1

Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement 

Program FFY 2005 - 2014

August 31, 2015

Written by:

Matt Warren, P.E.

Traffic Engineering Division

Oklahoma DOT
2

Table of Contents 

Title Page 1

Table of Contents 2

A. Program Structure 3

1. Program Administration 3

2. Program Methodology 4

B. Progress in Implementing the HSIP Projects 8

1. HSIP Funds Available 8

2. General Listing of Projects 8

C. Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) 43

1. Graphs of General Highway Safety Trends 43

2. Description of Overall HSIP Effectiveness 46

D. High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) 48

E. Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule 48

F. References 49

Appendix A: Initial Request with HSIP Project Categories 50

Appendix B: B/C Ratio and EUAC 57

Appendix C: Discount Rates 59

Appendix D: Oklahoma Highway Safety Office Crash Facts Book 62

Appendix E: Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in 63

Departmental Analyses – 2011 Interim Revision

Appendix F: MAPS-21 Interium HSIP Guidance 76

Appendix G1: High Risk Rural Roads Special Rule Calculations 78

Appendix G2: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Calculations 79
3

Program Structure 

1. Program Administration

The following describes the practices for HSIP projects that are administered though the 

Traffic Engineering Division. The field Division Offices administered approximately half of 

HSIP projects. They selected these safety projects to address their need based on 

information about roadway, structures, maintenance status, pavement condition, and 

safety history.

a. How are HSIP funds administered in the state, i.e. centrally or via 

districts?

All of the HSIP funds are administered through ODOT’s Central Office.

b. Describe any innovative practices used to implement the HSIP.

ODOT is currently in transition on the method in which sites are ranked for both segments 

and intersections. We are currently using Bayesian methods for segments and 

probability-weighted rates for intersections. ODOT recently contracted with Oklahoma 

University to integrate advanced Empirical Bayesian analytical capabilities into our 

existing collision database interface.

A safety performance function developed to model median crossover crashes on divided 

highways was used to help develop policy guidelines for median cable barrier installation. 

As a point of diminishing returns for median cable barrier had been reached, these 

guidelines will help direct funding to projects likely to provide greater benefits.

c. Describe how local roads are addressed as part of the HSIP.

The local roads are owned and operated by the local entity (county or city) and the data 

coverage represented in this report does not include county roads or city streets. Local 

roads are not identified as part of the HSIP.

Currently, ODOT’s database does have city and county road collisions within it. However, 

these roads have two different coordinate systems than that of ODOT’s system and are 

not capable of being related to each other at this time. Furthermore, the software is not 

capable of drawing comparisons across the three coordinate systems. Roadway data is 

not available for most local roads, making it impossible to use the same analytical 
4

methods on these roads. Extension of the analytical methods to a limited set of local 

roads is under implementation.

Reporting methods for other local roads strictly require geocoded crash data. At present 

the majority of these crashes are geocoded and can be mapped but cannot be tied to 

roadway data. Complete geocoding of all crashes and integration with roadway data will 

require extensive resources and is not being actively pursued at this time since the 

resources to collect the relevant roadway data are not expected to be available in the 

foreseeable future. ODOT is presently exploring methods of selecting systemic safety 

mitigations on local roads.

d. Describe how highway safety improvement projects are selected for 

implementation.

Currently, HSIP funds are used by ODOT exclusively; i.e. there are no other entities that 

can apply and we have no competitive application process for these funds. Crash 

experience, as reflected by the annual Collision Data Digest (parallel to the former 5% 

report), is a factor in project selection but there is no single governing metric. Possible 

B/C ratios are typically not estimated but some of the lists are ranked by expected crashes 

or expected crashes per mile, which may be taken as roughly proportional to a first 

approximation of B/C ratio. Sites for systemic improvement are chosen based on 

roadway characteristics and sometimes on crash history; for certain improvements 

specialized reports using Bayesian analysis are available to help optimize benefits. There 

is no established method for ranking systemic improvements relative to hot spot projects.

2. Program Methodology

The following describes the practices for HSIP projects that are administered though the 

Traffic Engineering Division. The other HSIP projects (approx. half) that go through the 

other Divisions have their own practices.

The program was last updated approximately in 1998.

a. Data Used

Crash

Crash data used to evaluate HSIP projects has a span of 5 years before the exact 

Work Start Date and 5 years after the exact Completion Date. Fatality, incapacitating 

injury and non-incapacitating injury collisions (types K, A, B) are used. Other than 
5

excluding possible injury and property damage only crashes (types C, O) all crash 

types are included.

Site ranking for project selection typically uses 5 calendar years of prior crash data, 

including fatalities, incapacitating injuries and non-incapacitating injuries (K, A, B). For 

many rankings, only certain crash types are considered, for instance only run-off-road 

or only non-intersection or only median-crossover.

Exposure

Estimated AADT is used in both crash rate analysis and Bayesian methods. 

Population is not considered. For intersections, mainline AADT is used instead of total 

entering vehicles due to an almost complete lack of traffic data for minor approaches. 

For purposes of comparison with other intersections only, crash counts are adjusted to 

reflect the lower bound of a one-tailed 99% confidence interval on the assumption that 

observed crashes are a sample from a Poisson distribution with a mean which is itself 

a sample from a uniform probability distribution over the interval (0,∞). This method 

produces an estimate significantly lower than the observed crash counts and is not an 

accurate estimate of future crashes; the estimates cannot be used for instance to 

predict B/C ratios but provides a reasonable ranking of intersections relative to each 

other (for network screening), effectively deflating the ranking of intersections with very 

low AADT and only a few crashes.

Roadway

Only data from Oklahoma Highways, U.S. Highways, and Interstates (non-turnpike) 

were used in the Collision Data Digest and HSIP reports. High-level roadway data 

(e.g. urban/rural, 2-lane/multi-lane, divided/undivided, shouldered/unshouldered, 

access control) are used to segregate many internal reports. Median width was also

taken into account for ranking segments by potential for crossover collisions.

b. Project Identification Methodology

The Collision Data Digest is used as guidance by Field Divisions to identify projects for 

safety hot spots. In accordance with our SHSP, HSIP funds are also used for systemic 

improvements, including cable barrier, rumble strips, and upgrades to striping, including 

edgeline striping, and guardrail. Systemic improvements are identified on the basis of 

past experience, including that of other states; expected benefits and known maintenance 

issues are taken into account.
6

Data from the Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse is often used to help evaluate 

potential systemic programs and sometimes other projects as well.

c. Summary of Targeted Programs being Implemented under the HSIP

SHSP targets currently being addressed with HSIP funds include median crossovers, lane

departures, intersections, and rural highways.

Median crossover collisions have been addressed by systemic application of median 

cable barrier, which has been notably successful. Only a limited number of locations 

remain to be treated with median cable barrier.

Lane departures are being addressed by application of shoulder rumble strips

(systemically for new construction as well as selected retrofits), as well as systemic 

upgrades to guard rail and striping, including 6” edgeline striping. Some shoulder cable 

barrier has also been placed and more is planned. Projects have been initiated to 

improve curve delineation, replace obsolete guardrail, and provide clear zone mitigation in 

selected high-crash corridors. A small number of high friction surface treatments have 

been placed and more are planned. One “3-D” crosswalk has been installed as a pilot 

and the results are under investigation. A systemic program to place centerline rumble 

strips is under development.

Intersection crashes are being addressed by a policy of systematically funding the highest 

ranked intersections recommended for traffic signals each year by the Field Divisions. 

Implementation has been partially completed of systemic sign, signal and marking 

improvements as recommended by the FHWA Intersection Safety Assistance Program. 

Intersection crashes are also being addressed by a project to retrofit some existing signals 

with retroreflective backplates, which are also being used on all new signal projects. A 

few “J-Turn” intersections are finished or under construction, and more are tentatively 

planned. Two high speed intersections are planned to be retrofitted with dynamic 

advance signal change warning signs as a pilot.

Rural highways have been given increased attention by separating rural 2-lanes into their 

own reports and are ranked by Highway Safety Manual methods using Safety 

Performance Functions. Rural 2-lane highways are targeted especially for shoulder 

rumble strips, curve delineation, and shoulder widening.

d. Extent to which System Wide Improvements are Implemented as Part of 

the HSIP
7

We currently have several ongoing system wide projects which include: Cable Barrier, 

Sub-Standard Guardrail Replacement, Clearzone Mitigation, Intersection Sign & Marking

Improvement, Curve Delineation, Shoulder Rumble Strip, Retroreflective Backplate 

Replacement, Centerline Rumble Strip, High Friction Surface Treatment, and Striping, 

including edgeline striping. These are funded partly by HSIP funds and partly by other 

sources.

In 1998 in coordination with FHWA and ODOT, a Guardrail Improvement Safety Policy 

was developed and implemented to address substandard guardrail and end treatments. 

The policy not only outlines strategies for ODOT’s maintenance forces but also for new 

construction projects. It was decided to fund guardrail projects each year and plan

development would occur in ODOT’s Traffic Engineering Division. These projects have 

created new guardrail and end treatments that are up to date with industry and highway 

standards and these projects are still ongoing today. It is expected the projects will 

continue until we are fully updated.

ODOT has provided upgraded striping, including edgeline striping and delineation through 

the use of HSIP and/or other funds. Paint is being replaced with multipolymer and 

thermoplastic, and striping, including edgeline striping, on controlled access highways is 

being widened from 4” to 6”. In recent years, progress has been made to provide these 

improvements in a data-driven manner. In 2010, a decision matrix was finalized for the 

type and size of striping, including edgeline striping based on AADT and the type and 

condition of pavement. System-wide use of 6” edgeline and centerline stripe is under 

consideration.

In 2012 ODOT received a plan for systemic intersection improvements from FHWA

consultants (then known as SAIC), to be implemented over approximately the next 5 

years. The majority of about 250 intersections on the ODOT system have now been 

treated.

Median cable barrier, initially treated as a hot spot mitigation and later as a systemic 

treatment, is now mostly in the realm of policy, governed a set of guidelines.

Systemic improvements to curve delineation are under construction for more than 100 

curve locations on rural highways. A second phase of this program will treat additional 

curves.
8

Retroreflective borders on signal backplates have been established as standard for new 

signals and over two hundred intersections are planned for the retrofit in 2016.

e. Extent to which Highway Safety Improvements Projects Align with the 

State’s SHSP

In accordance with our SHSP, ODOT is emphasizing rural locations and intersection 

improvements; we are implementing systemic improvements, especially to address 

roadway departure (i.e. cable barrier, curve delineation, guardrail, and rumble strips); we 

are now considering only injury/fatality crashes in prioritizing locations and Traffic 

Engineering use of HSIP funding is increasingly data-driven.

f. Project Prioritization Process

Prioritization is guided by the crash ranking demonstrated in the Collision Data Digest, 

with adjustments for field conditions, funding, and other circumstances.

B. Progress in Implementing the HSIP Projects 

1. HSIP Funds Available1 (Programmed)

HSIP Project Funding

Reporting Period: FFY 2014

Funding Category Obligated

HSIP (SAFETEA-LU Sect. 148) $7,279,260

HSIP (MAP-21 Sect. 1112) $17,877,255

Hazard Elimination (Section 152) ----- 

HRRRP ----- 

Optional Safety $744,101

Other Federal Aid Funds (i.e. STP, ARRA) -----

State and Local Funds -----

Total $25,900,616

Table 1

1. “Available Funds” are those funds that have been programmed in the 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for the reporting 

period and can be expended on Highway Safety Improvement projects.

2. General Listing of Projects

The following 31 pages are a general list of all projects from FFY 2005-2014 that use(d)

Federal safety funds. The projects were identified using fund codes for HSIP, Hazard 

Elimination, Optional Safety, HRRRP, and Rail-Highway Crossings, which included H020, 

H210, H240, H260, H280, Q210, Q280, L010, LY10, LY20, L05E, L05R, L01E, L21R, 
9

L24R, L28R, LS30, LS2E, LS3E, LS4E, LS5E, MS30, and MS3E. Also included are all 

projects let by Traffic Engineering Division in FFY 2008-2014 and all traceable cable 

barrier projects.

When 5 years of “After” crash data are available for a project, a Benefit/Cost ratio is 

reported. B/C ratios are based on the Value of a Statistical Life and estimated 

maintenance cost at the time the B/C is first calculated.

 
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 
43

C. Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements 

(Program Evaluation) 

1. Graphs of General Highway Safety Trends

Fig. 1

Fig. 2
44

Fig. 3

Fig. 4
45

Fig. 5

Fig. 6
46

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

See reference information in Appendix D for more trends and crash 

facts for Oklahoma.
47

 

2. Description of Overall HSIP Effectiveness

Improved site ranking methodologies include using only injury/fatal crash history (to better 

concentrate on reducing these crash types), introduction of Bayesian methods, 

specialized reports for prioritization of specific systemic mitigations, and probabilityadjusted rate-based rather than frequency-based methods in order to emphasize higher 

risk rural locations. Key systemic improvements (e.g. cable barrier and shoulder rumble 

strips) are being implemented on relevant construction projects.

a. SHSP Emphasis Areas

Crossover fatalities and injuries have diminished drastically on highways treated with 

cable median barrier. Because of this success, installation of cable median barrier is 

being considered even for highways with narrow medians. The overall fatality trend for 

2013 is downward, with the decrease dominated by declines in single vehicle crashes, 

roadway departures, and rural crashes.

b. Subprogram types

Distinct subprograms exist for cable barrier, guard rail, shoulder rumble strip, low cost 

intersection safety improvement, retroreflective backplates, curve delineation, high friction 

surface treatment, and intersection signalization. The cable barrier program has been the 

longest running and has had the most obvious success to date. 

c. System Wide Treatments

Most SHSP targeted areas are, or are planned to become, system wide. Systemic 

intersection treatment is moving toward implementation with site screening in progress 

and a small number of sites already treated.
48

D. High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP)

ODOT did not utilize any HRRRP funds for FFY 2014. Oklahoma did not meet the HRRR 

Special Rule for FFY 2016 funding, based on a decline in fatalities per hundred million 

vehicle miles of travel on rural collectors and local roads, per 23 U.S.C 148(g)(1). See 

Appendix G1 for calculations.

E. Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule

Oklahoma did not meet the criteria for the Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule, 

based on a decline in the rate of fatalities and serious injuries per capita among the State’s 

population of persons aged 65 and older, per 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(2). See Appendix G2 for 

calculations.

 

 
49

F: References 

Lindeburg, Michael R., P.E. Engineering-In-Training Reference Manual, 8th Ed. Professional 

Publications, Inc. Belmont, 1998.

Toole, Joseph S., Associate Administrator for Safety. Memorandum. Subject: 

INFORMATION: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reporting Guidance. 

USDOT / FHWA. May 14, 2009.

Furst, Tony, Associate Administrator for Safety. Memorandum. Subject: Highway Safety 

Improvement Program – Map021 Interim Eligibility Guidance. USDOT / FHWA. October 4, 

2012.

Rogoff, Peter, Acting Undersecretary for Policy. Memorandum. Subject: Guidance on 

Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of 

Transportation Analyses – 2014 Adjustment. Office of the Secretary of Transportation. June 13, 

2014.
50

Appendix A: Initial Request with HSIP Project Categories (Toole Memorandum) 

 
51
52

 
53

 
54

 
55
56
57

Appendix B: B/C Ratio and EUAC (Lindeburg 13-7, 13-15, 13-16) 
58
59

Appendix C: Discount Rates 

 
60
61

 
62

Appendix D: Oklahoma Highway Safety Office Crash Facts 

2013

OKLAHOMA

Crash Facts

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

Highway Safety Office

3223 N. Lincoln Blvd.

Okla. City, OK 73105‐5403

Telephone (405) 523‐1570

Fax (405) 523‐1586

Web Site: www.ohso.ok.gov

Document Location:

http://www.ok.gov/ohso/Data/Crash_Data_and_Statistics/Crash_Facts_2013.html

This publication is issued by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety as authorized by the Commissioner of Public Safety. The

Oklahoma Department of Libraries has been notified of the posting of the 2013 Crash Fact Book to the Department of Public Safety

web site: www.dps.state.ok.us.

 

NOTE: Oklahoma Crash Facts for 2014 are not yet available as of August 31, 2015.
63

Appendix E: Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a 

Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation 

Analyses – 2014 Adjustment. 
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75

 
76

Appendix F: Highway Safety Improvement Program – Map021 

Interim Eligibility Guidance 
77
78

Appendix G1: High Risk Rural Roads Special Rule Calculations

Rural Collectors & Local Roads1

Calendar 

Year Fatalities2 DVMT3 VMT4 Fatality Rate 

per HMVMT5

5-Year Rolling 

Average Fatality 

Rate

2005 314 23904268 8725057820 3.60

2006 271 24844344 9068185560 2.99

2007 242 24891708 9085473420 2.66

2008 302 24989413 9121135745 3.31

2009 260 23354116 8524252340 3.05 3.12

2010 261 23351200 8523188000 3.06 3.02

2011 265 23522815 8585827475 3.09 3.03

2012 245 23756572 8671148780 2.83 3.07

2013 215 22461715 8198525975 2.62 2.93

1

Local Roads, Minor Collectors, and Major Collectors; Urban Area Type = Rural

2

Persons fatally injured on rural collectors/local roads. Fatality Analysis Reporting System: 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS

3

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled, rural collectors/local roads, from Oklahoma Highway Pavement 

Management System report

4

Total annual vehicle miles of travel, rural collectors/local roads.

5

Persons fatally injured per hundred million vehicle miles of travel on rural collectors/local roads
79

Appendix G2: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Calculations

23 U.S.C. 148(g)(2) Older drivers.— 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, that State shall be required to include, in the subsequent Strategic Highway Safety Plan of the State, 

strategies to address the increases in those rates, taking into account the recommendations included in the 

publication of the Federal Highway Administration entitled “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and 

Pedestrians” (FHWA–RD–01–103), and dated May 2001, or as subsequently revised and updated.

The number fatalities and serious per capita (i.e., per person) for any single year is calculated as follows 

(designated as I&F Rate):

I&F Rate = TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo dd dddd dd pp aa 65 kk ss ii SS

TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo aa 65 SS × 1 YY

The units of I&F Rate are IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

PP PP × YY YY i.e. injuries per person per year. This number has been 

multiplied by 1000 for reporting purposes, in compliance with the apparent intent of published guidance.

An alternative calculation has been recommended based on the following: Published tables indicate, by 

State, the number of residents in that State aged 65 or more, per 1,000 residents of the State. This 

number (designated as 65 Rate) is thus by definition

65 Rate =

TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo aa 65 SS

TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo SS ⁄1000

= TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo aa 65 SS

TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo SS

× 1000

The units of 65 Rate are PP PP

PP PP i.e. it is a dimensionless ratio.

If the total number of relevant injuries and fatalities is divided by this ratio, the result, designated as 

Unknown Metric, is

Unknown Metric = TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo dd dddd dd pp aa 65 kk dd ss ii SS

65 Rate × 1 YY

= TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo dd dddd dd pp aa 65 kk ss ii SS

TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo aa 65 SS × 1000 × 1 YY

TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo SS �

= TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo dd dddd dd pp aa 65 kk ss ii × TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo

TTTTTTTTTT nnnnnnnnnnnn oo aa 65 × 1000 × 1 YY

The units of Unknown Metric are thus IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII×PP PP

PP PP ×YY YY or IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYY YY These units, in which “persons” cancel out, do not reflect 

a “per capita” number, as specified by 148(g)(2). Furthermore, Unknown Metric does not reflect the rate of injuries per year 

either; it is equal to this rate divided by the (dimensionless) fraction of older residents in the State.

In the following table, I&F Rate is reported as “Deaths and Serious Injuries per 1,000 (65 & Older)”. Unknown Metric is also 

reported.
80

Year

Minor 

Injuries7

Serious 

Injuries8 FARS4 HSO5 ODOT1 Minor Injuries7

Serious 

Injuries8 FARS4 HSO5 ODOT1

2005 747 186 75 76 76 10 10 10 10 10 281 129 468968 0.60 2.18

2006 723 169 72 70 70 6 7 7 7 7 255 133 473545 0.54 1.92

2007 736 221 74 74 74 17 8 5 5 5 308 132 480140 0.64 2.33

2008 739 222 85 85 85 13 6 4 4 4 317 135 490637 0.65 2.35

2009 688 204 88 86 88 10 12 4 3 3 308 134 495962 0.62 0.61 2.30 2.22

2010 711 235 67 67 65 11 10 5 5 5 317 136 508741 0.62 0.61 2.33 2.25

2011 758 227 82 82 79 9 6 9 9 9 324 136 515859 0.63 0.63 2.38 2.34

2012 803 237 69 69 72 12 10 8 9 8 324 141 534381 0.61 0.62 2.30 2.33

2013 757 223 71 73 10 12 10 11 316 142 549197 0.58 0.61 2.23 2.31

2014* 827 192 91 8 7 4 294 562531 0.52 0.59

4

Fatality Analysis Reporting System

5

Oklahoma Highway Safety Office Crash Facts

6

Sum of ODOT serious injuries and FARS fatalities (if available) or ODOT fatalities

7

Injury Severity = 3 = B = Non-Incapacitating

8

Injury Severity = 4 = A = Incapacitating

*Data for 2014 are incomplete

Five Year 

Rolling 

Average 

of 

Unknown 

Metric

Total 

Oklahoma 

Population 65 

& Older3

Deaths & 

Serious 

Injuries per 

1,000 (65 & 

Older) per 

148(g)(2)

Five Year 

Rolling 

Average of 

Death/Injury 

Rate

Killed 

and 

Seriously 

Injured6

Unknown 

Metric

1

Oklahoma SAFE-T Crash Database.

2

FHWA (Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance)

3

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/index.html

Drivers Pedestrians

Victims 65 Years of Age and Older

Injuries Fatalities Fatalities 1 Injuries1

Persons 65 & 

Older per 

1,000 

Population2