WASHINGTON 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

2021 ANNUAL REPORT 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Page 1 of 71 

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

Page 2 of 71

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................26

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................26

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................28

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................49

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................49

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................54

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................56

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................58

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................58

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................58

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................65

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................66

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................70

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................71
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 71

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. 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.”
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 71

Executive Summary

WSDOT saw crash increases in 2020 for both fatalities and serious injuries. Contributing factor information 

indicates that speeding, extreme speeding events, and driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol were key 

factors leading to the increase. It is surmised that with less volume speeds increased. County and City roads 

saw significant fatality increases overall. State fatalities were down in 2020 versus 2019. While crashes for 

those who walk and bike were similar to 2019 in frequency, the overall percent of crashes resulting in fatal or 

serious injury were higher. WSDOT continued to maintain aspirational targets for the safety program. 

Recognizing that an alternative setting increasing crashes was less desirable, although might help WSDOT 

avoid penalties. WSDOT has developed an implementation plan to describe its approach to highway safety 

and will continue to do so as a matter of practice. Discussions were held with the MPOs and WTSC on a 

routine basis. WSDOT is working closely with WTSC to develop an action plan for safety partners moving 

forward and both agencies see value in messaging what bold actions are necessary to achieve the 2030 

targets, and to highlight opportunities to the Safety Commissioners and Legislature. The Department continues 

to implement Target Zero by continuing to advance its practices toward the Safe System. The program 

continues to become more systemic and proactive within the safety program.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 71

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The WSDOT strategic highway safety plan "Target Zero" is the basis for establishing the structure of WSDOT's 

approach to programming safety funds for both WSDOT highways and local roads. WSDOT requires local road 

safety plans for local agencies to be eligible to receive HSIP funding at both the county and city level. 

Currently, WSDOT provides 70% of HSIP funds to local roads, and supplements the state program with 

additional state funding. Target Zero emphasis areas and strategies are reviewed and WSDOT determines 

through an analysis of the leading contributing factors, crash types and behaviors in implementing its safety 

program. Target Zero also contains strategies (countermeasures) that would benefit State or local agencies. 

Washington uses a centralized approach for determining HSIP locations within the state using network 

screening to identify a ranked set of location for further analysis and evaluation. The "Getting to Zero" 

implementation plan provides specific information on ranking methods. Once develop the ranked lists are 

provided to WSDOT regions for use in determining appropriate approaches to address the contributing factors 

and crash types at the respective locations. The I2 Safety subprogram structure has both crash reduction and 

prevention (systemic) approaches to reducing crash potential. The reduction category focuses on spot 

locations, intersections and segments using the excess crashes approach. The prevention category focuses on 

specific contributing factors and crash types to develop a ranked list of potential projects. The projects are 

based on benefit/cost analysis for the prioritization of the program of projects. Systemic approaches may use 

network benefit cost or local benefit cost for the purposes of prioritization. WSDOT completed a ten year 

implementation plan that contains additional information on WSDOT Safety Program.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Transportation Safety and Systems Analysis; Local Programs

WSDOT uses a matrixed approach to safety and does not have staff dedicated for the HSIP. Reporting 

activities are completed by the Transportation Safety and Systems Analysis and Local Programs Divisions.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

• Other-Funds are allocated centrally

For Local Programs a competitive Application is used. For WSDOT, the SHSP is used to derive funding 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 71

subcategories, and data is used to guide potential funding levels. The Implementation plan highlights this 

approach.

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

Washington uses a data-driven process to determine HSIP funding levels for state vs local roads. The current 

SHSP, "Washington Strategic Highway Safety Plan: Target Zero," (www.targetzero.com) has specified priority 

levels for types/causes/categories of fatal & serious injury crashes based on crash type, driver behaviors, or 

user type. The priority 1 infrastructure related emphasis areas are Lane Departure crashes and Intersection 

crashes.

To determine the HSIP funding allocation between state and local roadways, WSDOT evaluates the number of 

fatal & serious injury crashes in the priority 1 emphasis areas (lane departure and intersection-related) 

statewide for a consecutive 5-year period. WSDOT calculates the ratio of crashes on local agency 

responsibility roads to those on state highways then allocates HSIP funding between state and local roadways 

based on that percentage. Currently, local agencies receive 70% of HSIP funds and the state receives 30%.

The 70% of funding that goes to local agency safety is divided into a County Safety Program and a City Safety 

Program. Both programs now require that local agencies submit a Local Road Safety Plan to be eligible to 

apply for HSIP funding. The County Safety Program is focused on fatal and serious injury crash potential with a 

fully systemic approach to prioritizing safety projects. The City Safety Program is both prevention (systemic) 

and reduction (spot locations), with spot safety projects being prioritized by competitive benefit/cost ratio 

statewide. Systemic projects for both counties and cities are prioritized by cost effectiveness of the proposed 

projects, factoring in the crash data & LRSP prioritized projects for each agency, the cost of the proposed 

countermeasures, the number of locations being addressed, and the effectiveness of the countermeasures 

proposed.

Tribal roads are also eligible for funding, but must be included as part of a county or city list of proposed 

projects (tribes, counties, and cities are all encouraged to include such projects on prioritized lists). Based on 

fatal and serious injury crash data, a standalone tribal safety call for projects would not receive enough funding 

to be viable as a separate statewide call for projects.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Active Transportation

• Other-Capital Program

• Other-Transportation Safety and Systems Analysis

Describe coordination with internal partners.

WSDOT is multimodal and multidisciplinary. The Highway Safety Issue Group includes representatives from 

the Regions and HQ Divisions and participants may come from planning, programming, design, operations, 

local programs or transportation safety. A safety panel also exists with individuals from multiple discipline areas 

who review projects and countermeasures for inclusion in the safety program. The Highway Safety Executive 

Committee includes Traffic Operations, Design, Capital Programming and Transportation Safety and Systems 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 71

Analysis. WSDOT meets quarterly to discuss technical issues within the Highway Safety Issue Group and 

monthly for policy issues with the Directors of Transportation Safety and Systems Analysis, Capital Programs, 

Development and Traffic Operations.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

• Tribal Agency

• Other-WSDOT has organized a Safety Target Setting Organization to establish targets. A safety data 

business plan group is also in place to assist with WSDOT Safety Data needs identification

• Other-Department of Health

• Other-Department of Licensing

• Other-Adminstrator of the Courts

• Other-Superintendent of Public Instruction

• Other-Association of Washington Cities

• Other-Washington State Association of Counties

• Other-Health Care Authority

• Other-National Highway Safety Administration

• Other-Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Describe coordination with external partners.

WSDOT interacts and coordinates with multiple external partners as part of the development of Target Zero 

and in setting targets. WSDOT routinely meets with MPOs and State Highway Safety Office (SHSO), as well 

as federal division in carrying out its safety program activities. In Target Setting, WSDOT will meet with the 

WTSC and MPOs as necessary to determine the appropriate method for setting targets in the state. WSDOT 

will also coordinate at this time with MPO Technical, Coordinating or Executive Committees as necessary for 

getting agreement on Targets. For development of the SHSP, WSDOT and the WTSC form multiple working 

groups to assign chapter development, data analysis and oversight of the document. WSDOT and WTSC work 

closely to get partner input and agreement depending on the specifics of each section of the SHSP. The 

WTSC is made up of Department Heads and works to form and provide Traffic Safety Policy recommendations 

and direction for consideration by the Governor. Often, WSDOT together with different agencies and the 

WTSC, will make legislative presentations and submit proposed legislation or funding requests. WSDOT also 

works very closely with city and county agencies to assist with analysis and evaluation of safety plans and 

projects. WSDOT has quarterly meetings with Federal Partners to highlight concerns and inform each other of 

ongoing activities.

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

elaborate. 

WSDOT continues to tie the SHSP emphasis areas, priorities and strategies to the WSDOT safety subprogram 

development. WSDOT will submit its 2022 implementation plan and how the program is administered with an 

outline for each of the safety subcategories, the methods used, and how B/C is used within each subcategory. 

Each subcategory is highlighted within the implementation plan. The department is tracking fatal and serious 

crashes through various means, and has developed a dashboard to track COVID-19 issues.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 71

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

WSDOT does not have a HSIP manual.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Horizontal Curve

• HRRR

• Intersection

• Median Barrier

• Roadway Departure

• Other-State - Collision Analysis Corridors

• Other-State - Collision Analysis Locations

• Other-State - Intersection Analysis Locations

• Other-Local - City Safety Program

• Other-Local - County Safety Program

• Other-High Friction Surface Treatments

• Other-Barrier and Terminal Modifications

• Other-Rumble Strips

• Other-Operational Assessments

• Other-BCT conversion

• Other-Redirectional land forms

• Other-Data and performance improvement

• Other-Active Transportation Safety

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Other-Speed differential

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 71

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?

• Other-systemic approach

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

Other-ranking based on systemic B/C:1

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-FHWA HRRR Special Rule

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Volume

• Lane miles

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?

Yes

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

Yes
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 71

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• 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:3

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Completion of LRSP:1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-systemic b/c

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 71

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Median width

• 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?

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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).
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 71

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:9/26/2018

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 

• Traffic

• Volume

• Other-speed

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-type of crash

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

Other-systemic b/c:1
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 71

Program: Other-State - Collision Analysis Corridors

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Safety Panel Review

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Program: Other-State - Collision Analysis Locations

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 71

• 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 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Safety Panel Review

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Program: Other-State - Intersection Analysis Locations

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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? 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 71

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Safety Panel Review

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Program: Other-Local - City Safety Program

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2018

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 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

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

Page 16 of 71

• Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-Completion of a LRSP

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:4

Cost Effectiveness:3

Other-Completion of LRSP:1

Program: Other-Local - County Safety Program

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

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 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 71

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-Completion of a LRSP

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:3

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Completion of LRSP:1

Program: Other-High Friction Surface Treatments

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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-wet weather crashes • 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
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 71

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

Other-systemic b/c:1

Program: Other-Barrier and Terminal Modifications

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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 

• Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-functional classification

• Other-systemic b/c

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

program?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-inventory
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 71

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Program: Other-Rumble Strips

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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 

• Volume • Horizontal curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-functional classification

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

Other-systemic b/c:1
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 71

Program: Other-Operational Assessments

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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-assesment of field 

conditions

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-field conditions

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Program: Other-BCT conversion

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Page 21 of 71

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Functional classification

• Other-presence of BCT

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-based on functional classification and roadway type

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

program?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-inventory

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

Other-systemic approach:1

Program: Other-Redirectional land forms

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

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-Redirectional Landform 

in median 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 71

• Other-bridge pier

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-presence of condition

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-addressed system wide

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

Other-systemic approach:1

Program: Other-Data and performance improvement

Date of Program Methodology:8/18/2021

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Funding set aside as available

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Data or performance improvements needed
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 71

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSEC Selection

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

Data and performance improvements occur infrequently but projects are typically assessed on an individual 

basis and how the investment is intended to address administrative or subprogram needs.

Program: Other-Active Transportation Safety

Date of Program Methodology:8/18/2021

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-low income household

• Other-concentration of people 

with a disability

• Other-Concentration of people 

of color

• Other-Potential for 

walking/cycling

• Other-destination proximity

• Other-trail proximity

• Other-intermodal connectivity

• Other-system issues

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

Page 24 of 71

• Other-WSDOT developed approach

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked lists

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

Other-WSDOT developed criteria:1

Process for ranking is continuing to evolve.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 70

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Other-Compact Roundabouts

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Safety Edge

• Upgrade Guard Rails

WSDOT targets 70% of its program towards systemic investments and is transitioning to the subcategories 

overtime. Percentage of funding may vary.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 71

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Other-Use of HSM, Statistical analysis

WSDOT develops a Crash Analysis Report to evaluate countermeasure alternatives within the reduction 

category of the safety program. The analysis is typically for spot locations and assess the context, and 

contributing factors leading to crashes. These reports are assessed by a safety panel of regional and 

headquarter offices before a preferred alternative is selected to move forward in the programming process.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

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

ITS technology is, and in the future connected vehicles will be, considered as an appropriate countermeasure 

for safety. The countermeasure would need to be shown to have a positive crash reduction potential for fatal 

and serious crashes. An office exists within WSDOT related to connected vehicles and the State Safety 

Engineer interacts with that office. Washington has a committee dealing with CAT related to safety. WSDOT 

included CAT in its strategic highway safety plan, and is developing an approach to perform a stripping pilot 

project for CAT purposes.

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.

WSDOT uses the HSM throughout its HSIP efforts. The state uses SafetyAnalyst for screening of state 

projects. WSDOT has developed and updated its guide on safety analysis in planning and design and when 

and how to use the HSM for those activities. WSDOT has executive orders that direct policy around the use of 

the HSM. Local HSIP projects priorities are typically derived from the SHSP emphasis areas, and do not use 

the HSM predictive and network screening methods because of data limitations. For Local Agencies we follow 

guidance from the HSM for applying CMFs for our spot location (benefit/cost) projects. WSDOT also continues 

to investigate the use of IHSDM in design of projects. HSM methods are used for Intersection Analysis 

Locations, Crash Analysis Locations, and Crash Analysis Corridors project selection through the Crash 

Analysis Report.

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period.

Additional subcategories have been included for Active Transportation, and Data and Performance 

Management. The program continues to evolve with incorporation of the safe system.

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

elaborate.

WSDOT continues to focus on data driven safety analysis throughout its program efforts. WSDOT is using 

performance based practical design and a sustainable safety approach. WSDOT has focused on data driven 

approaches through identifying the 5th E of safety as Evaluation, analysis and diagnosis. It is thought that this 

approach allows for the targeting of specific crash types and contributing factors, and also maximizes the 

return on safety benefit for selected countermeasures. WSDOT outlined the systemic subcategories that focus 

on road crashes related to road users, intersection, and lane departure crash types. The safety program 

continues to evolve on an ongoing basis.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 71

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $65,820,903 $37,198,302 56.51%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $2,920,544 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $13,817,226 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $9,554,617 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $65,820,903 $63,490,689 96.46%

Numbers shown about are reported on calendar year.

Programmed funds include local safety projects and state Program Management P3 safety projects and I-2 

that are not ADA.

State and Local funds are not obligated (so are shown at 100% obligation).

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

safety projects?

64%

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

26%

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

1%

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

1%
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 71

0.50% of programmed safety funds are for local safety data improvement projects.

0.66% of obligated safety funds are for local safety data improvement projects.

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas 

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

$0

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

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

$36,000,000

WSDOT flexed $36M into the HSIP in FFY 2019 and the flexed out the same amount in FFY 2020. Overall, 

HSIP funding was fully maintained.

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

the future.

WSDOT provides much of its HSIP appropriation to its local partners. Delivery of federally-funded projects with 

all of the attendant paperwork/regulations can make delivery of these projects by local agencies a challenge, 

especially considering the low-cost nature of many safety improvements. This has especially been true for the 

environmental approval process, as other agencies that must approve documentation have been understaffed 

and have lowered the priority of local projects in their approval processes. Also revenue reductions due to the 

pandemic in Washington have reduced available funds to both the state and locals. It is also very difficult when 

projects involved working with Railroads.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

WSDOT believes that having the ability to use HSIP funds for non infrastructure improvements is important to 

reestablish and is hopeful for change at based on current transportation discussion. It would also be helpful to 

continue to emphasize that expenditure for safety software and data is appropriate. Given the changes under 

MAP-21 and FAST additional wording would be beneficial in 23 USC 409 and 23 USC 148 that highlights that 

safety data shared with Safety Partners (MPOs, Health, State Police, SHSO) is protected for the agency 

sharing and receiving the data when used for HSIP purposes (e.g., SHSP, Target Setting, Safety Planning, 

Public Awareness). MPOs in our opinion are reluctant to use this data because of potential liability concerns.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 71

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Adams County -

Booker Rd and SR 

26 Intersection

Roadway Rumble strips - transverse $609600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 3.2 -

Install 

transverse 

rumble strips 

on rural stopcontrolled 

approaches.

City of Auburn -

Auburn Way S 

Curve - Poplar St. 

SE Vicinity

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

$262700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.2 -

Improve 

pavement 

friction using 

high friction 

surface 

treatments.

City of Bainbridge 

Island - High 

School Road 

Signage & Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk $324600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.3 -

Increase sight 

distance and 

visibility at 

pedestrian 

and bicyclist 

crossings.

City of Battle 

Ground - Captain

Strong & Chief 

Umtuch School 

Zone Upgrades

Speed 

management

Traffic calming feature $115130 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Speeding SPE 2.2 -

Implement 

traffic calming 

strategies.

City of Battle 

Ground - Country 

Terrace 

Subdivision Safety 

Upgrades

Speed 

management

Traffic calming feature $136880 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Speeding SPE 2.2 -

Implement 

traffic calming 

strategies.

City of Bellevue -

SE Eastgate Way 

Illumination

Lighting Continuous roadway 

lighting

$542000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.4 -

Install lighting.

Benton County -

Guidepost and 

Guardrail 

Installation

Roadside Barrier- metal $605500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Chelan County -

Countywide 

Signing - 2021

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$379500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

Chelan County -

Countywide Barrier 

Terminals - 2021

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

$393700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Clallam County -

SequimDungeness Way 

and Woodcock 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$833206 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 1.2 -

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

Clark County - NE 

119th Street / NE 

152nd Avenue 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$3000000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 1.2 -

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

City of Cle Elum -

Citywide Safety

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing – add 

enhanced regulatory sign 

(double-up and/or 

oversize)

$147400 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 3.5 -

Increase 

visibility of 

signals and 

signs at 

intersections.

Columbia County -

Columbia Co. 2017 

Safety - Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

$246750 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

beacons in 

curves.

City of Covington -

Roundabout 

Flashing Beacons

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid Rectangular 

Flashing Beacons (RRFB)

$300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancement

s are needed.

Cowlitz County -

Clear Zone 

Inventory

Miscellaneous Data collection $175000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

No Sites Data LDX 1.2 -

Inventory 

horizontal 

curves and 

gather data to 

support 

development 

of programs 

and projects.

Cowlitz County -

Countywide 

Roadside 

Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier

$185000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.5 -

Install edge 

lines, 

especially on 

curves, where 

adequate 

shoulders 

exist.

Cowlitz County -

Countywide 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $537200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Douglas County -

2017 County 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $550881 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

City of Federal 

Way - Horizontal 

Curve Warning 

Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$519700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

Ferry County -

Countywide 

Guardrail - Section 

1

Roadside Barrier- metal $797400 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail,

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Ferry County -

Curve Signing 

Upgrade

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$313200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

City of Fife -

Citywide Safety 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal – add 

flashing yellow arrow

$378040 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 1.12 -

Convert to 

flashing yellow 

arrows at 

signals.

City of Fife - N. 

Levee & Frank 

Albert Road I/S

Lighting Intersection lighting $357300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.10 -

Install lighting.

Franklin County -

Countywide 

Guardrail & Curve 

Improvements

Roadside Slope Flattening $240881 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.2 -

Flatten side 

slopes to 

reduce the 

potential for 

rollover 

crashes.

Franklin County -

LED Signs, 

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Intersection Conflict 

Warning System (ICWS)

$310900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 1.6 -

Install 

intersection 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Dynamic Signals, & 

Reflector Posts

conflict 

warning 

systems (real 

time warning) 

at rural 

intersections.

Franklin County -

Eltopia West 

Railroad Crossing

Railroad grade 

crossings

Crossing approach 

improvements

$72900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic VehicleTrain

Garfield County -

Bell Plain Road 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $596500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Grant County -

Flashing LED Stop 

Signs - Phases 1 & 

2

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing – add 

enhanced regulatory sign 

(double-up and/or 

oversize)

$549600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 3.5 -

Increase 

visibility of 

signals and 

signs at 

intersections.

Island County -

Island Co. 2017 

Safety - Flexible 

Guideposts

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier

$44500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.5 -

Install edge 

lines, 

especially on 

curves, where 

adequate 

shoulders 

exist.

Island County -

Whidbey Island 

Guardrail 

Replacement

Roadside Barrier- metal $598000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

City of Kenmore -

2018 Citywide 

Safety - Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

$346000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancement

s are needed.

King County - 2020 

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatments

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

$3258063 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.2 -

Improve 

pavement 

friction using 

high friction 

surface 

treatments.

King County - 16th 

Ave SW Pedestrian 

Improvements

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

$862200 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians INT 1.3 -

Convert fourlane roadways 

to three-lane 

roadways with 

center turn 

lane (road 

diet).

City of Kirkland -

Lake St. & Kirkland 

Ave.

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

– other

$500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians PAB 2.1 -

Reduce crash 

exposure 

safety at 

pedestrian 

and bicyclist 

crossings.

City of Kirkland -

NE 124th St. & 

113th Ave. E 

Signal 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing 

– left-turn phasing

$670000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.4 -

Convert 

permitted left 

turns to 

protected left 

turns at 

signals.

Kitsap County -

2019 Guardrail 

Replacement

Roadside Barrier- metal $600000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Kittitas County -

Clear Zone 

Inventory

Miscellaneous Data collection $78777 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

No Sites Data LDX 1.2 -

Inventory 

horizontal 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

curves and 

gather data to 

support 

development 

of programs 

and projects.

Kittitas County -

Vantage Highway 

Corridor

Roadside Barrier- metal $1292356 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Klickitat County -

Countywide Guide 

Posts & Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$613500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

Klickitat County -

Countywide Edge 

Lines

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings – new

$175300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.5 -

Install edge 

lines, 

especially on 

curves, where 

adequate 

shoulders 

exist.

Lewis County -

2019 County 

Safety - Phase 2

Roadside Slope Flattening $991248 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.2 -

Flatten side 

slopes to 

reduce the 

potential for 

rollover 

crashes.

Lewis County -

2019 County 

Safety - Phase 1

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier

$225585 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.5 -

Install edge 

lines, 

especially on 

curves, where 

adequate 

shoulders 

exist.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Lincoln County -

2017 Countywide 

Guardrail 

Installation

Roadside Barrier- metal $630500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

City of Marysville -

Marysville Citywide 

Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid Rectangular 

Flashing Beacons (RRFB)

$651220 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancement

s are needed.

City of Marysville -

State Ave. - 3rd St. 

to 80th St. NE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing 

– signal coordination

$1752248 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.11 -

Coordinate 

arterial 

signals.

Mason County -

Bear Creek 

Dewatto Rd

Roadside Slope Flattening $524983 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.2 -

Flatten side 

slopes to 

reduce the 

potential for 

rollover 

crashes.

Okanogan County -

Countywide Speed 

Limit & Striping

Speed 

management

Modify speed limit $185700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Speeding SPE 2.1 - Set 

speed limits 

which account 

for roadway 

design, traffic, 

and 

environment.

Okanogan County -

Countywide 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $433200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

City of Othello -

Main St. Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian hybrid beacon $1062593 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancement

s are needed.

Pacific County -

Camp One 

Rd/Heckard Rd 

Intersection 

Realignment

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment $159000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 3.4 -

Increase sight 

distance 

(visibility) of 

intersections 

on 

approaches.

Pacific County -

High Intensity 

Safety Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

$1383000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

Pacific County -

Countywide 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $307600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Pierce County -

Countywide Edge 

& Centerline 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips – center $1410000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.3 -

Install center 

and/or bicyclefriendly edge 

line rumble 

strips.

Pierce County -

Countywide 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $1388800 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

City of Renton -

Renton Elementary 

and Middle School 

Crossings

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

$728905 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.1 -

Reduce crash 

exposure 

safety at 

pedestrian 

and bicyclist 

crossings.

City of Richland -

Van Giesen & 

Thayer 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$831276 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.2 -

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

San Juan County -

Collision Risk Field 

Survey

Miscellaneous Data collection $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

No Sites Data LDX 1.2 -

Inventory 

horizontal 

curves and

gather data to 

support 

development 

of programs 

and projects.

San Juan County -

Roche Harbor Rd 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $44300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

City of Seattle -

Vision Zero 

Leading Pedestrian 

Intervals

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Leading pedestrian interval $1287000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians INT 1.9 -

Modify signal 

phasing to 

implement a 

leading 

pedestrian 

interval.

City of Shoreline -

Midblock Crossing 

and Citywide 

Flashing Beacons 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

$1377500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

and Radar Speed 

Signs

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancement

s are needed.

City of Shoreline -

Meridian Ave. N 

Safety 

Improvements

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

$1139000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.3 -

Convert fourlane roadways 

to three-lane 

roadways with 

center turn 

lane (road 

diet).

Skamania County -

Countywide 

Guardrail & 

Signage

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$465240 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

Snohomish County 

- Countywide 

Curve 

Improvements

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

$1381058 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.2 -

Improve 

pavement 

friction using 

high friction 

surface 

treatments.

Snohomish County 

- 84th St NE & 

163rd St NE 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$1812200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 1.2 -

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

Snohomish County 

- Marsh Road Spot 

Safety

Roadside Barrier- metal $361111 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Spokane County -

2019 Curve 

Signing Safety

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$238891 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

Spokane County -

2019 Guardrail 

Safety

Roadside Barrier- metal $1269810 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 -

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware 

such as 

guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Spokane County -

2019 Stop Sign 

Safety

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing – add 

enhanced regulatory sign 

(double-up and/or 

oversize)

$413970 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 3.5 -

Increase 

visibility of 

signals and 

signs at 

intersections.

City of Spokane 

Valley - Citywide 

Reflective Sign 

Post Panels

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

$77300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

City of Tacoma -

McKinley Ave. 

Crosswalk 

Improvements at E. 

36th St. and E. 

37th St.

Lighting Intersection lighting $358500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 1.10 -

Install lighting.

City of Tacoma -

East Portland 

Avenue Safety 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacemen

t

$2379703 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.11 -

Coordinate 

arterial 

signals.

City of Tacoma -

Pacific Ave. (SR 7) 

Corridor - 

Intersection Signal 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacemen

t

$945166 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.11 -

Coordinate 

arterial 

signals.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

City of Tacoma - S 

19th St. Signal and 

Crosswalk 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing 

– left-turn phasing

$602161 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.4 -

Convert 

permitted left 

turns to 

protected left 

turns at 

signals.

Thurston County -

2018 Highway 

Safety 

Improvements

Roadway Rumble strips – center $1287000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 2.1 -

Install 

centerline 

rumble strips.

Thurston County -

Pacific Ave Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

$320400 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.1 -

Reduce crash 

exposure 

safety at 

pedestrian 

and bicyclist 

crossings.

City of Vancouver -

Fourth Plain Blvd. 

Road Diet - F 

Street to Fort 

Vancouver Way

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

$796620 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT 1.3 -

Convert fourlane roadways 

to three-lane 

roadways with 

center turn 

lane (road 

diet).

City of Walla Walla 

- Citywide 

Pedestrian Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid Rectangular 

Flashing Beacons (RRFB)

$745824 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancement

s are needed.

Walla Walla 

County - 

Countywide 

Signing & 

Guideposts

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$155000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

Walla Walla 

County - Middle 

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

$2503500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Waitsburg Rd - MP 

6.10 to MP 7.92

City of Wenatchee 

- Methow Street 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Compact/Mini-roundabout

$786600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.2 -

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

City of Wenatchee 

- S. Miller 

St./Montana St. 

Pedestrian 

Crossing

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid Rectangular 

Flashing Beacons (RRFB)

$248203 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancement

s are needed.

Whatcom County -

Curve Advisory 

Speed Review

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$110800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 -

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

City of Yakima -

Fruitvale Blvd at 

River Rd & River 

Rd at N 34th Ave 

Roundabouts

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$1023184 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT 1.2 -

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

NORTHWEST 

REGION CURVE 

WARNING SIGNS 

(15-17)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$0 $73829.32 State and 

Local Funds

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.3.1

SR 9 & SR 92/Lake 

Stevens Vic - 

Rumble Strip 

Installation

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$115000 $125350 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1

NWR Breakaway 

Cable Terminal 

Replacement 17-

19

Roadside Barrier – cable $503424 $503424 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

NWR Breakaway 

Cable Terminal 

Replacement 17-

19

Roadside Barrier – cable $862636 $862636 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

US 2/Bickford Ave 

to SR 9 Vicinity - 

Median Barrier 

(Phase 2)

Roadside Barrier – concrete $2382630 $2382630 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,904 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

US 2 / FERN 

BLUFF RD VIC TO 

10TH ST VIC - 

PAVING

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings $0 $-1217.94 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,509 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.3.5

I-5/ NB MARTIN 

LUTHER KING JR 

WY TO NE 

RAVENNA BR - 

PAVEMENT 

REPAIR AND 

MORE

Roadside Barrier – concrete $15000 $15000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate163,15

2

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

I-5/ NB MARTIN 

LUTHER KING JR 

WY TO NE 

RAVENNA BR - 

PAVEMENT 

REPAIR AND 

MORE

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings $0 $5000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate152,40

1

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1.5

I-5/ NB MARTIN 

LUTHER KING JR 

WY TO NE 

RAVENNA BR - 

PAVEMENT 

REPAIR AND 

MORE

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings $0 $5000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate164,21

9

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1.5

I-5/NB SR 531 VIC 

TO PORTAGE 

CREEK BRIDGE 

VIC - PAVING

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps $0 $27883.91 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate66,132 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

PAB.2.1

NWR Cable Barrier 

Upgrade

Roadside Barrier – cable $84000 $84000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate52,911 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

SR9/108th St NE & 

SR92/147th Ave 

NE to Quarry Rd -

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$550000 $550000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,114 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

I/S Improvements 

& Paving

NWR Cable Barrier 

Upgrade

Roadside Barrier – cable $0 $37211 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialOther32,103 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

SR 20/Campbell 

Lake Road - 

Intersection 

Improvements 

(Local-WSDOT 

Lead)

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to interchange

$0 $570900 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther16,545 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1

SR 20/Swinomish 

Channel to SedroWoolley-Predesign 

Corridor 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$40000 $43000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,624 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

INT.1.2

SR 524/LOCUST & 

LARCH WAY - 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$163519 $163519 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor Arterial 18,377 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2

SR 

548/KICKERVILLE 

RD - Intersection 

Improvements

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade crossing 

equipment 

installation/upgrade

$0.01 $186048.19 State and 

Local Funds

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,376 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.4.1

NCR Seal 2020 Roadway Rumble strips – center $0 $1322.5 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.2.1

NCR Centerline 

Rumble Strips - 

Section C

Roadway Rumble strips – center $0 $1456.84 State and 

Local Funds

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1

NCR 17-19 

Regionwide Curve 

Warning Sign 

Update

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

$639682.81 $652476.47 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.3.1

NCR Guardrail 

Update 19-21

Roadside Barrier- metal $90458 $90458 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.4.3

NCR Pavement 

Rehab 2018

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$0 $1.83 State and 

Local Funds

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

NCR Pavement 

Rehab 2018

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$0 $16.66 State and 

Local Funds

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

LDX.2.1

SR 17/Grape Dr -

Intersection Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$305139 $326498 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,716 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2

SR 

17/Cunningham Rd 

- Intersection 

Safety 

Improvement 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$376117 $402445 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther6,858 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2

SR 17/Prior Farms 

- Left Turn Lane 

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes $0 $3529.58 State and 

Local Funds

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,196 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1

NCR Pavement 

Rehab 2018

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes $0 $27100 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Multiple/Varies 8,763 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians INT.1.5

SR 24/ Bench Rd 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes $87648 $107798 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major Collector 6,230 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1.5

SR 28/White Trail 

Rd - Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$340200 $378000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,800 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2

SR 28/5th Street 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes $1911.57 $1911.57 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,409 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1.5

I-90/Silica Rd to 

Adams Co Line - 

Cable Barrier 

Upgrades

Roadside Barrier – cable $0 $3758963.3

8

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate13,100 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

SR 285 Wenatchee 

Area - Paving

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$0 $124205 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Multiple/Varies 22,426 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

INT.1

19-21 OR Region 

Wide Basic Safety - 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $125000 $130000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.4.3
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

US 101/Morse 

Creek Vicinity - 

Safety 

Improvements

Roadside Barrier- metal $297473.19 $297473.19 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.4.3

Olympic Region -

Guardrail 

Installations

Roadside Barrier- metal $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.4.3

SR 7/Pedestrian 

Crossing - Safety 

Improvement

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

$45191.55 $47236.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther28,429 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB.2.1

US 12 / Anderson 

Rd to Moon Rd - 

Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$1901540 $1973042.5

8

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,681 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2

US 101/Morse 

Creek Vicinity - 

Safety 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

$1873690.0

3

$1873690.0

3

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,458 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1.5

SR 304/E of Jct to 

SR 310 to SR 303 - 

Paving

Roadside Barrier – concrete $0 $1583.54 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,512 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

SR 410/E of Main 

Ave to W of 166th 

Ave E - Install 

Cable Barrier

Roadside Barrier – cable $611385.72 $611385.72 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther47,653 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

SWR Regionwide 

Basic Safety - 

Signing 2017-2019 

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

$945.8 $3871.42 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.3.1

I-5/SB Interstate Br 

to NE 99th St Vic - 

Active Traffic

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other $90000 $500000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate86,300 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic TSMO INT.1

SW 

Region/Regionwid

e Shoulder Rumble 

Strip Installation 

2019-2021

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$240357.07 $240357.07 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Multiple/Varies 1,357 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1

SR 500/Burnt 

Bridge Creek to 4th 

Plain Rd - Paving

Roadside Barrier – concrete $0 $14376.71 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther50,421 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

SR 500/NE 42nd 

and 54th Ave - 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

$0 $100000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther49,081 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.5

SR 503/NE 154th 

St to SR 502 - 

Median Barrier

Roadside Barrier – concrete $263000 $263000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,404 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.2

SCR 17-19 Region 

Wide - Rumble 

Strips

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$178669.44 $178669.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1

SCR 17-19 Region 

Wide BCT 

Replacement and 

Guardrail Upgrade

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

$0 $16226.01 State and 

Local Funds

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.4.3

SCR 17-19 Region 

Wide - Rumble 

Strips

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$178669.44 $178669.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1

US 12/Whetstone 

Creek Bridge - 

Replace Bridge

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

$0 $739980 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,849 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.3.1

SCR 17-19 Region 

Wide - Rumble 

Strips

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$8639.59 $8639.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Minor Arterial 5,464 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1

I-90/Ryegrass to 

Vantage WB - 

Paving

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$12178.12 $12178.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther14,573 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

INT.1.2

US 97/ LATERAL A 

INTERSECTION - 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$100000 $100000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,058 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2

US 

97/MCDONALD 

RD AND BECKER 

RD - 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$471444 $522173 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,127 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2

US 97/Jones Rd -

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$752041 $782122 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 13,545 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1.2
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

US 97 / SR 22 Vic 

to 2nd Ave Vic - 

Paving & Roadside 

and I/S 

Improvements

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$38856.03 $38856.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,311 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1

SR 240/Columbia 

Center Blvd - 

Pedestrian Facility 

Improvement

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian bridge $0 $1494280 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB.2.1

SR 241/Forsell

Rd/Green Valley 

Rd - Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing – add 

enhanced advance 

warning (double-up and/or 

oversize)

$9250 $9250 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major Collector 4,503 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.3.5

US 195/Install 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

$35000 $663539.28 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,162 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

LDX.2.1

2019-21 ER 

Regionwide Basic 

Safety - Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

$7174.20 $7174.20 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.3.1

2020 Eastern 

Region Chip Seal

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading $383529.16 $383529.16 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

LDX.4.2

I-90/Salnave Rd to 

BNSF RR Bridge - 

Paving

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

$95000 $1120344.9

0

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate17,605 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

INT.1.2

I-90/Salnave Rd to 

BNSF RR Bridge - 

Paving

Roadside Roadside - other $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot railroad 

crossing

INT.1

US 195/Thorpe Rd 

- Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Innovative Intersection 

(e.g. MUT, RCUT, QR)

$25000 $25000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,502 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

INT.1

SR 516 / 102ND PL 

SE VIC TO 132ND 

AVE SE - PAVING 

& ADA 

COMPLIANCE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians INT.1

NCR Sign Update 

19-21

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

$95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

INT.1
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 71

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

STBG, 

NHPP)

US 2/Leavenworth 

Vicinity - Paving 

and ADA upgrade

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians INT.1

SR 161/SR 7 to N 

of W Clear Lake Rd 

E - Chip Seal and 

ADA

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Minor Arterial 18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians INT.1

SR 162/E of 96th 

St E to W of Orville 

Rd E - Paving and 

ADA Compliance

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor Arterial 18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians INT.1

Kitsap Area Paving 

& ADA Compliance 

- 2019

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor Arterial 18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians INT.1

SR 300/Belfair 

State Park to SR 3 

- Paving and ADA 

Compliance

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Major Collector 18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians INT.1

GARVEE - SR 520 

BRIDGE 

REPLACEMENT 

AND HOV 

PROGRAM 

(BOND SALE 1)

Roadway Roadway - other $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot INT.1

GARVEE - SR 520 

BRIDGE 

REPLACEMENT 

AND HOV 

PROGRAM 

(BOND SALE 2)

Roadway Roadway - other $95000 $1756453.0

2

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

18,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot INT.1

This project list includes safety projects in addition to HSIP Sec 148 funded projects, as well as other safety project funded with other federal fund sources without HSIP. An additional excel is provided for additional information showing 

deobligation during the calendar reporting year.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 71

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 438 436 462 551 536 563 539 538 557

Serious Injuries 2,201 1,916 2,004 2,101 2,218 2,221 2,236 2,255 2,439

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.774 0.762 0.796 0.924 0.881 0.917 0.864 0.860 1.041

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.888 3.349 3.452 3.522 3.645 3.616 3.585 3.606 4.558

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

87 61 86 100 105 124 119 116 114

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

449 343 408 395 492 449 523 461 401
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 71

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 71

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 71

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

WSDOT uses FARS for reporting fatality data.

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

ownership.

Year 2020

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

25.8 61.2 0.54 1.29

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

7.6 51.6 0.44 2.84

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

51.2 95.6 2.15 4.06

Rural Minor Arterial 31 94.8 1.82 5.61

Rural Minor Collector 0 0.6 0 0.07

Rural Major Collector 14.8 52.8 0 0
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 71

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

0.6 0 94.89 0

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

44 134.2 0.37 1.15

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

11.2 110.4 0.21 1.92

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

67.8 244.8 1.82 6.64

Urban Minor Arterial 12.2 71 1.21 7.05

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 1 7.4 0 0

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0.2 0.2 0 0
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 71

Year 2019

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

263.2 873.2 25.03 83.08

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 63.2 329.4 0.26 1.28

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

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

WSDOT is working with the WTSC to develop action plans for all the Es. WSDOT is communication with the 

Legislature on additional funding for the Safety program.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:437.3
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 71

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

WSDOT set targets based on a 2030 goal of zero fatal and serious crashes. WSDOT recognizes the 

aspirational aspects of this method of target setting. In setting this target, WSDOT feels that it can 

communicate the need to address crash reduction throughout the state and has had success in discussion with 

the Legislator and traffic safety commissioners. A more realistic target setting method would be to set 

increasing fatal and serious crashes but questions the message this sends to the public on road safety.

Number of Serious Injuries:1819.5

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

WSDOT set targets based on a 2030 goal of zero fatal and serious crashes. WSDOT recognizes the 

aspirational aspects of this method of target setting. In setting this target, WSDOT feels that it can 

communicate the need to address crash reduction throughout the state and has had success in discussion with 

the Legislator and traffic safety commissioners. A more realistic target setting method would be to set 

increasing fatal and serious crashes but questions the message this sends to the public on road safety.

Fatality Rate:0.730

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

WSDOT set targets based on a 2030 goal of zero fatal and serious crashes. WSDOT recognizes the 

aspirational aspects of this method of target setting. In setting this target, WSDOT feels that it can 

communicate the need to address crash reduction throughout the state and has had success in discussion with 

the Legislator and traffic safety commissioners. A more realistic target setting method would be to set 

increasing fatal and serious crashes but questions the message this sends to the public on road safety.

Serious Injury Rate:3.043

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

WSDOT set targets based on a 2030 goal of zero fatal and serious crashes. WSDOT recognizes the 

aspirational aspects of this method of target setting. In setting this target, WSDOT feels that it can 

communicate the need to address crash reduction throughout the state and has had success in discussion with 

the Legislator and traffic safety commissioners. A more realistic target setting method would be to set 

increasing fatal and serious crashes but questions the message this sends to the public on road safety.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:464.6

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

WSDOT set targets based on a 2030 goal of zero fatal and serious crashes. WSDOT recognizes the 

aspirational aspects of this method of target setting. In setting this target, WSDOT feels that it can 

communicate the need to address crash reduction throughout the state and has had success in discussion with 

the Legislator and traffic safety commissioners. A more realistic target setting method would be to set 

increasing fatal and serious crashes but questions the message this sends to the public on road safety.

WSDOT set targets based on a 2030 goal of zero fatal and serious crashes. WSDOT recognizes the 

aspirational aspects of this method of target setting. In setting this target, WSDOT feels that it can 

communicate the need to address crash reduction throughout the state and has had success in discussion with 

the Legislator and traffic safety commissioners. A more realistic target setting method would be to set 

increasing fatal and serious crashes but questions the message this sends to the public on road safety. The 

target rate for fatalities input by NHTSA does not appear to be correct. It has been verified by WTSC and 

NHTSA to be 0.730 based on on an amended submittal by WTSC in August 2021.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 71

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

safety performance targets. 

WSDOT actively coordinates with internal and external partners and stakeholders. In establishing Targets, 

WSDOT works directly with the SHSO to determine the method and approach to target setting. This is typically 

a one on one meetings to address concerns that might arise. A meeting is then held with the Safety 

Commissioners of Washington State to get agreement to proceed. The Department next step is to coordinate 

with the MPOs through a collaborative process in which the methods are discussed with the MPO technical 

coordinating council. Once data is available a second meeting is held with the MPOs to inform of the likely 

target values for the year. WSDOT makes itself avaible to present to MPO executive boards as requested.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 443.2 546.6

Number of Serious Injuries 1795.5 2273.8

Fatality Rate 0.732 0.913

Serious Injury Rate 2.968 3.802

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

466.5 580.8

WSDOT is seeing crashes increase in Washington State as extreme speeding and DUI drug/alcohol increased 

during COVID (2020). WSDOT is working with the legislature on the importance of road safety and reducing 

crash outcomes.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

81 90 85 90 70 98 75

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

160 168 189 186 190 212 222
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 71

WSDOT uses different definitions and age in Target Zero for Older Driver crashes. Target Zero looks at older 

driver Involved, and for ages 70 and greater.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 71

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Projects are prioritized based on benefit cost, and overall the change in fatal and serious crashes are used to 

assess countermeasure.

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

the State's program level evaluations.

The department has been seeing a trend of increasing fatal serious crashes in all emphasis areas of its SHSP. 

The increases are likely attributable to increased population trends. This unfortunate rise has led to changes 

towards a more proactive program with a shift towards 70% being systemic. The Department has also faced 

significant financial challenges across all program areas, with the notable exception of mobility type projects 

being line item programmed by the Legislature. WSDOT is seeing a leveling off of fatalities and serious 

injuries. The Department executives are engaged with the Legislature in making Safety a top priority for 

increased state funding. WSDOT also uses networking screening methods for all subcategories within the 

Safety Subprogram. Prioritization is based on B/C analysis.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Organizational change

• Policy change

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period.

WSDOT continues to transition its program towards a proactive systemic and Safe System approach, and has 

refined prioritization approaches as outlined in its implementation plan. Increased focus is occurring for active 

transportation.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2020

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)

Impairment Involved 317.4 471 0.53 0.79
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 71

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Distracted User(s) 

Involved

136.4 590 0.23 0.98

Speeding Driver 

Involved

165.4 557.4 0.27 0.93

Unrestrained Occupant 105.2 241 0.18 0.4

Lane Departure 257.4 837.2 0.43 1.4

Run Off the Road 185.6 620 0.31 1.04

Opposite Direction 71.8 217.2 0.12 0.36

Intersection Related 123 780.8 0.21 1.3

Active Transportation 

User (Non-Motorist)

114.6 466.4 0.19 0.78

Pedestrian 100.8 357.4 0.17 0.59

Bicyclist 13.8 109 0.02 0.18

Motor Vehicle Driver Age 

16 to 25 Involved

159 728.2 0.27 1.22

Heavy Vehicle Involved 69.8 135.8 0.12 0.22

Motorcycle 85.6 395.8 0.14 0.66

Motor Vehicle Driver 70 

Plus Involved

72.4 226 0.12 0.38
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 71

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 71

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Please note that numbers are five year rolling averages, and use Target Zero Definitions. These definitions 

may differ from Federal definitions of similar sounding performance measures.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 71

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: LED Stop Sign 

Description: Installed a LED Stop Sign 

Target Crash Type: Angle 

Number of Installations: 8 

Number of Installations: 8 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: CMF = .339, CI = 99%, SE = 0.252 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: High Friction Surface Treatment 

Description: 

High Friction Surface Treatment at Urban 

Freeway On-Ramp, severity = FI & PDO, 

Crash Type = All 

Target Crash Type: Wet road 

Number of Installations: 2 

Number of Installations: 2 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

CMFFI = 0.074, CMFPDO = 0.063, CI = 

99%, SE of CMF FI = 0.054 SE of CMF 

PDO = 0.026 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: Curve Signage 

Description: 

Site Type: Rural 2 Lane 2 way Highways, 

Crash Type: All Countermeasure Relevant 

Crashes, Crash Severity: All 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 7 

Number of Installations: 7 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 71

Results: CMF = .462, CI = 99%, SE = 0.21 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: 24 hour 7 day Flashing Beacon Elk 

Crossing sign with next X miles plaque 

Description: 

Site Type: Rural 2 Lane 2 way Highways, 

Speed Limit: 55 mph, Crash Type: 

Vehicle/Elk & Vehicle/All animal crashes, 

Crash Severity: All 

Target Crash Type: Vehicle/animal 

Number of Installations: 1 

Number of Installations: 1 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 5 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

CMFall animal = 1.14 and CMFelk only = 

0.97, CI = to or less than 90%, SE(CMFall 

animal) = 0.20 and SE(CMFelk only) = 

0.19 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: Alternating 24/7 flashing beacons w/ rev.

curve sign & large arrow 

Description: 

Site Type = Rural 2 Lane 2 way Highways, 

Speed Limit = 50 mph, Crash Type: All 

Curve Related Crashes (All Lane 

Departure & Vehicle Overturned 

Crashes), Crash Severity = All 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 2 

Number of Installations: 2 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 5 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: CMF = 0.737, CI = less than 50%, SE = 

0.388 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: ICWS (Intersection Control Warning 

System) = Various sign messages 

Description: 

Site Type = Rural 2 Lane 2 Way Highway, 

with speed limit between 35 and 60 mph, 

Crash Type = All Intersection Crashes, 

Crash Severity = All 

Target Crash Type: Intersections 

Number of Installations: 15 

Number of Installations: 15 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 71

Years After: 5 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

years after varies up to 5 years. CMFTotal 

Intersection Crashes = 1.12, 

CMFRearend Crashes = 

1.34,CMFEntering At Angle Crashes = 

0.86, CMFEntering At Angle Crashes, 

NWR = 0.55, 50%, CI = 80%, 50%, 99%, 

SE = 0.12, 0.21, 0.18, 0.16. 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: PTSWF (Prepare To Stop When Flashing) 

System 

Description: 

Site Type = Rural 2 Lane & 4 Lane 

Highways, with speed limit between 45 

and 60 mph, Crash Type = All Mainline 

Intersection Crashes & Rear-End 

Crashes, Crash Severity: All 

Target Crash Type: Intersections 

Number of Installations: 21 

Number of Installations: 21 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

Following 2019 Guidance (9), 

CMFtotalintersection = 0.75, CMFre = 

0.75; all sites (21), CMFtotalintersection = 

1.01, CMFrearend = 1.07, CI = 99%, 95%, 

less than 50%, 50%; SE = 0.09, 0.11, 

0.07, 0.09 

File Name: Hyperlink
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 71

Project Effectiveness

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance Assessment 

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

02/04/2020 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2015 To: 2017 

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

2022 

WSDOT is discussing how best to update the plan to specifically incorporate the safe system approach. It is likely that the update may be delayed a year to have agencies develop implementation plans. 

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.) 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS 

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12] 

100 100 100 100 100 100 

Route Number (8) 

[8] 

100 100 

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9] 

100 100 

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21] 

100 100 

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20] 

100 100 100 100 

Surface Type (23) 

[24] 

30 30 30 30 

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10] 

100 100 100 100 100 100 

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11] 

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13] 

100 100 

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18] 

100 100 

Functional Class 

(19) [19] 

100 100 100 100 100 100 

Page 66 of 71 
 

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.) 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Median Type (54) 

[55] 

20 20 

Access Control (22) 

[23] 

100 100 

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93] 

100 100 

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32] 

100 100 100 100 

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81] 

100 100 100 100 

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100 

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4] 

63 63 63 63 63 63 

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110] 

100 100 

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112] 

100 100 

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113] 

100 100 

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116] 

55 55 

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131] 

40 40 

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81] 

100 100 

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100 

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129] 

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168] 

100 100 

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100

Page 67 of 71 
 

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.) 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187] 

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191] 

100 100 

Ramp Length (187) 

[177] 

100 100 

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185] 

40 40 

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189] 

40 40 

Interchange Type 

(182) [172] 

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181] 

100 100 

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182] 

100 100 

Functional Class 

(19) [19] 

100 100 

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4] 

100 100 

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 89.61 89.61 86.88 86.88 80.00 80.00 88.11 88.11 92.60 92.60 

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

Several items are scored less complete than in the past several years. These new scores reflect and mostly align with the MIRE FDE readiness evaluation scores done by FHWA’s Safety Office earlier this year. The primary clarifications 

this readiness evaluation provided are 1) that we need to carry MIRE code values in our data dictionary regardless of appropriateness (e.g. government owner = Tennessee Valley Authority) and 2) that we need to break our several of our 

codes out into more granular detail (e.g. our surface type of Portland Concrete Cement is broken out to six MIRE types of concrete). The latter will involve significant work, which we are starting to plan, but not able to show in this update. 

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. 

Several items are scored less complete that in the past several years. These new scores reflect and mostly align with the MIRE FDE readiness evaluation scores done by FHWA’s Safety Office earlier this year. The primary clarifications 

this readiness evaluation provided are 1) that we need to carry MIRE code values in our data dictionary (e.g. government owner = Tennessee Valley Authority) and 2) that we need to break our several of our codes out into more granular 

detail (e.g. our surface type of Portland Concrete Cement is broken out to six MIRE types of concrete). The latter will involve real work, which we are starting to plan. 

The on-going significant gap is interchange types. We are working on a new technical approach to maintaining our interchange drawing diagrams and hope to include a solution for interchange type in this effort. 

Page 68 of 71 
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 69 of 71

WSDOT is also meeting regularly on the issues of LIDAR, and HSIP MIRE FDE implementation is an important part of justification for the use of this technology. WSDOT is intending to use LIDAR to collect the necessary MIRE FDE data 

for Washington. As mentioned previously WSDOT is planning how best to address MIRE FDE concerns expressed by FHWA through planning next steps.
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 70 of 71

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Question 29 CY 2020 HSIP REVISED.xlsx

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 71 of 71

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.