Page 1 of 36

WISCONSIN

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 36

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 5

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 7

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................12

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................12

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................14

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................19

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................19

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................24

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................26

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................27

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................27

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................27

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................31

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................32
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 36

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 36

2.Executive Summary

The following report outlines the details of projects obligated in SFY2019 for Wisconsin's Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP). Also included are program methodologies, historical crash data and safety 

trends, information on subprograms, and project evaluation data.
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 36

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

3. Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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. Projects are identified by state DOT 

regional safety engineers on the state-owned system and by local government staff on the local system. All 

candidate projects must compile crash data and develop a proposed treatment strategy as part of a 

competitive application process. The applications are considered through a peer review process that involves 

statewide and regional safety engineering staff, as well as HSIP program management staff.

4. Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Programming

5. How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

HSIP applications from local and tribal governments are solicited by the WisDOT Regions as part of the regular 

HSIP Program. All HSIP applications derived from local governments are selected and submitted voluntarily by 

local governments. Projects on the local system or sponsored by local or tribal governments must meet the 

same requirements and follow the same process as HSIP applications submitted by WisDOT Regions for 

improvements on the State Trunk Network.

In addition, Wisconsin has continued the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) despite its formal 

elimination in MAP-21. Wisconsin has developed a statewide data analysis methodology which identifies 

county rural roads with run-off-road non-intersection crash issues. Counties with such corridors are offered a 

field review of the corridor that identifies potential treatments and are invited to apply for HSIP funding to 

implement some or all of the identified treatment options. A primary goal of the HRRRP is to install low-cost 

safety treatments on these roadways to mitigate KA crash rates as quickly as possible. It is unlikely these 

county trunk highways would receive federal investments outside of the HRRRP.
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 36

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Division of State Patrol

• Other-Division of Motor Vehicles

8. Describe coordination with internal partners. 

The HSIP Program is managed by WisDOT's Division of Transportation Investment Management (DTIM) and 

the Bureau of State of Highway Programs (BSHP). DTIM/BSHP makes all final application approvals or denials 

and related project change or cost increase requests. However, DTIM/BSHP coordinates its efforts with 

several internal partners that both directly and indirectly influence the decision making process. Below is a 

summary of these partners and their role in the program.

- Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV): DMV receives, edits, and maintains all law enforcement crash report files.

- Traffic Safety Council (TSC): The TSC is comprised of representatives from Division of Transportation 

System Development (DTSD), DTIM, DMV, Division of State Patrol (DSP), and various Executive Offices 

within WisDOT. Among this group's responsibilities is developing and maintaining the Wisconsin Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which helps guide the safety efforts of the HSIP Program.

- Traffic Safety Engineering Workgroup (TSEWG): TSEWG is comprised of the State HSIP Coordinator, State 

Traffic Safety Engineer, and the Regional Traffic Safety Engineers. In some cases, the Regional HSIP 

Coordinators also participate. This group identifies and evaluates potential safety initiatives both within and 

outside of the HSIP Program, provides peer support, and reviews proposed HSIP projects. After a group 

evaluation, a recommendation to approve or not approve is forwarded to the State HSIP Coordinator for final 

review.

- State Project Oversight Engineers: The State Project Oversight Engineers are a critical component of the joint 

process with the TSEWG for application review and approval. The DTSD State Project Oversight Engineers, 

Regional Traffic Safety Engineers, the State Traffic Safety Engineer, and the State HSIP Coordinator provide a 

consensus approval or disapproval of HSIP funding after a comprehensive in-person peer review. Each Region 

has one Project Oversight Engineer. State Project Oversight Engineers only review applications originating 

from the Region in which they are assigned. This consensus approval or disapproval is advisory to the 

DTIM/BSHP.

9. Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Local Government Agency 

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

10. Describe coordination with external partners. 

The HSIP is fully coordinated and integrated with the work of other organizations, associations, and 
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 36

stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement, academia, local governments, MPOs) that play a role in reducing fatalities 

and serious injuries. One of the basic foundations of the HSIP is the direct linkage between the data-driven 

priorities established in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the identification, development and 

implementation of HSIP projects. Local and regional governments alike which contribute towards achieving the 

goals and objectives of the SHSP help guide program decisions and project selections. More specifically, wh 

ere there are a high percentage of crashes that occur off the State system, WisDOT works with local 

jurisdictions to help them develop and implement HSIP projects that address priority safety issues on locallyowned roadways. This is either done by locals doing work as local forced accounts or they are let by WisDOT.

11. Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed 

since the last reporting period? 

No-This question will not appear in the final report

12. Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to 

elaborate? 

No-This question will not appear in the final report

Program Methodology

13. Does the State have an HSIP manual or similar that clearly describes HSIP 

planning, implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

FileName:

04-01-10e.pdf

14. Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HRRR

• Median Barrier

15.Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Run off road Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 36

• Crash rate

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? 

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). 

15.Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2005

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-All CMC Other-Centerline miles Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 36

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Non-competitive application process

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 

Available funding:1

16. What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 31

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

• Cable Median Barriers

17. What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Other-County Traffic Safety Commission recommendations

18. Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

19. 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. 

HSIP Project Prioritization

Wisconsin evaluates potential HSIP projects by comparing the estimated crash reduction benefits expected 

from the project and the cost of that project. Crash reduction benefits are estimated by multiplying up to two 

crash modification factors (CMF) by 5-years of observed crash data. CMFs and target crashes are identified by 

the safety analyst and a spreadsheet tool is used to calculate the estimated crash reduction benefits. The 

spreadsheet tool incorporates the WisDOT CMF Table and logic described in our statewide policy described at 

the link below.

http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/12-03.pdf

HSIP Safety Effectiveness Evaluations

Wisconsin evaluates the effectiveness of all HSIP projects that were prioritized based on crash history. The
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 36

Empirical-Bayes Before/After Safety Evaluation method, described in chapter 9 of the Highway Safety Manual, 

is used for these safety effectiveness evaluations. No evaluations are completed for systemic safety projects 

within our HSIP.

20. Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed 

since the last reporting period? 

No-This question will not appear in the final report

21. Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to 

elaborate. 

A key component in the development of the HSIP is the Project Evaluation Factor (PEF). The PEF is a

measurement that is used to evaluate and compare proposed projects. It provides a comparison of the 

estimated crash reduction potential of a proposed improvement with the overall cost of the project. Although it 

has similarities to a benefit/cost analysis, it does not include all of the elements of a traditional benefit/cost 

analysis tool for ranking the relative merits of a group of projects, and should not be compared to a benefit/cost 

analysis. 

An Excel-based program is used to perform a safety project analysis and computes the PEF. The following 

provides a general overview of several key elements of the PEF:

• All costs associated with the project (design, utilities, real estate, construction, etc.) must be included in the 

PEF calculation, regardless of whether HSIP funds are requested for all elements of the project. Cost 

estimates must be in current year dollars.

• The analysis requires crash data from the most recent 5-year period for which crash information is available. 

Ideally, the analysis would include crash data from the most recent calendar year. For example, an analysis 

submitted in 2016 would include crash information from the 2011-2015 period. However, given that: (a) it can 

take several months after the end of a calendar year for the Department to finalize crash information and 

integrate the crash information into departmental datasets; and (b) it can take several months for a safety 

proposal to be developed and scoped, the use of an additional, older year of crash data is allowed. For 

example, an analysis submitted in calendar year 2016 may use crash data from either the 2011-2015 period or 

the 2010-2014 period.

For local projects, it is the responsibility of the project sponsor to compile and provide the required crash data 

to the regional office for the PEF evaluation.

• Although Wisconsin designs solutions to reduce all crashes, a number of targeted engineering, educational 

and enforcement efforts have been implemented with the defined goal of reducing crashes involving serious 

injuries and fatalities. Because of this focus on reducing serious injuries and fatalities, the PEF scoring 

mechanism assigns higher values to Type A and Fatal crashes.

• The current values used within the PEF tool to calculate the potential crash reduction benefits of a safety 

improvement are influenced by the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) developed by the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

• Standardized crash reduction factors are included in the Excel tool for a wide range of safety improvements. 

These factors are based on national safety research and are regularly updated as new research becomes 

available.
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 36

• Projects generally require a PEF of 1.0 or greater for approval. However, the HSIP Review Committee 

acknowledges the PEF contains many variables and that sometimes additional expense is needed to 

sufficiently address a safety issue. As such, the HSIP Review Committee may consider applications with a 

PEF greater than or equal to 0.9 for approval. Projects with a PEF less than 0.9 will not be approved.

• Projects treating locations identified on the annual "Locations of Interest Report" (LOIR) may be approved 

with a PEF of 0.50 or greater. LOIR locations with a PEF less than 0.5 will not be approved.

• The PEF requirement is generally waived for projects identified through a statewide safety analysis. The PEF 

requirement is currently waived for:

o High Risk Rural Roads Program projects

o Crossover Median Crash Initiative projects

o Bridge Friction Treatment Initiative projects

o Beam Guard Initiative projects
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 36

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

22. Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $23,471,704 $23,471,704 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $2,607,967 $2,607,967 100%

Totals $26,079,671 $26,079,671 100%

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

safety projects? 

$4,784,022

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

$4,784,022

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

$80,000

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

$80,000

26. 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
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 36

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

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

$21,640,320

27. Discuss impediments to obligating HSIP funds and plans to overcome this 

challenge in the future. 

Project delays can make it challenging to fully utilize HSIP funding. Such delays occur for a variety of reasons, 

including changes in project scope during t he design process (which triggers a required re-evaluation of the 

project), changes in associated projects that are linked to the HSIP project, and unforeseen issues arising 

during the project development process. WisDOT continues to work on developing a list of projects that could 

be advanced from later program years into earlier program years to ensure that HSIP funding is fully utilized 

even if projects are delayed or fall out of the program.

28. Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of its progress in 

implementing HSIP projects? 

No-This question will not appear in the final report
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 36

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

1000-99-72 Miles $72000 $80000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

HRRRP 

Support

Data

1022-07-76 8.4 Miles $393978.23 $437753.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1030-28-71 0 Miles $737600 $819555.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1050-00-07 Miles $62573 $69525.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1053-02-80 0.726 Miles $251513.96 $279459.95 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1060-49-70 8.709 Miles $1949952.09 $2166613.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1067-02-62 0 Miles $927274.11 $1030304.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1093-01-63 1.085 Miles $195708 $217453.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1110-13-71 4.294 Miles $197100 $219000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1160-01-77 0 Miles $39601.74 $44001.93 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1204-08-63 0 Miles $1152608 $1280675.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1228-03-75 0 Miles $250632.07 $278480.08 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1411-01-79 0.402 Miles $1504685 $1671872.22 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 36

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

1430-06-60 7.634 Miles $361981.8 $402202 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1430-18-73 0.048 Miles $874261.35 $971401.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

1500-73-60 8.9 Miles $317034 $352260 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1550-04-75 4.25 Miles $199879.03 $222087.81 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1560-02-75 0.166 Miles $108101.43 $120112.7 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

1601-14-73 1.572 Miles $1209388.5 $1343765 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

1690-00-62 22.142 Miles $278240 $309155.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

2090-03-71 0.003 Miles $227192.44 $252436.04 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2110-00-72 0.004 Miles $358054 $397837.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2120-16-70 0 Miles $679477.96 $754975.51 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2225-14-00 2.96 Miles $245619 $272910 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

2300-06-00 2.105 Miles $197526 $219473.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

2984-06-09 4.469 Miles $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 36

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

2984-09-04 Miles $90401 $100445.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2984-09-07 Miles $88970 $98855.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2998-06-70 0.509 Miles $912536 $1013928.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

3150-05-70 3.74 Miles $122828 $136475.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

3240-02-03 0.192 Miles $62485 $69427.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

3773-01-70 0.331 Miles $751207.19 $834674.65 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

3781-03-00 0.005 Miles $78803 $87558.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

4100-21-71 8.51 Miles $507462 $563846.67 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

4100-38-60 5.96 Miles $221400 $246000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

4190-16-73 0.014 Miles $414411 $460456.67 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

4682-01-73 0.28 Miles $1349550 $1499500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

4867-03-00 0.389 Miles $33932 $37702.22 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

5300-00-71 2.719 Miles $331098.42 $367887.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 36

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

5410-00-62 0 Miles $196655 $218505.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

5476-01-60 5.046 Miles $252652 $280724.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

5490-00-60 0 Miles $962846 $1069828.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

6085-02-74 0.274 Miles $1284672.89 $1427414.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

6290-09-01 0.159 Miles $139409.1 $154899 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

6610-04-00 0.049 Miles $353432 $392702.22 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

7120-02-76 7.58 Miles $310544.7 $345049.67 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

7130-00-75 0.409 Miles $157089.41 $174543.79 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

8090-00-71 5.7 Miles $274865 $305405.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

8140-00-73 0.251 Miles $395702.07 $439668.97 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

8140-00-74 0.007 Miles $290249.95 $322499.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

8140-00-75 1.02 Miles $344209 $382454.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Implement 

"Road Diet" 

by use of 

TWLTL

8600-01-04 0.004 Miles $50400 $56000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

8744-00-02 0.004 Miles $18000 $20000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 36

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

8944-00-07 8.885 Miles $54322.2 $60358 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

9150-29-60 9.23 Miles $365845 $406494.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

9170-17-60 4.958 Miles $173744 $193048.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 36

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

five years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 0 0 615 543 506 566 607 613 589

Serious Injuries 0 0 3,582 3,309 2,986 2,999 3,039 3,271 3,005

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.000 0.000 1.040 0.910 0.840 0.910 0.950 0.940 0.890

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.000 0.000 6.080 5.560 4.970 4.830 4.760 5.010 4.560

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

0 0 388 351 337 365 366 379 367

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 36

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 21 of 36

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 22 of 36

Some annual and baseline data has been updated to reflect finalized crash data. Original submissions 

reflected preliminary crash data.

31. Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 23 of 36

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street

Rural City Street 9 77.4

Rural County Trunk 

Highway

103.6 499.4

Rural Interstate 

Highway

25 121.4

Rural State Trunk 

Highway

189.8 832.4

Rural Town Road 62.4 330

Urban City Street 100.2 760.2

Urban Interstate 

Highway

12.4 88.2

Urban State Trunk 

Highway

49 346
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 36

Year 2018

Roadways Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

33. Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the 

State would like to elaborate? 

No-This question will not appear in the final report

Safety Performance Targets

34. Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:564.7
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 36

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

Number of fatalities target is calculated as a 2% reduction from the most recent 5-year rolling 

average.

Number of Serious Injuries:2907.0

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

Number of serious injuries is calculated as a 5% reduction from the most recent 5-year rolling 

average.

Fatality Rate:0.888

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

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) target is calculated as a 2% reduction from the most recent 5-year rolling 

average.

Serious Injury Rate:4.585

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

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) target is calculated as a 5% reduction from the most recent 5-year 

rolling average.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:344.7

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

Total number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries target is calculated as a 5% reduction 

from the most recent 5-year rolling average.

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

establish safety performance targets. 

The HSIP is fully coordinated and integrated with the work of other organizations, associations, and 

stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement, academia, local governments, MPOs) that play a role in reducing fatalities 

and serious injuries. One of the basic foundations of the HSIP is the direct linkage between the data-driven 

priorities established in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the identification, development and 

implementation of HSIP projects. Local and regional governments alike which contribute towards achieving the 

goals and objectives of the SHSP help guide program decisions and project selections. More specifically, 

where there are a high percentage of crashes that occur off the State system, WisDOT works with local 

jurisdictions to help them develop and implement HSIP projects that address priority safety issues on locallyowned roadways. This is either done by locals doing work as local forced accounts or they are let by WisDOT. 

Stakeholders will continue to contribute to and support the goals established in the SHSP. This in turn 

encourages safety projects that meet established safety performance targets. 

WisDOT coordinates with the MPOs in the establishment of the state’s annual federal safety targets reported in 

the HSIP. WisDOT shares Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) level crash data with the MPOs for their analysis. 
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 36

MPOs establish safety targets by developing their own MPA targets or by agreeing to support WisDOT’s state 

targets. The approved MPO federal safety targets are reported to WisDOT. 

36. Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

37. Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets 

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

of any reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Wisconsin has met or made significance progress towards three of its five 2018 Federal Safety Performance 

Targets. The 2017 national five-year rolling average for fatalities increased over 7% relative to 2015 (2018 

national data is not yet available). Wisconsin’s five-year average increased 0.9% over the same timeframe, 

and 2.5% from 2015 to 2018. While the increases were small, Wisconsin’s goal is to realize reductions; 

accordingly, Wisconsin remains committed to addressing safety on all public roads through all of its 

transportation safety programs.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

75 78 64 99 91 92 96

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

263 245 231 198 227 249 262
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 36

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

40. How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

While a simple change in fatal and serious injury crashes is an overall indicator of the effectiveness of the 

safety culture in the state, there are many other factors outside the scope of normal HSIP projects that 

influences. For this reason, we rely on a "before and after" Empirical Bayes Analysis of HSIP projects to 

determine their performance.

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Resources were not available to complete a program level evaluation in this reporting cycle. WisDOT plans to 

complete this evaluation for the next reporting cycle. 

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

and success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # miles improved by HSIP

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

43. Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last 

reporting period? 

No-This question will not appear in the final report

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

44. Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2018

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)

Intersections 157 1,141.4

Pedestrians 51.2 217

Bicyclists 8.2 83.8

Motorcyclists 76.8 517.6

Work Zones 9.8 61.6
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 36

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)

Reduce Speed-related 

Crashes

165.6 841.8

Prevent/Mitigate 

Roadway Departure 

Crashes

308.2 1,475.6

Reduce Alcohol/Drugimpaired Driving210.8 633.2

Improve Driver 

Alertness/Reduce Driver 

Distraction

92.4 695

Improve Occupant 

Protection

159.8 481.8

Improve Safe Travel in 

Bad Weather

107.2 603.2

Reduce Cross Median 

Crashes

81.2 276.2
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 36

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 36

45. 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

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 36

Project Effectiveness

46. 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)

x

Evaluation planned for 2020

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

No-This question will not appear in the final report
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 36

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/07/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2020

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

 2020

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 7

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 36

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 65 100 1

AADT Year (80) 100 65

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 65 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100

AADT Year (80) 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

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

Page 34 of 36

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

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 89.00 100.00 0.00 90.91 90.91 100.00 89.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

50. 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.

Wisconsin already collects most of the MIRE FDEs. Based on current data collection efforts and targets, Wisconsin is on track to meet the September 30, 2026 deadline.

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

No

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

2020
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 36

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

04-01-10e.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 36

Glossary

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

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

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

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

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

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

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

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

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

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