Page 1 of 49

CALIFORNIA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 19

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 22

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 23

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 23

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 34

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 36

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 39

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 43

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 44
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 49

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 49

Executive Summary 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or “MAP-21” (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405), was 

signed into law July 6, 2012, and continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a core 

program under title 23 United States Code section 148 to reduce fatalities and injuries on all public roadways. 

Title 23 United States Code section 148(h) requires each state to submit an annual report to the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding its HSIP implementation and effectiveness and title 23 Code of 

Federal Regulations sections 924.15(a)(1) and 924.15(a)(2) specify that the report be submitted no later than 

August 31 of each year. This annual report describes the progress being made to implement projects and the 

status of program evaluations for the HSIP as described in Title 23 United States Code section 148, and for 

High-Risk Rural Roads (HR3) (23 U.S.C. § 148(g)). The Railway-Highway Crossings (23 U.S.C. § 130(g)) 

report is submitted to FHWA directly by the California Public Utility Commission as a separate report. Under 

the “MAP-21” (Pub. L. 112-141, July 6, 2012; 126 Stat. 405), the High-Risk Rural Roads program was merged 

into the HSIP for safety improvements on public rural roadways that meet the functional classification 

requirements of title 23 United States Code section 148(a)(1). In addition to the above, in accordance with title 

23 United States Code section 164 repeat intoxicated transfer funds was obligated for alcohol impaired driving 

countermeasures. Caltrans' Division of Traffic Operations provided information on the State Highway System 

(SHS) for this report, and Caltrans' Division of Local Assistance for local roads. Caltrans implements the HSIP 

for State highways by programming and funding projects in the Collision Reduction Category, one of eight 

categories that make up the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The Collision 

Reduction Category is further divided into two programs: Safety Improvement and Collision Severity 

Reduction. The Safety Improvement Program is among Caltrans’ top priorities in the SHOPP. The projects 

evaluated in this report are funded by the Collision Reduction Category, which includes both federal HSIP and 

State highway funds.

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law on December 4, 2015 and 

continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) with only minor changes. The FAST Act 

confirmed the overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements.

Caltrans uses collision data from California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Record 

System) database. Collision data on state highway system is imported into the Transportation System Network 

(TSN) Caltrans database, which includes volume and inventory data.

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.
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 49

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. 

Traffic Operations addresses the state highway system and local agencies address all other public roads. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Traffic Operations and Local Assistance

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

In the Division of Local Assistance, a competitive application process has been set up for local agencies and 

tribal governments to propose safety improvements on local roads. Moreover, set-aside funds are allocated to 

critical areas where cost-effective countermeasures as listed in Local Roadway Safety Manual can be timely 

implemented."

On the state highway system, Caltrans district staff propose safety projects. Caltrans HQ approves and 

concurs a safety project based on the collision history, selected countermeasures, and cost-benefit ratio for the 

proposed project.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 49

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) uses an HSIP application benefit-cost tool to provide a consistent, 

data-driven methodology for ranking local roadway (non-State owned and operated) project applications on a 

statewide basis. This tool was developed by the DLA in conjunction with the University of California, Berkeley, 

Safe Transportation Research and Education Center. The DLA HSIP also provides the Local Roadway Safety 

Manual for California local road owners and directly incorporates UC Berkeley’s 

Transportation Injury Mapping System website to assist applicants applying for local HSIP funds. These tools 

and resources encourage local agencies to proactively analyze their roadway networks for the highest crash 

locations and develop and submit applications with the greatest chance of reducing fatalities and serious 

injuries using low cost proven systemic countermeasures. The DLA HSIP application process is also open and 

available to the tribes that would like to submit an application for HSIP funds. However, due to lack of time, 

resources, experience and data at the tribes very few applications if any are submitted.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Planning 

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-Research Innovation and System Information 

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

On the State Highway System, the Traffic Safety and Mobility Program in Headquarters within the Division of 

Traffic Operations works with the Division of Planning, Division of Programming, Division of Research 

Innovation and System Information, and 12 Caltrans district offices to develop Project Initiation Documents to 

program projects. For local roads, Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) staff manage the local agency 

share of HSIP funds in conjunction with its local agency partners. The DLA prepares the HSIP guidelines and 

solicits project applications from local agencies and tribes. 

Traffic Operations annually provide a list of high collision concentration locations to 12 districts. Each district’s 

traffic investigation is required to investigate and respond with possible safety improvement recommendation 

and countermeasures. Traffic Operations is to concur with district’s response and recommendation before any 

major safety improvement project can be initiated.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Academia/University
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 49

FHWA

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

Caltrans has been working with 400 stakeholders from 170 public & private agencies including tribal agency, 

local technical assistance program, and universities to develop CA-SHSP. Projects developed are consistent 

with SHSP strategies. Caltrans’ DLA with local agencies are involved in planning projects on local roads. 

California started work on their SHSP update in July of 2018 and will be completed in December of 2019. 

Additional stakeholders and agencies will be asked to participate, which in turn will make for better HSIP 

projects and help to reduce fatal and serious injuries.

Caltrans coordinates with FHWA by asking for guidance and interpretation of HSIP funding criteria and other 

FHWA legislative requirements.

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

period?

Yes

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

2017 HSIP Guidelines was updated from 2014 HSIP Guidelines.

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

2017 STATE HSIP GUIDELINES FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 49

Bicycle Safety

HSIP (no subprograms) 

Roadway Departure

Pedestrian Safety

Wrong Way Driving 

Other--2 and 3 Ln Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring Pro 

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/20/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

Other-High Collision Concentration Location 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 49

Competitive application process 

Other-Data and Criteria

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-meet minimum criteria : 100

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

On California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded. DLA does not have a bicycle safety improvement monitoring program; 

however, it has bicycle safety improvement projects.

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/20/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Median width 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Lane miles Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 49

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

Other-meet minimum criteria

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-meet minimum criteria : 100

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

On California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded. California Division of Local Assistance (DLA) uses an HSIP application 

benefit-cost tool to provide a consistent, data-driven methodology for ranking local roadway (non-State owned 

and operated) project applications on a statewide basis.

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/1977 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only Volume Median width Functional classification 
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 49

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Any project that meets the established Median Barrier criteria for project selection can be programmed

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-Collision and volume warrants : 100 

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

On California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded. DLA does not have Median Barrier Monitoring Program.

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/20/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 49

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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-meet minimum criteria : 100

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

On California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded. DLA does not have a pedestrian safety improvement monitoring program; 

however, it has pedestrian safety improvement projects.

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/2004 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 49

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Volume Functional classification 

Other-see the optional description Lane miles 

Other-Fatal and injury crashes on 

Roadside features 

Other-Fatal and injury crashes 

Wet Pavement resulting in Overturned Vehicle 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-see the optional description for this question 

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?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-see the optional description for this question 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-100% top 25% of run-off-road concentration locations with higher scores +100% of identified long 

segments selected based on collision frequency, roadway type, geometric characteristics and traffic volume. : 

100 

Total Relative Weight : 100
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 49

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

On California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded. DLA does not have Roadway Departure Program.

Program: Wrong Way Driving 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/15/1985 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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 
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 49

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-crash frequency and crash rate : 100

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

On California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded. DLA does not have Wrong-Way Driving Monitoring Program.

Program: Other--2 and 3 Ln Cross Centerline 

Collision Monitoring Pro 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/15/1985 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal crashes only 

Other-See optional description 

pertaining to this subprogram 

Volume 

Lane miles Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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?
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 49

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-All projects meeting established criteria can be programmed

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Crash frequency and rate : 100 

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

On California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded. DLA does not have 2/3-Lane Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring 

Program.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 60 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Clear Zone Improvements

Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments 

Other-Median Barrier

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

Page 17 of 49

California does incorporate tapered edge (also known as safety edge) in projects, however has not used HSIP 

funds to fund tapered edge projects.

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input 

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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.

We had HSM training classes last year and we are developing Safety Performance Functions.

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

period?

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

We initiated bicycle safety monitoring.

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

Yes

Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate.
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 49

For the most part, Local HSIP and State highway HSIP use the cost/benefit methodology as a qualifying 

criteria for HSIP funds with some differences. For State highway HSIP, the benefit / cost tool, called the safety 

index, is used for projects at spot locations whereas Local HSIP utilizes the benefit / cost methodology for both 

spot and systemic type of projects. For the State highway HSIP, the systemic approach is accomplished 

through various monitoring programs, like the Cross Median Collision Monitoring Program or the Two and 

Three Lane Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring Program. The Local HSIP utilizes set asides for low cost 

countermeasures, such as pedestrian crossing enhancements at non-signalized locations, horizontal curve 

signing and guardrail upgrades. These set asides do not require crash data to receive HSIP funding but is 

limited to a maximum dollar amount per agency and only specific low cost countermeasures can be selected.
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 49

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

Based on state fiscal year calendar - starting from July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $533,240,000 $363,131,441 68.1%

HRRR Special 

148(g)(1))

Rule (23 U.S.C. $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $20,645,816 $20,645,816 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $16,938,871 $15,913,526 93.95%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$16,000,000 $16,000,000 100%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

STBG, NHPP)

(i.e. $38,010,723 $15,850,178 41.7%

State and Local Funds $612,740,000 $214,892,384 35.07%

Totals $1,237,575,410 $646,433,345 52.23%

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

Funding Category Descriptions: HSIP (23 U.S.C 148) is Federal HSIP Funding for Caltrans State and Local 

side; State and Local Funds are combination of Federal HSIP Funding and State Highway Operation and 

Protection Program (SHOPP) funds.

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

$69,392,000 

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

$59,900,000 

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

Page 20 of 49

The costs reported above are based on state fiscal year.

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

$0 

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

$0 

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

There is no Non-Infrastructure Safety Projects from the State; however, Division of Local Assistance has NonInfrastructure Safety Projects. They are funded by State Funds but not Federal HSIP.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

Caltrans contributes 2.5 to 3 times the Federal HSIP amount every year in addition to the Federal HSIP funds 

from the SHOPP.

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

In the past two years, local HSIP project delivery has been enforced through (1) monthly update of delivery 

status report posted in the DLA website, (2) HSIP manager’s phone calls and emails to district focal-point 

contacts responsible for monitoring project delivery, (3) the set drop-dead dates for late projects in various 

previous project cycles, (4) requesting local agencies to send HSIP program an official delivery commitment 

letter for project delay request, and (5) efforts made by various Local HSIP Advisory Committee members. This 

is proved to be successful and is now a Local HSIP policy that all current projects programmed need to have 

construction authorization within five years of being programmed. Project delivery delay flags are held in place 

for PE Authorization and Construction Authorization to alarm local agencies with delayed project flags that they 

will be ineligible to apply any future HSIP funding until these flags are cleared.

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

Yes
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 49

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

would like to elaborate. 

The DLA continues to investigate, with the help of locals and FHWA the delays caused by unnecessary 

environmental requirements in streamlining HSIP projects. The DLA has initiated the first every tribal HSIP setaside this year for $2 M for safety improvements on tribal lands.
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 49

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING FUNCTIONAL AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

CATEGORY COST($) COST($) CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION SITE SELECTION

17716 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify intersection 

corner radius

1 Intersections $14075000 $22352000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

1,800 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Collision 

Reduction

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

Page 23 of 49

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities 3,995 3,434 3,090 2,720 2,816 2,966 3,107 3,102 3,176

Serious Injuries 13,133 11,943 10,369 10,423 10,607 10,864 10,664 10,995 11,942

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.209 1.054 0.953 0.839 0.866 0.908 0.944 0.927 0.930

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.975 3.666 3.198 3.215 3.263 3.324 3.240 3.285 3.568

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

823 791 714 760 807 878 951 933 1,038

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

3,110 2,990 3,070 3,031 3,121 3,207 3,080 3,209 3,214
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 49

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 25 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

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

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 26 of 49

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

Caltrans requested the latest SWITRS data (raw data that contains all roadway types in CA) available through 

our external partner - California Highway Patrol. Working on raw data to extract data from Caltrans state 

highway system has been a challenge to achieve high level of confidence. SWITRS - Statewide Integrated 

Traffic Records System (Database). We also use FARS to cross check our numbers. Caltrans uses SWITRS 

data for all their numbers and rates.

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

Year 2015

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

132 0.69

3500

3600

3700

3800

3900

4000

4100

4200

4300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 27 of 49

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) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

42 1.43

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

286 2.79

Rural Minor Arterial 26 1.8

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or Street 354 2.41

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

516 0.43

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

20 0.88

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

181 1.74

Urban Minor Arterial 66 1.39

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street 207 1.58
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 49

Year 2014

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 2,942.2 10,710.6 0.9 3.27

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 49

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

RPA -

Interstate

RPA -

Other

Fwys @

Expwys

RPA -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

UPA -

Interstate

UPA -

Other

Fwys @

Expwys

UPA -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 49

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

RPA -

Interstate

RPA -

Other

Fwys @

Expwys

RPA -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

UPA -

Interstate

UPA -

Other

Fwys @

Expwys

UPA -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 49

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

State Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 49

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

State Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

State Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 49

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

California DOT does not publish data on minor/major collector roads including number of serious injury and 

serious injury rate on all roads. These numbers are for State Highway System only.

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

We input annual collision data for the years requested, and the ORT application generates a graph of 5-yr 

rolling average.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 3445.4 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

State Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 49

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

2019 performance target is based on current data that is available in FARS. This target 

is based on an annual decrease of 3.0%, which is consistent with the SHSP goal of 

reducing fatalities by 3% annually. 

Number of Serious Injuries 12688.1 

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

2019 performance target is based on current data that is available in SWITRS. This 

target is based on an annual decrease of 1.5%, which is consistent with the SHSP goal 

of reducing fatalities by 1.5% annually. 

Fatality Rate 0.995 

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

2019 performance target is based on current data that is available in FARS. This target 

is based on an annual decrease of 3.0%, which is consistent with the SHSP goal of 

reducing fatalities by 3% annually. 

Serious Injury Rate 3.661 

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

2019 performance target is based on current data that is available in SWITRS. This 

target is based on an annual decrease of 1.5%, which is consistent with the SHSP goal 

of reducing fatalities by 1.5% annually. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 3949.8 

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

2019 performance target is based on current data that is available in SWITRS. This 

target is based on an annual decrease of fatalities of 3.0% and an annual decrease of 

serious injuries of 1.5%, which is consistent with the SHSP goal. 

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

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

targets. 

The State has had training and a series of workshops in December, 2017 and March, 2018 with MPOs and 

other stakeholders to set the safety performance targets for 2019. Caltrans and OTS met in February, 2018 to 

discuss and agree on the three-like safety performance targets.
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 49

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

The HRRR special rule does not apply to California for this reporting period, as it has been determined that the 

5-year average fatality rate on rural roads in California does not increase from 2008-2012 to 2011-2015.

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

156 172 185 190 198 205 206

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

184 227 206 223 288 323 295
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 49

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 49

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Other-3-year before & after

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

There are 3 levels of Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of overall HSIP Program: (1) Evaluation of 

Approved Countermeasures, (2) Evaluation of Approved Projects, and (3) Evaluation of various Safety and 

Monitoring Programs within the HSIP Program. California State DOT, normally, performs at least one level of 

Evaluations annually by comparing fatality, injury, PDO, AADT from 3-year before and 3-year after, and 

including a Benefit-Cost Analysis to determine whether a low-cost and effective countermeasure does reduce 

certain type of collisions and patterns. DLA does a preliminary screening for approving safety improvement 

projects by using method of Benefit-Cost Analysis and data criteria. It has not measured effectiveness from a 

3-year before and after evaluation until 2020 due to a lack of 3-year after collision data.

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

level evaluations.

California State HSIP program in its efforts has reduced significant number of percentage for specific collision 

types and patterns in the past 10 years even though the overall other-type of collisions are increasing as well 

as increasing in AADT.

Local Assistance does not currently evaluate the effectiveness of HSIP funded projects on local roads, 

however they plan to evaluate the effectiveness starting in the year 2020.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations 

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

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 49

Yes

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period.

We initiated the Bicycle Safety Improvement Monitoring Pilot Program using HSIP and SHOPP funds.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Reduce Occurrance & 

Conseq of Leaving Roadway 

& Head-On Colli

Head on 867 3,420 0.26 1.01

Increase Use of Safety 

and Child Safety Seats

Belts Seat Belts 1,107 4,163 0.33 1.23

Improve Driver Decisions 

about Rights-of-Way and 

Turning

Improve Safety for Older 

Roadway Users

Older Users 740 2,710 0.22 0.8

Reduce Speeding and 

Aggressive Driving

Speed-related 513 3,175 0.15 0.93

Improve Commercial Vehicle 

Safety

Truck-related 318 788 0.09 0.23

Improve Motorcycle Safety Motorcyclist 490 2,650 0.14 0.78

Improve Bicycle Safety Vehicle/bicycle 153 1,102 0.05 0.32
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 49

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 49

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

For other SHSP emphasis areas such as Emergency Medical Services, Driver Licensing and Competency, 

Alcohol and Drug Impairment, and Distracted Driving, we don’t have data.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 49

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

No

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

Caltrans has not completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period. 

Caltrans seldom conducts countermeasure effectiveness evaluations and typically refers to the CMF 

Clearinghouse for countermeasure effectiveness.
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 49

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

09-INY-190 

R65.9/R66.5

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 2.00 2.00 8.35

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

The three year before/after evaluation does not take into consideration increases in traffic volumes. It is also a small sample size of projects which includes projects with countermeasures that often lead to an overall increase in the 

number of collisions but decrease in the severity of collisions. Such countermeasures include median barriers, traffic signals, and roundabouts. California is currently in the process of incorporating data driven safety analysis and Highway 

Safety Manual methodology which will assist in identifying future projects that will decrease the number of fatal and serious injury collisions.

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

Yes

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

Sub-programs such as multi-lane cross median collision monitoring program, 2&3-lane cross center-line collision monitoring program, and wrong way collision monitoring program have shown that from 2009 to 2014, the total number of 

collisions have been decreasing.
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 49

Compliance Assessment

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

 09/01/2015 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2019 

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

 2019 

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 10 100 10

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 10

Access Control (22) 100 100
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 49

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way 

(91)

Operations 100 50

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

60 50 60 100

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

INTERSECTION

100 9 0 0 0 0

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

50 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 50

AADT Year (80) 100 50

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 0 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 49

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Interchange Type (182) 100 0

Ramp AADT (191) 60 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 60 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

92.22 62.72 56.25 12.50 65.45 0.00 73.33 67.78 60.00 60.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

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

California DOT will continue with its effort to continue collecting data and update MIRE Fundamental data elements annually to meet the requirement by September 30, 2026.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form CHP 555 Collision Report Form Yes N/A Yes N/A

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual CHP 555 Instruction Manual Yes CHP 555 Instruction Manual Yes CHP 555 Instruction Manual

Crash Database Statewide Integrated Traffic Record 

System (SWITRS)

Yes N/A Yes N/A

Crash Database Data Dictionary Data Dictionary for SWITRS Yes Data Dictionary for SWITRS Yes Data Dictionary for SWITRS

MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

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

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

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2021 

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

Page 47 of 49
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2017 STATE HSIP GUIDELINES FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Q29-Projects-Listing-FY17-18-Final.xlsx

LOCAL_HSIP_ORT_Data_2018_Report.xlsx

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Q45-HSIP-Completed-Projects-3YR-Evaluation.xlsx

Compliance Assessment:
2018 California Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 49

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 

HMVMT 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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. 

means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes 

in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. 

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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