http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA Safety Program

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

2017 National Summary Report
ii

Disclaimer/Quality Assurance 

Notice 

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

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

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

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

manufacturers’ names may appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

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

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are 

used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality 

improvement. 
iii

Technical Documentation Page 

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-18-031 

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

4. Title and Subtitle

HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 

 

5. Report Date

May 2018

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

 

Kari Signor and Daniel Carter

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

University of North Carolina 

Highway Safety Research Center 

730 ML King Jr Blvd, CB #3430 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-11-C-00050

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Summary Report 

2017 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA 

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

The HSIP 2017 National Summary Report compiles and summarizes aggregate information 

related to the States’ progress in implementing HSIP projects. Progress in implementing HSIP 

projects is described based on the amount of HSIP funds available and the number and general 

listing of projects obligated during the 2017 reporting cycle. The HSIP 2017 National Summary 

Report is not intended to compare states; rather to illustrate how the states are collectively 

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

nation. The HSIP 2017 National Summary Report also presents a national benefit cost ratio for 

the HSIP. 

17. Key Words:

Highway Safety Improvement Program, reporting 

guidance, improvement category, Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan, emphasis area, national summary 

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

32

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 

Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized 
iv

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improvement Categories and Subcategories ..............................................................................................12

SHSP Emphasis Areas ..................................................................................................................................21

2013-2017 Comparison ...............................................................................................................................22

Comparison to Previous Years ....................................................................................................................24

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

Summary .....................................................................................................................................................27

References ..................................................................................................................................................28

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

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

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

List of Tables

Table 1. Total number of projects and project cost breakdown, 2013-2017 .............................................22

Table 2. Number of projects and average total project cost for various project types, 2013-2017 ..........24

Table 3. Total Number and Cost of Projects by Year ..................................................................................25

Table 4. Weighted BC Ratio for Segment and Intersection Based Projects (weight based on total project 

cost) .............................................................................................................................................................26

Table 5: Number and Cost of 2017 Projects by Improvement Category ....................................................35

Table 6: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Intersection Geometry ...................................36

Table 7: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Intersection Traffic Control ............................36

Table 8: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Pedestrians and Bicyclists...............................36

Table 9: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Roadway .........................................................37

Table 10: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Roadside .......................................................37

List of Figures

Figure 1: FAST Act Annual Program Apportionments FY17 .......................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Number of State Safety Programs (top 9)...................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Number of State Safety Programs (bottom 9) ............................................................................... 6
v

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

Figure 5: Number of Projects by Project Cost...............................................................................................8

Figure 6. Number of Projects by Functional Class ........................................................................................9

Figure 7. Average Total Cost of Projects by Functional Class .....................................................................10

Figure 8. Number and Average Total Cost of Projects by Urban/Rural Designation..................................11

Figure 9. Number of Projects by Road Ownership......................................................................................11

Figure 10. Average Total Cost of Projects by Road Ownership ..................................................................12

Figure 11. Number of Projects by Improvement Category (Top 11) ..........................................................13

Figure 12. Number of Projects by Improvement Category (Bottom 11) ....................................................14

Figure 13. Average Total Cost of Projects by Improvement Category (top 11)..........................................15

Figure 14. Average Total Cost of Projects by Improvement Category (bottom 8) .....................................16

Figure 15: Number of Intersection Geometry Projects by Subcategory.....................................................17

Figure 16: Number of Traffic Control Projects by Subcategory ..................................................................18

Figure 17: Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Projects by Subcategory ...................................................19

Figure 18: Number of Roadway Projects by Subcategory ..........................................................................20

Figure 19: Number of Roadside Projects by Subcategory ..........................................................................21

Figure 20: Number of Projects by SHSP Emphasis Area .............................................................................22
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 1 

Executive Summary 

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

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

Fixing America’s Transportation System (FAST) Act, Congress authorized up to $2.4 billion per year for 

States to achieve this goal through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. The 

States not only met this challenge, but far exceeded it obligating over $4 billion for over 4,600 highway 

safety improvement projects in 2017. 

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

bigger in scope than others, while other projects include countermeasure installations across multiple 

sites. The 2017 HSIP National Summary Report provides an aggregate summary of the type and cost of 

projects across all States. Provided below are highlights of the States’ 2017 HSIP implementation efforts. 

• Many States have intersection (24 States) and roadway departure (27 States) programs. 

• States continue to use crash frequency and crash rate to identify projects in a majority of their 

safety programs. 

• A majority (roughly 64 percent) of HSIP projects cost less than $500,000 each, with 33 percent of 

all projects costing less than $100,000. 

• About 18 percent of HSIP projects would be considered high cost, coming in at over $1 million 

each. These projects often include widening shoulders, installing cable barrier, adding auxiliary 

lanes, or other miscellaneous intersection geometry and roadway projects. 

• Projects associated with a functional class were most often categorized as rural major collector 

or rural minor arterial. 

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

per project of $3.6 million, whereas projects on rural local roads or streets had the lowest 

average total cost per project of $194,500. 

• There are fewer urban projects than rural projects and the average total cost per project of the 

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

• About 75 percent of highway safety improvement projects occur on roads owned by the State 

Highway Agency. 

• Projects on roads owned by Town or Township Highway Agencies had the second highest 

average total cost per project of $1.7 million, while City or Municipal Highway Agencies had the 

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

• A majority (73%) of highway safety improvement projects falls into the following categories: 

roadway, intersection traffic control, intersection geometry, roadside, and roadway signs and 

traffic control. 

• On average, States obligated 40% percent of HSIP funds to address systemic safety 

improvements. 

• Interchange design, alignment, and shoulder treatments have the highest average cost per 

project; whereas parking, speed management, and railroad grade crossing projects have the 

lowest average cost per project. 

• States use HSIP funds to address the predominant infrastructure-related crash types – roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian crashes. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 2 

While the spending patterns don’t change much from year to year, the number and cost of HSIP projects 

has continued to increase. There were 1,684 projects with a total cost of $1.61 billion in 2009, which 

rose to 4,616 projects with a total cost of $4.3 billion in 2017. Over the past eight years, States obligated 

$24.9 billion for more than 29,000 highway safety improvement projects. Based on a sample of 2017 

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

6.09 to 11.24. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 3 

Background 

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

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

through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. The HSIP, like other Federal-aid 

highway programs, is a federally-funded, state administered program. The FHWA establishes the HSIP 

requirements via 23 CFR Part 924, and the States develop and administer a program to best meet their 

needs. 

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

focuses on performance1. To obligate HSIP funds, each State shall: 

• Develop, implement, and update a State strategic highway safety plan; 

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

• Evaluate the SHSP on a regularly recurring basis. [23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1)] 

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

highway safety improvement projects and the effectiveness of those improvements. [23 U.S.C. 148(h)] 

States prepared the 2017 reports using the HSIP Reporting Guidance, dated December 29, 2016. The 

HSIP Reporting Guidance outlines the content and schedule for the annual HSIP report. The HSIP report 

should include, at a minimum, a discussion of each State’s:

• Program Structure

• Progress in Implementing the HSIP projects

• Progress in Achieving Safety Outcomes and Performance Targets 

• Effectiveness of Improvements 

• Compliance Assessment 

The HSIP 2017 National Summary Report compiles and summarizes aggregate information related to the 

States progress in implementing HSIP projects during the 2017 reporting cycle. Progress in implementing 

HSIP projects is described based on the amount of HSIP funds available and the number and general 

listing of projects obligated as documented in the 2017 HSIP reports. The HSIP 2017 National Summary 

Report is not intended to compare states; rather to illustrate how the states are collectively 

implementing the HSIP to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads across the nation. The 

HSIP 2017 National Summary Report also presents a national benefit cost ratio for the HSIP. 

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

available in the HSIP National Summary Baseline Report: 2009 -2012, HSIP 2013 National Summary 

Report, HSIP 2014 National Summary Report, HSIP 2015 National Summary Report, and HSIP 2016 

National Summary Report.

HSIP Funding Approach 

The FAST Act authorizes a single amount for each year for all the apportioned highway programs 

combined. That amount is apportioned among the States, and then each State’s apportionment is 

divided among the individual apportioned programs. 

 

1

 FHWA, Fast Act HSIP Fact Sheet, February 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 4 

The FAST Act (Section 1101) authorizes a total combined amount ($39.7 billion in FY 2016, $40.5 billion 

in FY 2017, $41.4 billion in FY 2018, $42.4 billion in FY 2019, and $43.4 billion in FY 2020) in contract 

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

below): 

• National Highway Performance Program (NHPP); 

• Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG); 

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); 

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

• Metropolitan Planning; and 

• The new National Highway Freight Program (NHFP)2. 

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

Figure 1: FAST Act Annual Program Apportionments FY17 

HSIP receives 7% of the States apportionment remaining after allocations to NHPP, CMAQ and 

Metropolitan Planning, which amounts to approximately $2.5 billion each year. The following sums are 

set-aside from the State's HSIP apportionment: 

• Railway-highway crossings -- $230 million [23 U.S.C. 130(e)]; and 

• 2% for State Planning and Research (SPR). [23 U.S.C. 505(a)]. 

 

2

 FHWA, Fast Act Apportionment Fact Sheet, February 2016. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/apportionmentfs.cfm 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 5 

In addition, if the High Risk Rural Roads Special rule applies to a State, then in the next fiscal year the 

State must obligate an amount at least equal to 200% of its FY 2009 HRRR set-aside for high risk rural 

roads. [23 U.S.C. 148(g)] Further, States that are subject to the 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164 penalties may also 

receive additional funding for HSIP projects. 

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

that are available to States for the advancement of highway safety improvement projects. Additionally, 

‘States’ refer to all states (excluding California), the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The state of 

California was excluded from the 2017 HSIP Projects Overview analysis, as many data elements needed 

to complete the analysis were not available. HSIP expenditures by Puerto Rico is a new addition to the 

2017 HSIP report. This data was not available for HSIP reports in previous years. 

Data-Driven Safety Decision Making 

Beginning in 2016, the HSIP National Summary Report includes an evaluation of how states are using 

data-driven safety decision making to support their HSIP. This includes the States safety program 

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

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

40 percent of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements. The following sections and figures present 

information on State’s safety programs and problem identification methodologies. 

State Safety Programs Administered Under HSIP 

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

HSIP report. The HSIP Manual3 defines a program as a group of projects (not necessarily similar in type 

or location) implemented to achieve a common highway safety goal. For example, some States have one 

program that includes all projects resulting from the HSIP planning component. Other States have 

multiple "sub" programs. An example of a "sub" program may be a skid treatment program designed to 

reduce wet-weather-related crashes at different locations. Some States also refer to "sub" programs as 

initiatives. 

Figure 2 and Figure 3 present the number of State safety programs for the 2017 reporting period. Most 

states have “Roadway Departure” (27 States) and “Intersection” (24 States) programs. Twenty-five 

states selected 48 programs in the “Other” category. Examples of programs in the “Other” category are: 

“pavement marking improvements”, “longitudinal rumble strips”, and “vulnerable road users”. 

 

3

 FHWA, Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual, FHWA-SA-09-029, January 2010. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/ 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 6 

Figure 2: Number of State Safety Programs (top 9) 

Figure 3: Number of State Safety Programs (bottom 9) 

Methodology Types for Selected Programs Administered Under HSIP 

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

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

performance measures defined in the Highway Safety Manual4. Figure 4 presents the number of times a 

particular PIM was selected by the States. Please note that a State can select more than one PIM for 

each safety program. “Crash frequency” was selected 212 times while “Excess expected crash frequency 

using methods of moments” was only selected 1 time. Examples of methodologies in the “Other” 

category are: “Collaboration with county engineers” and “Hierarchical Bayesian Model”.

 

4

 Highway Safety Manual, 1st edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2010. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 7 

Figure 4: Count of PIM selected for programs administered under HSIP 

HSIP Projects Overview 

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

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

year, state fiscal year or federal fiscal year. For 2017, the States obligated $4.3B for 4,616 total projects. 

These obligations utilized funds apportioned during the 2017 fiscal year as well as HSIP funds available 

from previous years’ apportionments.

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

• Improvement Category and Sub Category (see Appendix A for complete descriptions) 

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

• Method for site selection 

• Project cost 

• Funding category 

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

• Roadway characteristics 

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

2017 reporting cycle. It should be noted that limited analysis of the project information can be done 

because not all states have included all of the above information for each project in their annual HSIP 

reports. Full use of the HSIP online reporting tool and the most recent HSIP reporting guidance will 

enable more complete and accurate reporting of national HSIP project data. In addition, HSIP projects 

come in all shapes and sizes. For example, some HSIP projects may be much bigger in scope than others, 

countermeasure installations across multiple sites, or non-infrastructure projects (i.e. transportation 

safety planning, data improvements). Nonetheless, the summaries in the following sections provide a 

broad scale analysis of HSIP spending for the 2017 reporting cycle by project cost, functional 

classification and ownership, improvement categories and subcategories, and SHSP emphasis areas. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 8 

Project Cost 

In 2017, projects reporting $0 costs or projects reporting deobligated funds were excluded from 

analysis. Costs ranged widely. Some projects were small in scope and cost, such as installing a 

pedestrian signal. Others were higher cost projects, such as resurfacing a highway or realigning a curve. 

Figure 5 shows the breakdown by project cost, grouped into general categories with breakpoints at 

$100,000, $500,000, and $1,000,000. 

Figure 5: Number of Projects by Project Cost 

Roughly 69 percent of the projects had costs less than $500K. A small percentage (12 percent) fell into 

the $500K - $1M category. The remaining 19 percent were higher cost projects totaling $1M or more. 

The top five sub categories selected for these higher cost projects are: 

• Roadway – other (73 projects) 

• Widen shoulder – paved or other (50 projects ranging from 0.11 to 25 miles treated) 

• Rumble strips – edge or shoulder (38 projects) 

• Barrier – cable (38 projects ranging from 0.1 to 103 miles treated) 

• Intersection geometry – other (29 projects) 

In 2016, the breakdowns were similar. Over two-thirds of the projects had costs less than $500K, about 

12 percent fell into the $500K - $1M category, and about 19 percent were more than $1M. 

Functional Class and Ownership 

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

Figure 6 shows number of projects by functional class, following the HPMS classification scheme. Figure 

7 shows average total cost of projects by functional class. Figure 8 shows the number and average total 

cost of projects by urban/rural designation. Figure 9 shows projects by road ownership. Figure 10

shows average total cost of projects by road ownership. If the functional class or road ownership was 

not indicated, the project is counted under the “unknown” category. Examples of classifications in the 

“other” category include multiple functional classes, state or citywide implementation, or noninfrastructure projects.
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 9 

Figure 6. Number of Projects by Functional Class 

As in 2016, projects that were associated with a functional class were most often categorized as “Rural 

Major Collector” or “Rural Minor Arterial” (Figure 6). There were 1179 projects categorized as 

“Unknown” indicating the State did not assign a functional classification to the project. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 10

Figure 7. Average Total Cost of Projects by Functional Class 

Figure 7 shows the average total cost of projects by functional class. It is important to note that not 

every project had an associated cost so the average is based on the number of projects which had cost 

information available. Projects categorized as “Rural Principal Arterial – Freeways and Expressways” had 

the highest average total cost per project of $3.6 million and projects categorized as “Rural Local Road 

or Street” had the lowest average total cost per project of $194,500. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 11

Figure 8. Number and Average Total Cost of Projects by Urban/Rural Designation 

Figure 8 illustrates the number and average total cost of projects by urban/rural designation. As in 2016 

and 2015, there are fewer total urban projects than rural projects but the average total cost of the 

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

Figure 9. Number of Projects by Road Ownership 

As in 2015 and 2016, States implement most projects on roads owned by a “State Highway Agency”

(Figure 9). There were 343 projects categorized as “Unknown” (indicating that the State did not indicate 

road ownership for a particular project). There were 86 projects categorized as “Other”. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 12

Figure 10. Average Total Cost of Projects by Road Ownership 

Figure 10 shows the average total cost of projects by road ownership. It is important to note that not 

every project had an associated cost so the average is based on the number of projects which had cost 

information available (excluding de-obligated costs). One singular project comprised the State Toll 

Authority category and had the highest total cost of all categories at $282 million. This is not included in 

the graph above so as not to detract from the relative average costs of the other projects. 

Improvement Categories and Subcategories 

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

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

types, FHWA suggests States assign each project to only one category. The category chosen should align 

with the primary purpose of the project. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the distribution of the number of 

projects by general improvement category. Figure 13 and Figure 14 combined show the distribution of 

the average cost of projects by general improvement category. Projects categorized as “Unknown” 

indicate that there was no general improvement category assigned by the State. Figure 15 through 

Figure 19 show the breakdown of the number of projects by subcategory for five general improvement 

categories: Intersection geometry, Intersection traffic control, Pedestrians and bicyclists, Roadway, and 

Roadside. More detailed tables with the cost spent in each subcategory are available in Appendix B. For 

ease of reporting, similar subcategories were grouped together. For example, in Figure 15 below, 

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

way left turn lanes, and several other related subcategories. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 13

Figure 11. Number of Projects by Improvement Category (Top 11) 

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

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

categories are roadway, intersection traffic control, roadside, intersection geometry, and roadway signs 

and traffic control. In 2016, the top five improvement categories were the same. The number of 

projects classified in each category and the ranking of project categories were similar, also, compared to 

2016. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 14

Figure 12. Number of Projects by Improvement Category (Bottom 8) 

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

Reporting Guidance. Note that in 2017 there were no projects reported for work zone, multiple, or

animal-related categories. The number of speed management and advanced technology and ITS 

projects nearly doubled, and there were half as many interchange design projects. The remaining 

bottom-ranking categories were similar to 2016. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 15

Figure 13. Average Total Cost of Projects by Improvement Category (top 11) 

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

note that, unlike 2016, the average is based only on the number of projects with costs available 

(projects with deobligated costs and those reporting $0 cost were excluded). This makes comparisons 

across years difficult, however, the notable differences in average project costs are below. 

• Interchange design – several high-cost projects in 2017 shifted this average up from 2016 

(decreased from $1.2M in 2016 to $8.4 in 2017). 

• Advanced technology and ITS – remained in the top 11 in 2017, but moved down from the top 

ranking in 2016 (decreased from $7M in 2016 to $.8M in 2017) 

• Access management – moved from the bottom 11 in 2016 to the top 11 in 2017 (increased from 

$618K in 2016 to $1.2M in 2016) 

• Pedestrian and cyclists – moved from the bottom 11 in 2016 to the top 11 in 2017 (however, 

average cost for this category in 2016 was actually higher, at $866K, compared to an average 

cost of $666,727 in 2017). 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 16

Figure 14. Average Total Cost of Projects by Improvement Category (bottom 8) 

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

are in the following categories: 

• Intersection traffic control; 751 projects with cost information 

• Lighting; 93 projects with cost information 

• Railroad grade crossings; 42 projects with cost information 

• Speed management; 13 projects with cost information 

• Parking; 1 project with cost information 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 17

Figure 15: Number of Intersection Geometry Projects by Subcategory 

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

categories because in 2017 (as in previous years) they ranked in the top five in terms of number of 

projects categorized (Figure 15). FHWA has also identified intersections as one of three focus areas for 

the Focused Approach to Safety effort. 

For the Intersection geometry category, most projects are sub categorized as “Intersection geometrics –

other/unknown” (41 percent; 182 of 439 projects) or “Auxiliary lanes – add left-turn lane” (31 percent; 

136 of 439 projects). Examples of projects in the “Intersection geometrics – other/unknown” 

subcategory include modify intersection corner radius and general intersection safety improvement 

projects. The “Intersection geometrics – other/unknown” subcategory is predominately used without 

any project description, therefore, no other information is available for these projects. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 18

Figure 16: Number of Traffic Control Projects by Subcategory 

For the Intersection traffic control category in Figure 16, most projects are subcategorized as “Modify 

traffic signal” (35 percent; 261 of 751 projects), “Intersection traffic control – other/unknown” (23 

percent; 175 of 751 projects), and “Modify control to roundabout” (19 percent; 145 of 751 projects). 

Examples of projects in the “Intersection traffic control – other/unknown” category include projects 

described as signal and stop controlled systemic improvements and general intersection traffic control 

improvement projects. Examples of projects in the “Modify traffic signal” category include 

modernization/replacement of traffic signal and adding flashing yellow arrow signals. The “Intersection 

traffic control – other/unknown” subcategory is predominately used without any project description, 

therefore, no other information is available for these projects. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 19

Figure 17: Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Projects by Subcategory 

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

improvements in this category are of significant interest to various stakeholders (Figure 17). FHWA has 

also identified pedestrians and bicyclists as one of three focus areas under the Focused Approach to 

Safety effort. 

For the Pedestrians and bicyclists category, most projects are subcategorized as “Miscellaneous 

pedestrian and bicyclist improvements” (47 percent; 86 of 182 projects) and “Install or modify 

crosswalk” (23 percent; 41 of 182 projects). Many of the projects in the “Miscellaneous pedestrian and 

bicyclist improvements” subcategory do not have any project description; therefore, no other 

information is available for these projects. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 20

Figure 18: Number of Roadway Projects by Subcategory 

The report highlights further evaluation of the roadway category because in 2017 (as in previous years) 

it ranked as the number one category in terms of number of projects categorized (Figure 18). FHWA has 

also identified roadway departure as one of three focus areas for the Focused Approach to Safety effort. 

For the Roadway category, most projects were subcategorized as “Roadway – other/unknown” (49

percent; 660 of 1357 projects) and “Rumble strips” (33 percent; 449 of 1357 projects). Examples of 

projects in the “Roadway – other/unknown” subcategory were projects such as “restripe to revise 

separation between opposing lanes and/or shoulder widths”. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 21

Figure 19: Number of Roadside Projects by Subcategory 

The report highlights further evaluation of the roadside category was selected for further evaluation 

because in 2017 (as in previous years) it ranked in the top five in terms of number of projects 

categorized and is of recent national interest (Figure 19). For the Roadside category, most projects were 

subcategorized as “Barrier” (54 percent; 260 of 485 projects), “Roadside – other/unknown” (17 percent; 

82 of 485 projects), and “Removal of roadside objects” (16 percent; 77 of 485 projects). Examples of two 

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

SHSP Emphasis Areas 

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

States. These emphasis areas are used in the HSIP online reporting tool for categorizing HSIP projects. 

Figure 20 presents the number of HSIP projects categorized by SHSP emphasis area. For consistency and 

national reporting purposes, state-defined SHSP emphasis areas were assigned to these emphasis areas, 

where possible. 

About 39 percent of the projects were categorized as “Roadway Departure” (42 percent in 2015 and 40 

percent in 2016), 31 percent were categorized as “Intersections” (31 percent in 2015 and 29 percent in 

2016), and 10 percent categorized as “Unknown/Other” (14 percent in 2015 and 13 percent in 2016). 

Examples of other categories used by the States include: “Highway infrastructure”, “Railroad”, and 

“Lighting”.
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 22

Figure 20: Number of Projects by SHSP Emphasis Area 

2013-2017 Comparison 

 The number and cost of HSIP projects continues to increase each year. As shown in Table 1 below, the 

total number of projects and cost of projects did not change much from 2013 to 2014 but between 2015 

and 2016, there were roughly 1000 more projects reported. This increasing trend continued in 2017, 

with an increase of about 500 projects over 2016. However, the breakdown in project costs for various 

breakpoints was similar across years. 

Table 1. Total number of projects and project cost breakdown, 2013-2017 

Year 2013 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 

Number of 

projects 3292 3348 4188 4468 4943 

Number of 

projects (with 

cost info.)* 

3171 3272 3830 3726 4616 

Cost of 

projects* $3.09B $3.10B $3.90B $4.03B $4.3B 

Average cost 

per project $981K $952K $1.02M $1.08M $879K 

Number of 

projects 

<$100K 

1154 35% 1011 30% 1374 33% 1106 25% 1634 33% 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 23

Year 2013 % 2014 % 2015 % 2016 % 2017 % 

Number of 

projects 

$100K - $499K 

985 30% 1054 31% 1131 27% 1246 28% 1550 31% 

Number of 

projects 

$500K-$1M 

401 12% 450 13% 445 11% 478 11% 561 11% 

Number of 

projects 

$1M+ 

631 19% 757 23% 880 21% 896 20% 871 18% 

Number of 

projects with 

deobligated 

funds 

60 2% 28 1% 146 3% 256 6% 285 6%

Number of 

projects with 

$0 or blank 

61 2% 48 1% 212 5% 486 11% 42 1%

* For 2017, number of projects with cost info and cost of projects do not include projects with deobligated funds or where the 

value entered was $0, nor do they include projects in California. Also, for the first time 2017 data includes PR HSIP projects. 

Therefore, comparisons with previous years should be made with caution. 

Table 2 shows the 2013 through 2017 comparison of the number of projects and average total cost of 

projects for various project types highlighted in this report (does not include projects with deobligated 

funds or projects where no value was reported or the value entered was $0). For most project types, the 

number and cost of projects has increased over the four year period. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 24

Table 2. Number of projects and average total project cost for various project types, 2013-2017 

Project 

Type 

Num 

Projects 

2013

Avg 

Cost 

2013

Num 

Projects 

2014

Avg 

Cost 

2014

Num 

Projects 

2015

Avg 

Cost 

2015

Num 

Projects 

2016

Avg 

Cost 

2016

Num 

Projects 

2017

Avg 

Cost 

2017

Urban 

projects 826 $1.4M 954 $1.3M 1236 $1.2M 1277 $1.7M 1179 $1.2M 

Rural 

projects 1244 $930K 1361 $890K 1847 $1.1M 1683 $956K 1920 $998K

Roadway 

projects 854 $639K 722 $955K 1195 $671K 1244 $1.1M 1357 $1.1M 

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

projects 

420 $682K 505 $702K 615 $798K 608 $704K 751 $560K

Intersection 

geometry 

projects 

376 $1.3M 379 $983K 559 $1.0M 458 $1.1M 439 $910K

Ped/bike 

projects 103 $534K 118 $507K 122 $965K 180 $866K 182 $667K

Roadside 

projects 225 $951K 303 $810K 422 $893K 444 $1.2M 485 $896K

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

was $0, nor do they include projects in California. Also, for the first time 2017 data includes PR HSIP projects. Therefore, 

comparisons with previous years should be made with caution. 

Comparison to Previous Years 

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

reports submitted by the States for years 2009-2012. The information from the baseline report is 

summarized below with the purpose of comparing basic cost and project information to the 2013 

through 2017 reports. Table 3 below shows that States obligated $24.9B for more than 29,000 projects 

over the eight-year period. These obligations include not only HSIP funds apportioned during the 

reporting period (2009-2017), but also HSIP funds available from previous years’ apportionments. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 25

Table 3. Total Number and Cost of Projects by Year 

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total 

Num 

Projects 1,684 2,386 2,523 2,429 3,292 3,348 4,188 4,468 4943 29,261 

Num 

Projects 

(with 

cost 

info.)* 

1,568 2,320 2,397 2,311 3,171 3,272 3,830 3,726 4616 27,211 

Cost of 

projects* $1.61B $1.46B $1.78B $1.65B $3.09B $3.10B $3.90B $4.03B $4.3B $24.9B 

Avg. Cost 

Per 

Project* 

$1.0M $629K $743K $722K $981K $952K $1.0M $1.1M $940K $896K 

* For 2017, number of projects with cost info and cost of projects do not include projects with deobligated funds or where the 

value entered was $0, nor do they include projects in California. Also, for the first time 2017 data includes PR HSIP projects. 

Therefore, comparisons with previous years should be made with caution. 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the HSIP 

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

project information from the 2017 HSIP reports. The purpose of the evaluation was to estimate a 

national benefit cost ratio for the HSIP. The HSIP national benefit cost ratio provides an indication of the 

programs national impact and the benefits the public can expect from investments in the HSIP. 

The evaluation methodology makes use of the full project listing information from 49 States plus the 

District of Columbia (2017 HSIP Project Database) and associated crash modification factors (CMFs) from 

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

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

California was excluded from the analysis, as many elements needed for the analysis were not available. 

Puerto Rico was also excluded, given that road improvement project needs and costs deviate from those 

in the continental U.S. The following steps indicate how to apply the selected methodology for projects 

in the 2017 HSIP Project Database with complete data: 

1. Calculate the estimated crash reduction for each project group 

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

b. Identify appropriate CMFs from the CMF Clearinghouse. 

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

amounts. 

a. The crash cost values in the 2017 analysis are based on the crash severity values 

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

Highway Safety Analysis”.5 The values for each combination of crash severities (e.g., K, 

 

5

 Harmon, Tim, Geni Bahar, and Frank Gross. Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis, Federal Highway 

Administration, Report FHWA-SA-17-071, January 2018. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 26

KA, KAB, etc.) were calculated using information from Council et al6 and the 

methodology reported in a memo written by Bhagwant Persaud7 to FHWA. 

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

ratio. 

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

Crash Cost User Guide available on the CMF Clearinghouse. 

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

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

groups which were more prevalent in the data. 

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

1,194 segment and intersection-based projects, which is approximately 24 percent of the projects listed 

in the 2017 HSIP Project Database. Table 4 presents the weighted results (based on amount of HSIP 

funds that were spent for that project). Many projects had a range of years for the assumed service life, 

so the table presents the BC ratio according to the minimum and maximum service lives. 

The values in the bottom row of Table 4 (ranging from 6.09 to 11.24) represent the range of BC ratios for 

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

minimum or maximum service life of the treatment and discount rate. Comparatively, the range for the 

2016 HSIP project listing was 4.36 to 6.51. 

Table 4. Weighted BC Ratio for Segment and Intersection Based Projects (weight based on total project cost) 

Weighted BC 

Ratio (min 

Service Life, 3% 

discount rate) 

Weighted BC 

Ratio (max 

Service Life, 3% 

discount rate) 

Weighted BC 

Ratio (min 

Service Life, 7% 

discount rate) 

Weighted BC 

Ratio (max 

Service Life, 7% 

discount rate) 

869 Segment Based HSIP 

Projects (weighted on 

segment project cost) 

7.86 11.98 6.28 8.57 

325 Intersection Based HSIP 

Projects (weighted on 

intersection project cost) 

6.73 7.60 5.00 5.47 

1,194 Segment & 

Intersection Based HSIP 

Projects (weighted on 

segment & intersection 

project cost) 

7.71 11.24 6.09 8.04 

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

(e.g., number of miles or intersections treated, CMF, project cost, etc.) or were non-infrastructure 

 

6 Council, F., E. Zaloshnja, T. Miller, and B. Persaud. “Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Reported Injury 

Severity Within Selected Crash Geometries”, FHWA-HRT-05-051, FHWA Office of Safety R&D, October 2005. 

7 Persaud, B. “How to convert value of a statistical life to cost per crash by severity, crash type and speed limit”, 

FHWA Draft Memo for DCMF Evaluations (unpublished), November 2014. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 27

projects. The calculated benefit-cost ratio for each of the 1,194 projects relied heavily on assumptions 

for each project regarding the applicable CMF, service life, crash rate, and injury severity cost. 

Summary

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

HSIP 2017 National Summary Report shows that in 2017, States directed HSIP funds to address the 

predominant infrastructure -related crash types: roadway departure, intersection and pedestrian

crashes, similar to previous years. On average, States obligated 40 percent of HSIP funds to address 

systemic improvements. While the basic characteristics (rural and urban, improvement categories, and 

SHSP emphasis areas) of HSIP spending remains fairly consistent from year to year, the number and cost

of HSIP projects has continued to increase over the seven-year period from 1,684 projects with a total 

cost of $1.61 billion in 2009 to 4,616 projects with a total cost of $4.3 billion in 2017. Based on a sample 

of 2017 HSIP projects, FHWA estimates that the benefits of the HSIP outweigh the costs on a scale 

ranging from 7.7 to 11.2.
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 28

References 

FHWA, FAST Act Apportionment Fact Sheet 

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

FHWA, HSIP Apportionment Notices 

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

FHWA, HSIP FAST Act Fact Sheet 

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

FHWA, HSIP Reporting Guidance, February 13, 2013 

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

FHWA, HSIP Online Reporting Tool 

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

FHWA, HSIP National Summary Baseline Report 2009-2012 

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

FHWA, HSIP 2013 National Summary Report 

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

FHWA, HSIP 2014 National Summary Report 

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

FHWA, HSIP 2015 National Summary Report 

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

FHWA, HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 

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

2017 State HSIP Reports 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 29

Appendix A: Full Description of HSIP Improvement Categories and Sub 

Categories for 2013 HSIP Reporting Guidance 

Category Sub-category 

Access management Access management - other

Change in access – close or restrict existing access

Change in access – miscellaneous/unspecified

Grassed median - extend existing

Median crossover - close crossover

Median crossover - directional crossover

Median crossover - relocate existing

Median crossover - unspecified

Raised island - install new

Raised island - modify existing

Raised island - remove existing

Raised island – unspecified

Advanced technology and 

ITS 

Advanced technology and ITS - other

Congestion detection / traffic monitoring system

Dynamic message signs

Over height vehicle detection

Alignment Alignment - other

Horizontal curve realignment

Horizontal and vertical alignment

Vertical alignment or elevation change

Animal-related Animal related

Interchange design Acceleration / deceleration / merge lane

Convert at-grade intersection to interchange

Extend existing lane on ramp

Improve intersection radius at ramp terminus

Installation of new lane on ramp

Interchange design - other

Ramp closure

Ramp metering

Intersection geometry Auxiliary lanes – add acceleration lane

Auxiliary lanes – add auxiliary through lane

Auxiliary lanes – add left-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – add right-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – add right-turn lane (free-flow)

Auxiliary lanes – add slip lane

Auxiliary lanes – add two-way left-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – extend acceleration/deceleration lane

Auxiliary lanes – extend existing left-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – extend existing right-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – miscellaneous/other/unspecified
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 30

Auxiliary lanes – modify acceleration lane

Auxiliary lanes – modify auxiliary through lane

Auxiliary lanes – modify free-flow turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – modify left-turn lane offset

Auxiliary lanes – modify right-turn lane offset

Auxiliary lanes – modify turn lane storage

Auxiliary lanes – modify turn lane taper

Auxiliary lanes – modify two-way left-turn lane

Intersection geometrics – miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersection geometrics – modify intersection corner radius

Intersection geometrics – modify skew angle

Intersection geometrics – realignment to align offset cross streets

Intersection geometrics – realignment to increase cross street offset

Intersection geometrics – re-assign existing lane use

Intersection geometry - other

Splitter island – install on one or more approaches

Splitter island – remove from one or more approaches

Splitter island – unspecified

Through lanes – add additional through lane

Intersection traffic control Intersection flashers – add “when flashing” warning sign-mounted

Intersection flashers – add advance emergency vehicle warning signmounted

Intersection flashers – add advance heavy vehicle warning signmounted

Intersection flashers – add advance intersection warning signmounted

Intersection flashers – add miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersection flashers – add overhead (actuated)

Intersection flashers – add overhead (continuous)

Intersection flashers – add stop sign-mounted

Intersection flashers – modify existing

Intersection flashers – remove existing

Intersection signing – add basic advance warning

Intersection signing – add enhanced advance warning (double-up 

and/or oversize)

Intersection signing – add enhanced regulatory sign (double-up 

and/or oversize)

Intersection signing – miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersection signing – relocate existing regulatory sign

Intersection traffic control - other

Modify control – all-way stop to roundabout

Modify control – modifications to roundabout

Modify control – no control to roundabout

Modify control – no control to two-way stop

Modify control – remove right-turn yield
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 31

Modify control – reverse priority of stop condition

Modify control – traffic signal to roundabout

Modify control – two-way stop to all-way stop

Modify control – two-way stop to roundabout

Modify control – two-way yield to two-way stop

Pavement Markings – add advance signal ahead

Pavement markings – add advance stop ahead

Pavement markings – add dashed edge line along mainline

Pavement markings – add lane use symbols

Pavement markings – add stop line

Pavement markings – add yield line

Pavement markings – miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Pavement markings – refresh existing pavement markings

Modify traffic signal – add additional signal heads

Modify traffic signal – add backplates

Modify traffic signal – add backplates with retroreflective borders

Modify traffic signal – add closed loop system

Modify traffic signal – add emergency vehicle preemption

Modify traffic signal – add flashing yellow arrow

Modify traffic signal – add long vehicle detection

Modify traffic signal – add railroad preemption

Modify traffic signal – add wireless system

Modify traffic signal – miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Modify traffic signal – modernization/replacement

Modify traffic signal – modify signal mounting (spanwire to mast 

arm)

Modify traffic signal – remove existing signal

Modify traffic signal – replace existing indications (incandescent-toLED and/or 8-to-12 inch dia.)

Modify traffic signal timing – left-turn phasing (permissive to 

protected/permissive)

Modify traffic signal timing – left-turn phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

Modify traffic signal timing – adjust clearance interval (yellow 

change and/or all-red)

Modify traffic signal timing – general retiming

Modify traffic signal timing – signal coordination

Systemic improvements – signal-controlled

Systemic improvements – stop-controlled

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting

Intersection lighting

Lighting - other

Site lighting – horizontal curve 

Site lighting – intersection

Site lighting – interchange
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 32

Site lighting – pedestrian crosswalk

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts

Enforcement

Data/traffic records

Non-infrastructure - other

Outreach

Road safety audits

Training and workforce development

Transportation safety planning

Parking Modify parking

Parking - other

Remove parking

Restrict parking

Truck parking facilities

Pedestrians and bicyclists Crosswalk

Install new "smart" crosswalk

Install new crosswalk

Install sidewalk

Medians and pedestrian refuge areas

Miscellaneous pedestrians and bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk

Pedestrian beacons

Pedestrian bridge

Pedestrian signal

Pedestrian signal - audible device

Pedestrian signal – Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

Pedestrian signal - install new at intersection

Pedestrian signal - install new at non-intersection location

Pedestrian signal - modify existing

Pedestrian signal - remove existing

Pedestrian warning signs - add/modify flashers

Pedestrian warning signs – overhead

Railroad grade crossings Grade separation

Model enforcement activity

Protective devices

Railroad grade crossing gates

Railroad grade crossing signing

Railroad grade crossings - other

Surface treatment

Upgrade railroad crossing signal

Widen crossing for additional lane

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash cushions, terminals)

Barrier transitions
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 33

Barrier - cable

Barrier - concrete

Barrier- metal

Barrier - other

Barrier - removal

Curb or curb and gutter

Drainage improvements

Fencing

Removal of roadside objects (trees, poles, etc.)

Roadside grading

Roadside - other

Roadway Install / remove / modify passing zone

Pavement surface – high friction surface

Pavement surface - miscellaneous

Roadway narrowing (road diet, roadway reconfiguration)

Roadway - other

Roadway - restripe to revise separation between opposing lanes 

and/or shoulder widths 

Roadway widening - add lane(s) along segment

Roadway widening - curve 

Roadway widening - travel lanes

Rumble strips - center

Rumble strips – edge or shoulder

Rumble strips - transverse

Rumble strips – unspecified or other

Superelevation / cross slope

Roadway delineation Improve retroreflectivity

Longitudinal pavement markings - new

Longitudinal pavement markings - remarking

Delineators post-mounted or on barrier 

Raised pavement markers

Roadway delineation - other

Roadway signs and traffic 

control 

Curve-related warning signs and flashers

Sign sheeting – upgrade or replacement

Roadway signs and traffic control - other

Roadway signs (including post) – new or updated

Shoulder treatments Widen shoulder – paved or other

Pave existing shoulders

Shoulder grading

Shoulder treatments - other

Speed management Modify speed limit

Radar speed signs

Speed detection system / truck warning

Speed management - other
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 34

Traffic calming feature

Work Zone Work zone
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 35

Appendix B. Detailed Tables of Project Costs Summaries 

Table 5: Number and Cost of 2017 Projects by Improvement Category 

Improvement Category Number of 

Projects 

Total Cost of 

Projects* 

Average Total 

Cost* 

Total HSIP Cost of 

Projects* 

Average HSIP 

Cost* 

Access management 64 $74,760,421.63 $1,168,131.59 $65,609,668.99 $1,025,151.08 

Advanced technology and ITS 42 $31,848,611.38 $758,300.27 $22,544,587.59 $536,775.90 

Alignment 65 $153,626,691.05 $2,363,487.55 $63,073,225.32 $970,357.31 

Interchange design 23 $193,051,802.75 $8,393,556.64 $36,388,116.75 $1,582,092.03 

Intersection geometry 439 $398,585,860.99 $907,940.46 $276,314,575.08 $620,931.63 

Intersection traffic control 751 $442,846,841.12 $560,125.18 $358,243,478.45 $472,616.73 

Lighting 93 $46,458,619.35 $499,555.05 $40,646,142.63 $432,405.77 

Non-infrastructure 219 $139,807,086.04 $638,388.52 $118,596,054.09 $527,093.57 

Parking 1 $29,851.00 $29,851.00 $29,851.00 $29,851.00 

Pedestrians and bicyclists 182 $121,344,341.05 $666,727.15 $84,651,228.67 $465,116.64 

Railroad grade crossings 42 $18,450,793.38 $439,304.60 $16,761,825.71 $399,091.09 

Roadside 485 $476,249,772.09 $896,312.91 $402,171,182.34 $809,197.55 

Roadway 1357 $1,058,049,971.39 $1,076,475.86 $617,723,044.93 $385,354.36 

Roadway delineation 204 $184,194,677.28 $666,475,86 $157,313,050.64 $731,688.61 

Roadway signs and traffic control 287 $192,659,872.09 $587,258.09 $101,935,209.02 $346,718.40 

Shoulder treatments 210 $363,212,864.01 $1,729,585.07 $254,852,620.76 $1,219,390.53 

Speed management 13 $3,209,230.00 $246,863.85 $3,018,830.00 $232,217.69 

Unknown 139 $176,924,514.00 $1,272,838.23 $49,584,016.00 $1,502,545.94 

Total 4616 $4,341,957,584.51 $940,632.06 $2,518,276,630.07 $553,747.87

* Not all states provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or deobligated funds were excluded. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 36

Table 6: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Intersection Geometry 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn lane 136 $101,550,943.86 

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn lane 29 $11,465,462.42 

Auxiliary lanes - other 51 $51,788,843.41 

Intersection geometrics - modify skew angle 33 $15,960,270.87 

Intersection geometrics - other/unknown 182 $193,383,140.56 

Intersection geometrics - realignment to improve 

offset 8 $24,437,199.87 

Total 439 $398,585,861.00 

* Not all states provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or deobligated 

funds were excluded. 

Table 7: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Intersection Traffic Control 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Intersection flashers and signing 119 $7,707,507.13 

Intersection traffic control - other/unknown 175 $113,560,531.44 

Modify control to roundabout 145 $130,600,666.73 

Modify traffic signal 261 $132,689,328.79 

Modify traffic signal timing or phasing 42 $31,895554.75 

Pavement markings 9 $4,200,421.27 

Total 751 $420,654,010.11 

* Not all states provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or deobligated 

funds were excluded. 

Table 8: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Install or modify crosswalk 41 $14,170,648.98 

Install or modify pedestrian signal 34 $25,140,421.27 

Install sidewalk 21 $13,158,657.49 

Miscellaneous pedestrian and bicyclist improvements 86 $68,874,613.31 

Total 182 $121,344,341.05 

* Not all states provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or deobligated 

funds were excluded. 
HSIP 2017 National Summary Report 37

Table 9: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Roadway 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Pavement surface 132 $111,864,938.43 

Roadway - other/unknown 660 $835,554,866.68 

Roadway narrowing (road diet, roadway 

reconfiguration) 22 $62,955,317.75 

Roadway widening 78 $267,095,319.86 

Rumble strips 449 $178,430,020.86 

Superelevation / cross slope 16 $4,876,516.00 

Total 1357 $1,460,776,979.58 

* Not all states provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or deobligated 

funds were excluded. 

Table 10: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Roadside 

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Barrier 260 $256,418,193.73 

Barrier end treatments 47 $47,130,180.55 

Curb and drainage improvements 6 $3,412,586.85 

Removal of roadside objects 77 $46,889,479.08 

Roadside grading 13 $14,131,963.89 

Roadside – other/unknown 82 $66,729,356.56 

Total 485 $434,711,760.66 

* Not all states provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. Projects that reported $0 costs or deobligated 

funds were excluded. 
For More Information:

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

FHWA, Office of Safety

Karen Scurry

karen.scurry@dot.gov

609-637-4207

FHWA-SA-18-031