of conflict 

points with 

driveways to 

reduce driveway 

related crashes

102060 - GRE US 

35 6.24

Intersection

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Approaches $105332.53 $117036.15 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

37,990 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end crashes

76747 - ATB IR 

0090 07.56

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

6.79 Miles $2028000 $67097364.64 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

25,849 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install pavement 

treatments to 

reduce roadway 

departure crashes
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 57

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

83067 - SUM SR 

0018 00.00

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

0.7 Miles $3725347.31 $8828250.61 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

32,579 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes

88896 - STA SR 

44/62/619 VAR

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

5.17 Miles $37162.87 $1605443.25 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

8,545 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install pavement 

treatments to 

reduce roadway 

departure crashes

89905 - HAM SR 

264 8.49

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Approaches $2070302.44 $2457726.24 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

25,320 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end crashes

92691 - MED SR 

0057 17.67

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $2511893.72 $2750654.82 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,216 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

roundabout to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes

95313 - MEG SR 

7 5.240

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Approaches $400000 $1695191.72 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

7,181 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes

97185 - CAR SR 

43 22.37

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with 

retroreflective borders

1 Intersections $634172.76 $735346.41 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,002 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

99042 - BEL SR 

149 23.790

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $523001.36 $653844.63 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

10,282 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

98661 - D12 TSG 

FY2017

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $84202.04 $708717.54 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

17,768 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

87032 - D08 TSG 

FY2015

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $281883.16 $1486340.29 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

22,363 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

91871 - HAM US 

27 11.49

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

5 Miles $111276.91 $2892864.26 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

32,851 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install pavement 

treatments to 

reduce roadway 

departure crashes

92035 - MOT SR 

741 0.76

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane (free-flow)1 Approaches $840917.24 $1075074.36 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

20,790 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end crashes

101558 - MOT 

Third Street 

Safety

Speed 

management

Traffic calming feature 2 Intersections $229502.15 $229502.15 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

9,500 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Construct traffic 

calming 

countermeasures 

to reduce 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 57

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

pedestrian related 

crashes

104408 - HAM IR 

75 16.67

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 2 Ramps $1993339.26 $2214821.39 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

148,610 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes

86661 - FRA US 

23 10.83 Part 1&2

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

1.3 Miles $1000000.01 $7038546.21 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

20,258 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Bicyclists Constructing a 

road diet to 

decrease travel 

lanes and reduce 

rear end and 

sideswipe crashes

98452 - HAM US 

50 0.00

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane1.18 Miles $473352 $1106908.03 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,612 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

Two Way Left 

Turn Lane to 

reduce the 

number multiple

vehicle crashes

99622 - ATB SR 

0534 19.82

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Approaches $499175 $576828.91 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

11,774 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes

99779 - CLA US 

40 10.11

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $1594341.07 $2348049.54 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

35,448 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

102057 - HAN US 

68 13.08 Cable 

Rail

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.64 Miles $300412.41 $333791.57 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

18,616 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Installing cable 

median barrier to 

reduce the 

likelihood of cross 

median crashes

102099 - MER US 

33 10.41

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with 

retroreflective borders

1 Intersections $195022.09 $195022.09 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

5,031 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

100553 - WAR US 

22/SR 48 

2.80/5.22

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

14 Miles $34393.78 $2964617.44 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

11,107 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install pavement 

treatments to 

reduce roadway 

departure crashes

104582 - SUM 

CR-17 / Wooster 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $22342.5 $167411.77 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 35 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes

88043 - BEL SR 7 

(20.84)(21.85)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Approaches $693919.13 $1860171.78 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

27,798 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end crashes
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 57

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

90469 - STA 

Beeson/Freshley 

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $527705.73 $980816.07 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

3,360 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

roundabout to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes

102453 - SUM SR 

0008 04.41

Interchange 

design

Extend existing lane on 

ramp

0.3 Miles $549253.6 $610281.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

97,230 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Extending ramp 

lengths to reduce 

the number of rear 

end crashes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 57

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 1,022 1,080 1,017 1,121 989 1,006 1,110 1,132 1,180

Serious Injuries 9,774 10,186 9,654 9,780 9,231 8,785 9,079 9,207 8,763

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.920 0.950 0.910 1.010 0.880 0.890 0.940 0.960 0.990

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.820 8.970 8.650 8.770 8.190 7.790 7.710 7.770 7.350

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

101 106 116 135 108 106 143 158 164

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

676 704 697 773 751 682 700 726 726
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 57

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

10500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 57

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 57

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

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

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

31 183 0.35 2.05

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

7 44 0.34 2.21

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

62 350 1.35 7.68

Rural Minor Arterial 77 471 1.78 10.88

700

750

800

850

900

950

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 57

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 48 270 2.93 16.68

Rural Major Collector 182 1,086 2.29 13.73

Rural Local Road or Street 94 653 1.51 10.58

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

80 720 0.31 2.82

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

27 203 0.41 3.12

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

146 1,553 1.06 11.27

Urban Minor Arterial 145 1,534 1.06 11.26

Urban Minor Collector 4 46 0.75 8.98

Urban Major Collector 99 887 1.01 9.04

Urban Local Road or Street 62 631 0.45 4.58
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 57

Year 2017

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 402 2,634 0 0

County Highway Agency 121 841 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

47 312 0 0

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

500 5,014 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 9 56 0 0

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Unknown 8 158 0 0

Unknown 8 158
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 57

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 57

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 57

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 57

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 57

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

State Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Toll

Authority

Unknown Unknown

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 57

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

State Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Toll

Authority

Unknown Unknown

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 57

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Toll

Authority

Unknown

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 57

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Note: In 2013, the functional class system was updated to new codes (1-7) from the legacy codes (1-19). 

Additionally, the functional class designation was updated based on the 2010 census. Prior to 2013, rural 

functional class codes 2 (other freeways or expressways) and 3 (other principal arterial roads) were combined 

as one. Additionally, urban functional class codes 5 (major collector roads) and 6 (minor collector roads) were 

combined. Traffic volumes were not regenerated for the older years. This makes it difficult to calculate a 5 year 

rolling average crash rates with data prior to 2013. Crashes were located to the new network, and therefore, 

can be compared.

The Functional Class conversion should have little to no impacted on the Special Rule for High Risk Rural 

Roads. However, when looking at the Special Rule for High Risk Rural Road, crash rates were impacted as 

well due to changing of the urban and rural boundary limits.

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Toll

Authority

Unknown

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 57

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 1062.0 

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

See additional comments. 

Number of Serious Injuries 8834.0 

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

See additional comments. 

Fatality Rate 0.910 

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

See additional comments. 

Serious Injury Rate 7.600 

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

See additional comments. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 836.0 

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

See additional comments. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

For the 4th consecutive year, Ohio has seen an increase in traffic fatalities. As a result, the five year rolling 

average for most of the state's targets will likely grow over the next few years as 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 

are added to the five-year rolling average and as earlier years drop out of the calculation. 2009-2013 displayed 

some of the lowest fatality years Ohio has seen in its history.

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

Strategic Highway Safety Plan Steering Committee recommended that Ohio retain its 1 percent annual 

reduction target across all five categories .

Although the 1% annual target will be difficult to achieve across all five categories, the SHSP Steering 

Committee feels an aspirational, but achievable target is better than adopting targets that accept the status 

quo. Therefore, the target that Ohio has set forth for each of the 5 performance measures is a 1% annual 

reduction from the 2013-2017 baseline.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 57

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

targets. 

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

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

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

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

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

own performance targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Ohio's fatality rate on the three functional classifications of rural roads decreased from 2.5 to 2.2, therefore the 

Special Rule does not apply. This information was released in the December 20, 2017 memo from FHWA.

2010-2014 five year average fatality rate = 2.5

2012-2016 five year average fatality rate = 2.2

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 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

146 166 123 154 177 165 183

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

726 741 763 796 790 861 821
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 57

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 57

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

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

Safety Improvement Program. In 2017, Ohio had 1,179 traffic deaths, representing a 4% increase and 8,763 

serious injuries, representing a 5% decrease respectively compared to 2016. While deaths rose across all 

crash categories, Ohio saw significant increases in deaths involving Rear Ends, Pedestrians, Commercial 

Motor Vehicles and Distracted Drivers. 2017 displayed another year of rising pedestrian deaths, the fourth 

consecutive year.

Despite these numbers, Ohio has made significant improvements in highway safety over the past several 

years. Since 2008, Ohio fatalities have decreased 1%; serious injuries decreased 13%; all injuries decreased 

2%; and all crashes decreased 5.7%.

The safety benefits are calculated by using the total number of crashes by year and severity in order to 

determine a 5-year average. Crash cost where calculated for 2017 based on the Highway Safety Manual 

methodologies. For each year, the crash severity was multiplied by its associated cost and then summed for all 

severity levels. A five-year rolling average was calculated for 2016 (2012-2016) and 2017 (2013-2017). The 

difference between these two values equates to the safety benefits between the two years and is equal to an 

increase $179 million. ODOT receives a total of $82 million in Federal HSIP dollars annually on safety projects. 

The ratio of the safety benefits and program cost equates to a benefit-cost ratio of 0.46.

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

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

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

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

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

road safety improvements.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 57

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Roadway Departure Roadway Departure 598 3,619 0.52 3.12

Intersections Intersections 258 3,709 0.23 3.2

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 117 531 0.1 0.46

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 19 183 0.02 0.16

Motorcyclists Motorcycle Involved 156 945 0.14 0.82

Work Zones Work Zone Related 23 152 0.03 0.13
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 57

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 57

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 57

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

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

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

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

• Scientifically sound 

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

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

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

posted here: 

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

x

The next step for the project is to take a set of projects and test the following methods to determine project 

safety performance:

• Simple Before-and-After Method 

• Before-and-After Study with Traffic Volume Correction 

• Empirical Bayes Method 

o AASHTOWare Safety Analyst 

o Ohio’s Economic Crash Analysis Tool (ECAT) 

o IHSDM 
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 57

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

None

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 57

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/04/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2014 To: 2019

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

 2020

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 95 100 95 100 95

Route Number (8) 100 95

Route/Street Name (9) 100 95

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 95

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 95 100 95

Surface Type (23) 100 95 100 95

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 95 100 95 100 95

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 95 100 95 100 95

Segment Length (13) 100 95

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 95

Functional Class (19) 100 95 100 95 100 95

Median Type (54) 100 95

Access Control (22) 100 95
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 57

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 95

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 95 100 95

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 95 100 95

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 95 100 95 100 95

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 95

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 95

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 95

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 95

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 95

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 95

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 95

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 57

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 95.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 95.00

*Based on Functional Classification

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

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

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

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

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

crash analysis and emergency response more effective and efficient.

The project is currently in the collection phase and there will be more to report on during the next CY.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Incapacitating No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating No Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Often defined as 

"needing help from the scene."

No N/A No

Crash Database Incapacitating No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating No Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

No N/A No
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 57

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Often defined as 

"needing help from the scene."

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

Ohio is set to release a new crash report form for use beginning in 2019. This new crash report form will be able to classify a crash by the five severity levels, one of which is labeled as "Serious Injury Suspected." (1-Fatal, 2-Serious Injury 

Suspected, 3-Minor Injury Suspected, 4-Injury Possible, 5-Property Damage Only)

The current crash report form only has three levels for crash severity. (1-Fatal, 2-Injury, 3-PDO), however, we are still able to calculate the five level injury severity based on individuals involved in the crash.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

A process review of the procedures for the County Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) was completed in April 2018. ODOT allocates approximately $12 million of HSIP funds annually to the County Engineers Association of 

Ohio (CEAO) for their administration of safety improvement projects and studies on the County road system. The review was conducted to determine whether the County HSIP has documented procedures, that they contain the 

appropriate HSIP provisions and that the procedures are being followed.

The review found that the County HSIP procedures are well documented and are being followed. Several minor recommendations were made to strengthen the procedures, including clarifying project scope changes and evaluating the 

benefits realized with the County HSIP. Successful practices were also identified, including delivering nearly 100% of the projects on-time, exhibiting flexibility with the allocated funding and using an effective project and program tracking 

system.
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 57

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidance.pdf

HSIP Procedures Manual.pdf

Safety Study Guidelines.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 57

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 non-infrastructure 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.