Page 1 of 71

OREGON

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 71

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 11

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

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

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 29

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 38

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 38

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 52

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 54

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 56

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 56

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 59

Year 2016 .............................................................................................................................................................. 59

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 63

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 65
2018 Oregon 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. 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 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 71

Executive Summary 

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is responsible for administering Oregon’s Highway Safety 

Improvement (HSIP) Program. All roads within the state of Oregon are eligible to receive HSIP funding under 

the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program.

The mission of the Highway Safety Program at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is to carry 

out highway safety improvement projects to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries. For purposes of programming Highway Safety funds in the Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP), all highway safety infrastructure improvement projects shall follow these guidelines.

The majority of the funding for the ODOT Highway Safety Program comes from the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP), which is a core federal-aid program under the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act that went into effect in December, 2015. The primary goal of the HSIP is to achieve 

a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-state owned 

roads and tribal roads. The HSIP also requires a data-driven and strategic approach to improving highway 

safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. The FAST Act, which replaced the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), largely maintained the program structure of the HSIP with slight 

increases in funding and a change that disallows HSIP funds to be transferred to and used for educational and 

enforcement type activities. The HSIP funds are primarily intended for infrastructure improvement projects. 

Non-infrastructure highway safety improvements such as education and enforcement programs are 

administered by the ODOT Transportation Safety Division (TSD), and are typically funded with separate 

funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), or state funds.

Following the HSIP requirements, ODOT has developed a new safety program, known as the All Roads 

Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program, which addresses safety on all public roads including non-state 

roadways. ODOT worked with the representatives from the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and the 

Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) to document principles for a jurisdictionally blind safety program for 

Oregon to address safety on all public roads of the state, which eventually led to the development of the ARTS 

Program.

The ARTS Program is intended to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. About half of the fatal 

and serious injury crashes in the state occur on non-state roadways. By working collaboratively with local road 

jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPOs, and tribes) ODOT can expect to increase awareness of safety on all 

roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, complement behavioral safety efforts, and focus limited 

resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the State of Oregon. The program is a data-driven 

program to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction and is blind to jurisdiction.

Under the inaugural round of the ARTS Program, safety projects have been selected that will be delivered 

between 2017 and 2021. The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) has allocated approximately $31 to 

$37 million dollars per year to the ODOT Highway Safety Program for these five years (for a total of $166 

million dollars) for infrastructure improvements. The majority of this funding will come from the federal HSIP. 

Currently, we are updating our outdated Roadway Departure plan on Oregon roadways. In the Fall of 2017, 

ODOT will start the second round of the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program.

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 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 71

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

improvements and compliance assessment.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 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 objective of the ARTS Program is to select the best safety projects using a jurisdictionally blind and datadriven approach to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries on all roads in the state. 

A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to identify the best 

possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway projects incorporate design features or 

elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating guardrail or improving intersection channelization, 

signing, and pavement markings. But appropriate use of HSIP funds is only for locations or corridors where a 

known problem exists as indicated by location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is 

determined that the specific project can with confidence produce a measurable and significant reduction in 

such fatalities or serious injuries. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the ARTS Program is on costeffective use of the funds allocated for safety improvements addressing fatal and serious injury crashes.

The general program guidelines are as follows:

• All projects shall address specific safety problems that contribute to fatal and serious injury crashes.

• All projects shall use only countermeasures from the ODOT-approved countermeasure list.

• Only the most recent available five years of ODOT-reported crashes shall be used for crash analysis.

• Projects shall be prioritized based on ODOT-approved prioritization method such as Benefit-Cost Ratio.

• ODOT Regions will be responsible for developing and delivering projects.

The ARTS Program has two components – a hotspot component and a systemic component, as shown in 

Figure 2-1. The hotspot approach is the traditional approach used in safety analysis, in which ‘hotspot’ 

locations are identified based on crash history and appropriate countermeasures are implemented to reduce 

crashes. Hotspot projects typically focus on a particular location (for example, an intersection or a short 

segment of a roadway) that may have multiple causes to address. For the ARTS Program, a hotspot location is 

defined as a location that has at least one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost countermeasures that can be widely implemented and 

then applies the countermeasures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The HSIP places a 

significant emphasis on the systemic approach, which has been proven to successfully reduce the occurrences 

of fatal and serious injury crashes. The systemic component of the ARTS Program has been further divided 

into three emphasis areas – roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle. Based on 2009 through 

2013 data, these three emphasis areas accounted for approximately 85% of the fatal and serious injury 

crashes in the state.

The systemic approach originally used Section 164 penalty funds allocated to the Safety Program, but under 

the ARTS Program the systemic approach has been moved into the mainstream safety program equal with the 

hotspot approach.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 71

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Traffic-Roadway Engineering Section

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

The Oregon DOT Highway Safety Engineer and Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator are located in our 

headquarters office in Salem. There are 5 Region Traffic offices across Oregon. Each Region Traffic office has 

several employees that work with Region staff to help develop appropriate safety projects using one of our 

safety plans (Roadway Departure, Intersection, Bike/ped plans) or using our Safety Priority Index System 

(SPIS) to help identify high crash locations.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

The available money is separated into two categories — systemic and hot spots. Systemic project are proven, 

low-cost measures that have successfully reduced the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes and that 

can be widely implemented, like rumble strips on the shoulder of the road. Hot spots are identified by a higher 

than normal crash occurrence. These are often higher cost projects and are targeted to a specific segment of 

roadway or intersection.

ODOT collected input from the local governments in each region of the state.

Funding is divided to each region based on the number of fatalities and serious injury crashes. Potential 

projects within each region are prioritized by their benefit cost.

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

Local and tribal roads are addressed through t he All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program a safety 

program that addresses safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. By working collaboratively with local road 

jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPO’s and tribes) can ODOT hopes to increase awareness of safety on all roads, 

promote best practices for infrastructure safety, compliment behavioral safety efforts and focus limited 

resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the state of Oregon. This program uses a data-driven 

approach that is blind to jurisdiction to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction and emphasize 

elements of the SHSP.

The objective of the ARTS Program is to select the best safety projects using a jurisdictionally blind and datadriven approach to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries on all roads in the state. 

A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to identify the best 

possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway projects incorporate design features or 

elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating guardrail or improving intersection channelization, 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 71

signing, and pavement markings. But appropriate use of HSIP funds is only for locations or corridors where a 

known problem exists as indicated by location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is 

determined that the specific project can with confidence produce a measurable and significant reduction in 

such fatalities or serious injuries. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the ARTS Program is on costeffective use of the funds allocated for safety improvements addressing fatal and serious injury crashes. 

The general program guidelines are as follows: 

• All projects shall address specific safety problems that contribute to fatal and serious injury crashes. 

• All projects shall use only countermeasures from the ODOT-approved countermeasure list. 

• Only the most recent available five years of ODOT-reported crashes shall be used for crash analysis. 

• Projects shall be prioritized based on ODOT-approved prioritization method such as Benefit-Cost Ratio. 

• ODOT Regions will be responsible for developing and delivering projects. 

The ARTS Program has two components – a hotspot component and a systemic component, as shown in 

Figure 2-1. The hotspot approach is the traditional approach used in safety analysis, in which ‘hotspot’ 

locations are identified based on crash history and appropriate countermeasures are implemented to reduce 

crashes. Hotspot projects typically focus on a particular location (for example, an intersection or a short 

segment of a roadway) that may have multiple causes to address. For the ARTS Program, a hotspot location is 

defined as a location that has at least one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost countermeasures that can be widely implemented and 

then applies the countermeasures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The HSIP places a 

significant emphasis on the systemic approach, which has been proven to successfully reduce the occurrences 

of fatal and serious injury crashes. The systemic component of the ARTS Program has been further divided 

into three emphasis areas – roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle. Based on 2009 through 

2013 data, these three emphasis areas accounted for approximately 85% of the fatal and serious injury 

crashes in the state. 

The systemic approach originally used Section 164 penalty funds allocated to the Safety Program, but under 

the ARTS Program the systemic approach has been moved into the mainstream safety program equal with the 

hotspot approach.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Other-Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC)

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

Page 9 of 71

ODOT established a Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC) on February 18, 2005 which meet 

quarterly. This committee provides a leadership forum to strategize, coordinate and direct the engineeringrelated highway safety activities and is comprised of individuals with a mix of expertise within the Department. 

Members of the committee represent the Transportation Safety Division, Region and Headquarters Traffic, 

Region Technical Centers, Region Planner, District Maintenance and Roadway Section. The Traffic Operations 

and Leadership Team (TOLT) was also established several years ago which provides statewide policy and 

procedure leadership for traffic engineering related issues.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

ODOT established a Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC) on February 18, 2005 which meet 

quarterly. 

The Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC) provides operational decisions for the Safety 

Management System within ODOT and provides advice and recommendations to Highway Leadership Team 

as well as other leadership teams within ODOT regarding funding issues or major safety policy matters.

The HSEC will be comprised of individuals with a mix of expertise within the Department. Members of the 

committee represent the Transportation Safety Division, Region and Headquarters Traffic, Region Technical 

Centers, Transportation Development (Planning), Maintenance, Federal Highway, Transportation Safety, 

Association of Oregon Counties and Roadway Section.

The Highway Safety Engineering Committee provides a leadership forum to enhance, strategize, coordinate, 

and direct the engineering/infrastructure related highway safety activities for the Department including the 

ARTS/HSIP program. 

The Traffic Operations and Leadership Team (TOLT) was also established several years ago which provides 

statewide policy and procedure leadership for traffic engineering related issues.

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

Law Enforcement Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

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

Our 5 Region Traffic offices work closely with all external partners in determining appropriate safety projects to 

fund in Oregon to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 71

Describe coordination with external partners.

Our 5 Region Traffic offices work closely with external partners in determining appropriate safety projects to 

fund in Oregon to reduce fatal and serious injuries crashes. We are currently in our round 2, All Roads 

Transportation Safety (ARTS) program where the 5 Region Traffic offices are conducting outreach meetings 

with local agencies interested in submitting proposed ARTS safety projects for funding consideration.

Some External Partners are involved in HSEC, but all are involved in the planning through the SHSP process 

as stakeholders in the strategic planning document that defines Oregon’s traffic safety trends and challenges. 

The SHSP also identifies Oregon’s policies and strategies to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries.

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.

The major change in the round 2 ARTS (All Roads Transportation Safety) program is that both the proposed 

hot spot projects and the proposed systemic project now require an application to be submitted for funding 

consideration. The second round of the ARTS program began in the fall of 2017 and extended through the 

spring of 2018. During this period, projects were selected for the STIP and to be delivered in the years 2022 

through 2024. Approximately $30 million per year will be available for the ARTS program as determined by the 

Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC).

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

Yes

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

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/odot_safety_program_guide.pdf Oregon 

DOT updated their Roadway Departure plan in September 2017 for the state 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Departure-Implementation-Plan.pdf . Portland 

State University recently develop a plan regarding wrong way driving and recommendation on our interstate 

ramps http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Wrong-Way-Driver-Report.pdf . ODOT is in 

the process of implementing several of the recommendations in Region 3 using the ARTS funding. Although 

not as commonly used as benefit-cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis is another tool that is used by 

ODOT for project prioritization. Rather than comparing the economic value of the crash reductions to the 

project cost, cost-effectiveness analysis compares the change in crash frequency due to the implementation of 

a countermeasure to the project cost. For Oregon’s pedestrian/bicycle projects under the ARTS Program, 

Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) is used to prioritize projects. CEI estimates the cost to reduce one crash. The 

lower the CEI value of a project, the higher it will rank in the prioritized list. Here is a link to the ARTS program 

for more information http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx .
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 71

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:

odot_safety_program_guide[1].pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Bicycle Safety

Roadway Departure

Pedestrian Safety

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

ODOT's common highway safety goal on Oregon roadways is to select appropriate safety projects that will 

reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. In our HSIP ARTS program, most all of these program topic areas can 

receive HSIP safety funding depending on the applicant justifying an acceptable benefit/cost analysis to reduce 

fatal and serious injury crashes. We do have a small fund called Quick Fix funding to address low cost safety 

spot improvements for our highway system only.

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2014 

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 and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 71

Other-Cost Effectiveness for Bike/Peds

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

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

Cost Effectiveness : 100 

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

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hotspot” locations and then identify measures to implement by 

diagnosing the “hotspot”. ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hotspot projects (prioritized 

based on benefit cost ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate 

countermeasures. This doesn’t allow us to select hot spot.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements 

the measures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been 

proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The process for Systemic 

projects was an application-based process. Local Agencies and ODOT Regions submitted applications for 

systemic projects in three focus areas- roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects were 

prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness 

index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). Here is a link to the bicycle/pedestrian plan. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/Bicycle_Pedestrian_Safety.aspx

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/1/2012 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 71

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 and serious injury crashes only Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-Crash Severity

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

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

Ranking based on B/C : 100 

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

Page 14 of 71

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hotspot” locations and then identify measures to implement by 

diagnosing the “hotspot”. ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hotspot projects (prioritized 

based on benefit cost ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate 

countermeasures. This doesn’t allow us to select hot spot.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements 

the measures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been 

proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The process for Systemic 

projects was an application-based process. Local Agencies and ODOT Regions submitted applications for 

systemic projects in three focus areas- roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects were 

prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness 

index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). Here is a link to our intersection plan 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/intersections.aspx .

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2014 

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 and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Other-Crash Severity

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 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

Cost Effectiveness : 100 

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

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hotspot” locations and then identify measures to implement by 

diagnosing the “hotspot”. ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hotspot projects (prioritized 

based on benefit cost ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate 

countermeasures. This doesn’t allow us to select hot spot.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements 

the measures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been 

proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The process for Systemic 

projects was an application-based process. Local Agencies and ODOT Regions submitted applications for 

systemic projects in three focus areas- roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects were 

prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness 

index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). Here is a link to our pedestrian/bicycle plan 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/Bicycle_Pedestrian_Safety.aspx .

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/1/2017 

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 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 71

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Population 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-Crash Severity

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

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

Ranking based on B/C : 100 

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

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hotspot” locations and then identify measures to implement by 

diagnosing the “hotspot”. ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hotspot projects (prioritized 

based on benefit cost ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate 

countermeasures. This doesn’t allow us to select hot spot.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements 

the measures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been 

proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The process for Systemic 

projects was an application-based process. Local Agencies and ODOT Regions submitted applications for 

systemic projects in three focus areas- roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects were 

prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 71

index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). Here is a link to our roadway departure plan. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/pages/roadway_departure.aspx

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50 

 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

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments 

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

Program Components

The ARTS Program has two components – a hotspot component and a systemic component. The hotspot 

approach is the traditional approach used in safety analysis, in which ‘hotspot’ locations are identified based on 

crash history and appropriate countermeasures are implemented to reduce crashes. Hotspot projects typically 

focus on a particular location (for example, an intersection or a short segment of a roadway) that may have 

multiple causes to address. For the ARTS Program, a hotspot location is defined as a location that has at least 

one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost countermeasures that can be widely implemented and 

then applies the countermeasures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The HSIP places a 

significant emphasis on the systemic approach, which has been proven to successfully reduce the occurrences 

of fatal and serious injury crashes. The systemic component of the ARTS Program has been further divided 

into three emphasis areas – roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle. Based on 2009 through 

2013 data, these three emphasis areas accounted for approximately 85% of the fatal and serious injury 

crashes in the state.

The ARTS Program funds will be allocated to the five ODOT Regions based on the proportion of the fatal and 

serious injury crashes occurred within the last five years in each Region. For a given Region, total funding 

should be divided equally between the hotspot and systemic components. Again, for the systemic component, 

it is recommended that Regions split the available funding between the emphasis areas identified in the TSAP 

(currently those are roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle) based on the proportion of the 

fatal and serious injury crashes occurred between these three areas within the last five years. For the

first round of the ARTS Program, based on the crash data from 2009 to 2013, the statewide proportions of fatal 

and serious injury crashes between roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle crashes were 

50%, 36%, and 14%, respectively.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 71

ODOT has approximately $166 million of funding for the five years between 2017 and 2021. Here is a link to 

ODOT's CRF list http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFICROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx#Crash_Reduction_Factors

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

Stakeholder input 

Other-Region Traffic Investigator's investigate the top 5% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) each year and 

identify potential cost effective countermeasures.

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

Once locations have been identified for potential safety improvements through networking screening and 

diagnoses, the next step is to identify potential countermeasures that can be implemented to improve safety. A 

countermeasure can be defined as a roadway strategy intended to decrease crash frequency and/or severity at 

a given site.

ODOT has compiled a list of countermeasures, known as the ODOT Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) List, which 

have been proven to reduce crashes. A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is the percentage crash reduction that 

might be expected after implementing a given countermeasure(s) at a specific site. These countermeasures 

were primarily chosen from the Highway Safety Manual, the Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse, 

and the FHWA Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors. All the countermeasures were listed as either 

‘hotspot’ or ‘systemic’ countermeasures. Any countermeasures listed in the ODOT CRF List can be used for 

hotspot projects. However, for systemic projects only countermeasures that are listed as ‘systemic’ shall be 

used. The ODOT CRF List is updated periodically as new countermeasures or better studies on existing 

countermeasures become available. Suggestions for including new countermeasure(s) to the ODOT CRF List 

can be submitted to ODOT TRS Staff using the CRF Request Form provided on the ARTS website.

Some CRFs may be applicable to all crash types and/or all severities. Some CRFs may be applicable to a 

particular crash type and/or severity. Correct crash types and severities should be used in the benefit-cost 

analysis. Refer to the ODOT Highway Safety Investigation Manual for more information on the CRF 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx#Crash_Reduction_Factors .

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

ODOT's All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program includes several ITS technologies as potential 

countermeasures, especially curve and intersection warning systems and variable speeds Oregon is in the 

formative stages of developing connected vehicle technologies .
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 71

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 are in the early stages of using the HSM to support HSIP efforts. Our ODOT Planning unit has 

incorporated several methodologies into their latest manual. We are using the cost-effectiveness analysis tool 

outlined in the HSM for project prioritization. Rather than comparing the economic value of the crash 

reductions to the project cost, cost-effectiveness analysis compares the change in crash frequency due to the 

implementation of a countermeasure to the project cost. For the pedestrian/bicycle projects under the ARTS 

Program, Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) is used to prioritize projects. CEI estimates the cost to reduce one 

crash. The lower the CEI value of a project, the higher it will rank in the prioritized list. ODOT uses some 

analysis methods from the HSM, including expected numbers of crashes for bikes and pedestrians, proportions 

of crashes in investigations and critical crash rates in planning and project level analysis.

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.

Yes, we are in the process of implementing round two of the ARTS program. 

The ARTS program primarily uses federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The 

principles and purpose of ARTS and HSIP are:

The program goal is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.

The program must include all public roads.

The program is data driven and blind to jurisdiction.

The process is be overseen by Oregon DOT Regions.

Both traditional “hot spot” methodology and systemic methodology is used based on an application process.

The objective of ARTS and HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries. A 

data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to identify the best 

possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway projects incorporate design features or 

elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating guardrail or improvements to intersection 

channelization, signing and pavement markings. But appropriate use of HSIP funds is only for locations or 

corridors where a known problem exists as indicated by location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, 

and/or where it is determined that the specific project can, with confidence, produce a measurable and 

significant reduction in such fatalities or serious injuries. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the 

ARTS program is on cost effective use of the funds allocated for safety improvements addressing fatal and 

serious injury crashes.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 71

All Projects shall:

Address a specific Safety problem contributing to fatalities and serious injuries

Use proven countermeasures that correct or substantially improve the fatal and serious injury problem

Use ODOT crash data to establish the Benefit/Cost ratio (so projects can be compared fairly)

Use ODOT Benefit Cost method (or Cost effectiveness for Bicycle/Pedestrian)

Be prioritized or categorized based on the Benefit/Cost Ratio for developing the 150% list

Use only proven countermeasures from the approved ODOT Crash Reduction Factor list (a written process is 

developed for considering new measures)

Projects must include written support from the Road Jurisdiction if the project is proposed by another agency 

Benefit Costs will be based on the most recent available three to five years of crash data

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hot spot” locations, and then identify measures to implement by 

diagnosing the “hot spot”. 

Hot Spot Projects shall:

Address a location with a crash history of at least one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements 

the measures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been 

proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The sites may be selected 

from ODOT’s list of priority corridors for Roadway Departure, Intersections or Pedestrian/Bicycle crashes. Our 

Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) is another flagging tool used to select appropriate safety projects.

Systemic Projects shall:

Use only approved “Systemic” countermeasures as listed in the Crash Reduction factors list

Not require the acquisition of significant amounts of right of way (more than 10% of project costs), preferably 

no right of way

For the Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis, use Highway Safety Manual methods to estimate predicted crashes 

for pedestrians and bicycles and Cost Effectiveness to prioritize projects selection.

Systemic Projects should:

Have a history of fatal or serious injury crashes or a risk of high severity crashes and preferably are selected 

from priority corridors within Systemic plans.

The Safety funds are split to each region based on the amount of fatalities and serious injuries occurring in the 

region on all public roads. Regions will be required to spend a minimum of 50% of their funding on Systemic 

projects.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 71

Systemic funding is intended to be used for Roadway Departure, Intersections and Pedestrian/Bicycle type 

projects. At the statewide level the split in F&A between Roadway Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike is 

about 40%/40%/20% respectively. Regions will be given the flexibility to determine the appropriate splits 

between systemic types of projects for their regions. It is suggested:

That at least one project per year be developed for each type, if possible.

Region splits of systemic funds for each systemic type be roughly equivalent to the proportion of F&A occurring 

in the region 

Funding is eligible to be used for approved countermeasures as long as those countermeasures provide an 

improvement to reducing fatal and serious injury and are prioritized through the ARTS data driven process. 

Safety funds may be used to include or replace elements that are necessary to satisfactorily complete the 

project, such as replacing non-compliant ADA ramps, replacing pavement striping that is removed or right of 

way, but those elements must be included in the cost of the project and part of the prioritization process. Other 

elements (not applicable to the safety project) may be combined with the project (i.e., culvert), but must be 

funded by other sources, not safety funds. 

Both Hot Spot and Systemic processes will be an application based process. Oregon jurisdictions will be 

invited to submit projects for Hot Spot and Systemic funding, using a large list of proven countermeasures. 

ODOT will distribute data on Hot Spots and Systemic Plans to help determine potential locations for 

improvement. 

For Hot Spots projects agencies will be given the opportunity to submit projects with justification that it meets 

the program purpose. The number of submittals should be limited because of limited funds, but ODOT will ask 

for submittals amounting to 300 to 500% of the funding available to ensure sufficient worthwhile projects. 

Regions will categorize projects based on the project’s ability to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and the 

benefit cost of the project, and finalize a draft 150% list for field scoping.

For Systemic projects the submittals will be for three systemic categories of funding, roadway departure, 

intersections and pedestrian/bicycle, attempting to solicit submittals amounting to about 300 - 500% of 

available funding. ODOT Regions will check all applications for program purpose and correctness, working with 

the submitting agencies when necessary in order to develop a potential list of projects. The intent is that the 

ODOT Regions will analyze and refine the list of submitted projects in order to prioritize the project list based 

on program purpose of reducing fatal and serious injuries and benefit cost, in order to finalize a draft 150% list 

for field scoping.

Once the refined 150% lists are ready, all projects (both hot spot and systemic) will go through a multidiscipline assessment to verify the solution. A multi-disciplinary team, including the owner of the facility, will 

ensure the best countermeasure is chosen to mitigate fatal and serious injury crashes. The project will also be 

scoped to verify the costs and any possible barrier to implementation. A finalized list of prioritized projects can 

then be produced with the best solution and the best cost.

Once the list is prioritized and a final 100% list is produced ODOT Region’s will work with Jurisdictions to 

determine the delivery methods, delivering agency and timelines (applicable funding year). For projects 

involving local agencies, the ODOT Regions will work with Jurisdictions to develop an Intergovernmental 

Agreement. The delivering agency will be accountable for timely and fiscally responsible delivery.

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 71

Yes

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

All Roads Transportation Program: Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the ARTS Program? 

The All Roads Transportation Safety Program (ARTS) is a safety program that addresses safety for all public 

roads in the state of Oregon. This program uses federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

. HSIP adopts a data-driven approach that uses crash data, risk factors, and other supported methods to 

identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. The first round of ARTS began in 2014 with 

projects scheduled for delivery in years 2017-2021. The second round of project selection is scheduled to 

begin this fall for projects delivered in years 2022-2024.

2. What is the purpose of the ARTS Program?

The primary objective of the ARTS Program is to select the best projects to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads in the state.

3. What is the timeline for ARTS Program? 

The second round of the ARTS project selection will begin in the fall of 2017 and extend through the spring of 

2018. During this period, projects will be selected for the STIP and delivered in years 2022 through 2024. The 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is currently working on developing the project criteria and plans 

on outreach to the local agencies sometime in late 2017.

4. What methods are used for project selection?

ODOT will use two different methods for selecting projects – traditional ‘Hotspot’ method and ‘Systemic’ 

method. ODOT regions are required to spend at least half of the funding for Systemic projects. These two 

methods are designed to select the most cost-effective projects among all public roads in Oregon to reduce the 

most fatal and serious injury crashes with available funds.

5. How much funding is available and how is it allocated?

During the period of 2022 through 2024, approximately $30 million per year will likely be available for the ARTS 

program. This funding will be determined by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). 

Funds will be allocated to each ODOT region based on the proportion of fatalities and serious injuries that 

occurred within the region during the last five years. The region allocations during the last round of ARTS 

funding was approximately:

Region 1 - 33%

Region 2 - 34%

Region 3 - 15%

Region 4 - 11%

Region 5 - 7%

6. What is the Hotspot method and how are the Hotspot projects selected?
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 71

The hotspot method identifies locations with documented crash problems, selects and then applies appropriate 

countermeasure(s) to mitigate the crash problems. Hotspot countermeasures are typically more expensive 

than systemic countermeasures. Examples of hotspot projects include installation of left turn lane(s), 

installation of a new traffic signal or roundabout at an intersection, or conversion of a signalized intersection to 

a roundabout.

ODOT will develop a list of locations for potential projects using its Safety Priority Index System (SPIS), and 

Safety Implementation Plans for three emphasis areas including potential remedies and countermeasures: 

Roadway Departure, Intersections and the Pedestrian and Bicycle. Local agencies can use the SPIS list or 

whatever method they choose to pick the best potential projects. These projects must address locations with a 

crash history of at least one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years.

Local agencies and ODOT will both prepare applications for the projects that they believe will be the most 

effective at reducing fatal and serious injury crashes and yet have a good benefit cost ratio. All the proposed 

hotspot countermeasures must be from the ODOT CRF List .

Projects are prioritized based on benefit cost ratio. The projects selected for funding and addition to the 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are those with the highest benefit cost .

To access data and tools, visit the ARTS Program website .

7. What is the Systemic method and how will the Systemic projects be selected?

The Systemic method takes a broader view by looking at the crash history and risks associated with an entire 

roadway/corridor and then applying proven low-cost countermeasures to reduce the risk along the entire 

roadway, corridor or jurisdiction. Examples of systemic projects include installation of curve warning signs, 

reflectorized backplates on signals, rumble strips, countdown pedestrian timers and conversion to flashing 

yellow left turn arrow (FYLTA) signal heads for protected-permitted left turn (PPLT) signal operation.

The ARTS Program consists of three emphasis areas for systemic improvements: Roadway Departure, 

Intersection, and Pedestrian and Bicycle. Systemic project locations may be selected from ODOT’s list of 

priority corridors for these three areas or from other sources. The systemic funds are roughly proportional to 

the number of fatalities and serious injuries that occur within the region.

Like the hotspot approach, the systemic approach is an application-based process. ODOT and all local 

jurisdictions within a region can submit an application for available Systemic funding. All the proposed systemic 

countermeasures must be from the ODOT CRF List . Projects are prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for 

Roadway Departure and Intersection projects) and cost effectiveness index (Pedestrian and Bicycle projects).

8. Can the same countermeasures be used for Hotspot as Systemic projects? Can a single location use a 

Systemic approach?

While systemic and Hotspot countermeasures may be applicable at the same location, ODOT asks applicants 

to submit separate applications for hotspot and for systemic measures during this round. Once approved for 

funding, the measures can be combined under one project if desired. Separate applications allow similar 

comparisons of benefits for both methods.

9. If a local jurisdiction has supplemental crash data, can that data be used during the project selection 

process?

ODOT recognizes that some jurisdictions may have supplemental crash data (e.g. police reports) that might be 

different from ODOT crash data. This data is exempt from project prioritization and benefit cost analysis. For 

fairness and consistency, crash data from 2012-2016 obtained from ODOT Crash Reports must be used for 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 71

analysis purposes. However, the supplemental data may be informative for selecting appropriate 

countermeasures at a given location.

10. How is the final project list prepared?

All projects in the refined lists (for both hotspot and systemic) go through multi-disciplinary assessment to verify 

the applicability of the proposed solution. A final list (100 percent list) is prepared and prioritized based on the 

best benefit cost ratios (Pedestrian and Bicycle projects are ranked based on cost effectiveness).

11. Can a Hotspot or Systemic safety project from the final list be combined with another Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) project at the same location?

Yes, if a hotspot or systemic safety project from the final list is at a location where another STIP project is 

planned, these two projects may be combined for efficiency. Similarly, if a Hotspot project is selected in a 

location that is in the corridor where there will be a systemic project, both projects may be combined to a single 

project for efficient design and delivery of the project. This typically occurs after project lists are completed and 

before the STIP is adopted.

12. Who designs and delivers the projects?

After the final 100 percent list is complete, ODOT regions work with the local jurisdictions to determine the 

delivery methods, timelines, and delivery agencies. Local agencies are encouraged to consider fund exchange 

(State Funded Local Projects) and deliver the projects themselves. The delivering agency is responsible for 

timely and fiscally responsible delivery.

13. Will a local match be required for selected projects?

The federal HSIP requires a 7.78 percent match for projects. This requires local agencies to contribute 7.78 

percent of the total project cost. Local agencies are encouraged to fund exchange for state funds. More 

information can be found on the Local Agency Guidelines website.

14. Do HSIP projects follow Statewide Transportation Improvement Program process?

All the projects selected under the ARTS Program follow the STIP process. Refer to the STIP website for more 

information on the STIP process and stakeholder involvement.

15. Do the engineering countermeasures impact driver behaviors such as drinking and driving and speeding?

A direct relationship between countermeasures and driver behaviors has not been determined. Some 

countermeasures may directly improve driver behaviors, others may not, however the improvement may 

prevent similar crashes in the future. For example, a roadway with a countermeasure installed — such as a 

median barrier or centerline rumble strips — may prevent an intoxicated driver from crossing into oncoming 

lanes.

Countermeasures that effectively reduce crashes are developed using data from all types and causes of 

crashes. The Crash Reduction Factor represents the relative change in crash frequency for a particular 

countermeasure regardless of cause of a crash. Engineering judgment may be needed to determine the 

appropriate countermeasure to mitigate poor driver behaviors.

16. So what can my local agency do to start preparing for ARTS?

ODOT will reach out to local agencies in each region this fall. In the meantime, local agencies and ODOT can 

begin thinking about and looking for good safety project candidates that meet funding eligibility. ODOT will 

update the ARTS webpage as more information becomes available. The following are available now:
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 71

The most recent 2016 SPIS reports for State Highways and Local Roads and

• The new Roadway Departure Plan . 

17. Who should I contact if I have questions?

For questions regarding the ARTS Program, please contact your local ODOT Region Traffic Office. While the 

FAQs are informative, some items like schedule and timelines could change.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 71

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.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $29,132 $29,132 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $29,132 $29,132 100%

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

ODOT has approximately $166 million of funding for five years between 2017 and 2021 for the first round of 

the ARTS Program. ODOT has approximately $87,396,000 of funding for the next three years between 2022 

and 2024 for the second round of the ARTS program. 

Safety Leverage HB 2017 - The Safety Leverage Funds are meant to help improve the safety of the state 

highway system where the Agency is planning to make a separate Fix-It program investment. The intent is to 

improve the most important safety issues that are in the general area of a planned Fix-It project. Investment 

decisions from this leverage fund will follow the general priorities outlined in the 2016 Transportation Safety 

Action Plan (TSAP). The funds should be used for engineering countermeasures that can demonstrate a 

measurable cost-effective benefit and should generally follow the prioritization guidelines below: 

• Tier 1 - Infrastructure improvements that will reduce serious / fatal crashes within the Emphasis Areas of the 

2016 TSAP, such as Intersection, Roadway Departure, Pedestrian, and Bicycle crashes. 

• Tier 2 - Regional safety priority areas, such as top 10% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) sites, regionwide systemic safety features, or other documented crash locations. 

Safety leverage opportunities are identified by the following process: 

• Regions review the Fix-It programs 150% lists for Tier 1 and 2 Safety Leverage qualification. 

• Scoping teams review the Fix-It programs 150% lists for project details, including: status of each project, 

location, noting whether it qualifies as Safety Leverage (identifying safety mitigation as appropriate), or 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 71

explaining why the project does not qualify in the “Leverage Opportunities” section of the Business Case. 

• The Safety Leverage portion of all projects is prioritized by Regions and ACTS within Tier 1 and 2. 

• Funding limitations are applied: Tier 1 in priority order first, then Tier 2 if funding allows. The outcome of 

Safety Leverage prioritization will be documented for each eligible project in the “Leverage Opportunities” 

section of the Business Case. 

Region Funding Allocation: 

Region 1 $10,680,000 

Region 2 $9,273,000 

Region 3 $4,431,000 

Region 4 $3,108,000 

Region 5 $2,508,000

Total $10,066,953

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

40% 

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

40% 

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

The objective of the ARTS Program is to select the best safety projects using a jurisdictionally blind and datadriven approach to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries on all roads in the state. 

A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to identify the best 

possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits.

Benefit-cost analysis, which compares the economic benefits of the crash reductions to the project cost, is the 

traditional analysis tool that is used to determine financial viability of a project and to prioritize projects. The 

ODOT Benefit-Cost Workbook shall be used to calculate benefit-cost ratio for the ARTS Program. ODOT 

requires that five years of the most recent crash data available be used for the analysis and that the project 

has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 or greater. Projects with higher benefit-cost ratios will rank higher in the 

prioritized list.

ODOT's first round of ARTS has approximately $166 million of funding for the five years between 2017 and 

2021. Approximate funding splits between the ODOT Regions for the first round of the ARTS Program are as 

shown, Region 1 = 33%, Region 2 = 34%, Region 3 = 15%, Region 4 = 11%, Region 5 = 7%. 

ODOT's second round of ARTS has approximately $29,132,000 of funding for three years between 2022 and 

2024. Approximate funding splits between the ODOT Regions for the second round of the ARTS Program are 

shown, Region 1 = 31.4%, Region 2 = 35.7%, Region 3 = 15.7%, Region 4 = 10.2%, Region 5 = 7%.

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

0% 

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 71

0% 

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

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.

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

Oregon DOT does a great job obligating the HSIP funds to appropriate safety project but the challenge is 

getting the safety projects programmed and built in an appropriate time frame. We are working on writing IGA's 

with local agencies to ensure the HSIP funds get spent in a timely fashion. The Region Traffic offices monitor 

their safety funds.

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

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

I believe our biggest challenge in HSIP implementation is programming and constructing these projects in a 

timely fashion, especially local safety projects.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 71

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

US97@Cherry 

Lane/US26@Dover 

Lane (Madras) 

Intersection 

Improvements 

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Reg. 5 ROR Safety 

Improvements

Roadway Rumble strips - center Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

A St. Rail Safety 

Improve

Railroad grade 

crossings

Protective devices $145,000 $145,000 RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 

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

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot

I-5 Sexton climbing 

lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

I-5 Exit58 

6th&Morgan int

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US97/OR58 JCT 

Passing Lns

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

US97 Baker-Lava 

Med. Barr

Roadside Barrier - concrete Miles $80,231 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US97@1st St in 

LaPine

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $4452 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR551@Keil Road Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other Intersections $99,711 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR213:Duke St 

Signal Upgr

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections $46,115 $54,218 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR154@Stringtown 

L refuge

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

Intersections $9,039 $9,039 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US30&OR99W 

Signal upgrade

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SW 35th St Rail 

Crossing 

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossing gates Locations RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 

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

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Railroad grade 

crossing 

US30@Mcalister 

TrafSignal

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections $107,264 $153,645 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

RX1580 Greenhill 

Rail Saf

Railroad grade 

crossings

Protective devices Locations $499,500 $559,707 RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 

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

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Protective 

devices
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 71

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Willa-Sheridan 

RailX-ing 

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossing gates Upgrade signal 

w/autogate

$225,553 $285,962 RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 

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

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Upgrade signal 

w/autogate

ARTS (City of 

Bend)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

Intersections $249,727 $268,707 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

Eugene Signalized 

upgrade

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

Table Rock Rd:I-5 

Biddle 

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reg 4 HSIP 

transiton Rural, 

Sign Upgrades, 

Rumble strips, 

Delineators & 

Stripping

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

18880 Rumble 

Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - center Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

GV Signal Upgrade 

(RoseB)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Baker Rd-Lava But 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - concrete Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US97:Romaine 

Village Way - Lava 

Butte (concrete 

median barrier)

Roadside Barrier - concrete Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

I-84: Baker Valley 

Variable Speed 

Limit (VSL) 2015

Speed 

management

Speed management - other Locations HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

US101@NE Devils 

Lake Rd (Add left 

turn refuge)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US26(Powell Blvd): 

SE 20th-SE34th 

(crosswalk signals, 

RF beacons, 

striping, signing & 

ADA upgrades)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

Locations $1,081,811 $1,083970 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR8: Minter BR RD 

- SW 331st Av. Sec 

Tualitin Valley 

Highway 

Washington Co.

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

I-5: Exit 119 & 120 

Interchange 

Improvements

Roadway Roadway - other Interchanges HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Interchange 

Improvements

OR39 @ 

Christensen Road 

Salmon River LT 

Turn Refuge/Sever 

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 71

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

West Connection of 

Caleg Payne RD 

(Yamhill

OR38:US 101-

Dean Cr. Paving & 

Ped Improvements 

Umpqua Grid/Inlay 

& Ped 

Improvements 

(Douglas Co.)

$528,000 $528,000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

OR551 @ Ehlen 

Road

Roadway Roadway - other Intersections $348,984 $348,984 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US26: Warm 

Springs Safety 

Corridor Warm 

Springs Intersection 

Roadside & 

Bike/Ped Safety 

Improvements

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Locations $332,683 $485,750 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists

Hermiston Signals 

Safety 

Improvements 

Umatilla-Stanfield 

Highway Umatilla 

County

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR99 @ Creel 

Rogue Valley 

Reduce to 3-Lanes, 

Consolidate 

Accesses, Add Bike 

& Ped (Jackson 

co.)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

OR213 (82nd Av): 

SE Duke St. 

Cascade Hwy. N. 

Intersection Signal 

Upgrades, Ped & 

Sidewalk, Buss

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections $79,679 $86,400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR99W: Amity SCL 

to Hoffman Rd. 

Pacific Hwy. Rd. 

Pacific Hwy. West

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR99W: SW Naito 

Pkwy - SW Huber 

St. Phase 2

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US30B: NE 103Rd 

Av. - 107th Av. NE 

Portland Add Lt 

Turn Lane, 

Upgrade Signal, 

ADA

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR217: OR10 - 

99W SB Auxiliary 

Lane

Roadway Roadway - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 71

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

OR213 @ S Union 

Mills Rd Cascade 

S. Intersection 

Improvements 

(Clackamas co)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections $183,896 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR224 (Clackamas 

Hwy): SE 197th Av. 

(Clackamas Co.)

Roadway Roadway - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR224 (Clackamas 

Hwy): SE 232nd Dr.

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

Lanes HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

OR211:Eagle Cr. - 

Sandy Hwy @ 

Dubarko Rd 

(Sandy) Eagle Cr. - 

Sandy Hwy 

Roadway Roadway - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR34 Safety 

Improvements from 

I-5 to Corvallis

Roadside Barrier - concrete Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR99: Urban 

Upgrade (Cottage 

Grove)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Hwy 351: 

Joseph/Wallowa 

Lake Bike/Ped 

Improvements

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miles $388,174 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists

I-84: Median Barrier 

Safety 

Improvement 

Project

Roadside Barrier - other Miles $478,303 $478,303 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

E. Systemic Signals 

& Illumination 

(ODOT)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections $565,152 $612,831 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Broadway Street @ 

Pine St. (Salem)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections $269,466 $292,200 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

ARTS (Deschutes 

Co.)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

Region 2 Curve 

Warnings, part 2 

(curve warning 

enhancements)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

Signs HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Dist. 8 Rumble 

Strips & Warning 

Signs

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

I05 Cable Barrier - 

Southern Oregon

Roadside Barrier - cable Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 71

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

FFO- US101: Cook 

Chasm - Sutton 

Creek 

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US101: Curve 

Warning Upgrade

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

Signs HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

I-5 @ OR214 

Interchange 

(Woodburn) 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

City of Eugene 

Signalized 

Intersection 

Improvement

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

Region 4 HSIP 

Transition

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Reg. 2 Curve 

warning, Part 2

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

Locations HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reg. 5 Run Off the 

Road Safety 

Improvements

Roadside Roadside - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Dist. 8 Rumble 

Strips & Warning 

signs

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Garden Valley and 

Roseburg Signal 

Upgrades

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

I-84: NE Oregon 

Snow Zone Safety 

Improvements

Roadside Roadside - other Locations HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US101 Johnson Cr. 

- McTimmons Lane 

Paving

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US101 Cooks 

Chasm - Sutton 

Creek (Lane Co.)

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR8 @ OR219 and 

SE 44th - SE 45th 

Ave. (Hillsboro)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR126: Eugene to 

Florence Safety 

Improvement

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

OR99E: Young St. 

Safety & ADA 

Ramps (Woodburn)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Locations HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

OR213 @ S. Union 

Mills Rd. Cascade 

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 71

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

S. Intersection 

Improvements

City of Salem 

Signalized 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

Rail Crossing 

Improvements

Railroad grade 

crossings

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Rail crossing 

improvements

US97 @ Wickiup 

Jct. (LaPine)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Bellevue-Hopewell 

Hwy Rail Xing 

Safety Project 

(phase 2)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossings - other $61,500 $75,000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Rail crossing 

safety

Willamina-Sheridan 

Hwy Rail X'ing 

Upgrade Signal 

Lights & add Auto 

Gates

Railroad grade 

crossings

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

Locations $118,964 $132,182 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Upgrade signal 

w/autogate

St. Louis Rd. Rail 

X'ing Safety 

Project, auto gates 

and signals

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossing gates Locations $354,495 $363,328 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Install auto gates 

and signals

Greenhill Rd. 

(Eugene)/PE for 

pail Safety Program 

Project

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossings - other Locations HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Railroad grade 

crossing 

Coos County Signal 

Upgrades, Oregon 

Coast Highway 

(Coos, Co.)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Delaney Rd. 

Sidewalks & 

Bikelanes (City of 

Turner) Add 

sidewalks & 

Bikelanes 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Sidewalks and 

Bike Lanes

Commercial St: 

Oxford St. SEWinding Way SE 

(Salem)

Roadway Roadway - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic

US-30 & OR-34 

Continous Left Turn 

Lane Rumble Strip

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Region 4 Centerline 

Rumble Strip

Roadway Rumble strips - center Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US101 @ Perkins 

Lane Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other Intersections $459,512 $498,279 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 71

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

US26: Timberline 

Hwy - OR35 

Sherwood 

Campground

Roadway Roadway - other Miles $88,800 $88,800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR8: SW 185th 

Ave. Sec 

(Washington Co.)

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Mission St. 

Adaptive Signal 

Timing (Salem)

Speed 

management

Speed management - other $235,875 $235,875 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic

OR99W (Barbur 

Blvd) @ SW Capitol 

Hwy.

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections $799,311 $799,311 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Region 4 Sign 

Upgrades

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

Miles $167,166 $167,166 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips 

(ODOT-ARTS)

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

George Millican Rd: 

OR 126-Reservoir 

Rd. Local Reallign 

& Reconstruct Rd.

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

NW Cornelius Pass 

Rd US30 - NW 

Kaiser Rd Local 

Safety & Lighting 

Improvements

Lighting Lighting - other Locations HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Regionwide 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

Miles $1,510,857 $1,510,857 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Region 2 Dynamic 

Warning Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

Numbers $64,023 $64,023 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

I-5: MP 303.27 to 

MP 308.63

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US101: Johnson 

Ave. Intersections 

(Coos Bay)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR82: Minam 

Curve & Bank 

Stabilization

Roadway Roadway - other $5,321,109 $5,770,016 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Stabilization

US26 (Powell Blvd): 

SE 122nd Ave - SE 

136th Ave

Roadway Roadway - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

I-205 Exit Ramps at 

SE Division St

Roadway Roadway - other $4,440 $4,440 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Exit Ramp

US30BY (Lombard) 

Safety Extension

Roadway Roadway - other Ramps HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 71

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

OR207: 11th 2 Elm 

& Orchard Signals 

(Hermiston)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR140: Green 

Springs Intch-K 

Falls/Malin Hwy S. 

K-Falls

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US30(Astoria) & 

OR99W 

(McMinnville) 

Signal Upgrades

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Region 1 Bike Ped 

Crossings

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Locations HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

Safety Features for 

Local Roads and 

Streets 2018

Roadway Roadway - other Intersections $166,500 $166,500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

13th Ave.: Lincoln 

St to Alder St 

(Eugene)

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

2014 Region 1 

Curve Warning 

Sign Project

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

Miles $1,812 $124,043 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Region 4 Curve 

Warning Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

Miles $1,078,390 $1,078,390 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Coos & Douglas 

County Sign & 

Delineation 

Upgrades 

(Coos&Douglas 

Co.)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

2015 Region 1 

Curve Warning 

Sign Project

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

$204,668 $204,668 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

I-5 S. Medford - N. 

Ashland Paving

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US97: RedmondBendRoadway Roadway - other Miles $333,000 $333,000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR86: BakerCopperfield Hwy 

Guardrail Phase III

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US20: Safety 

Upgrades (Albany 

to Corvallis)

Roadway Roadway - other Miles $2,775,000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR126: FlorenceEugene Shoulder 

Widening

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 71

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

NB30B: NE 103rd 

Ave-NE 107th Ave 

NE Portland

Roadway Roadway - other Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

OR213 @ MP 

15.71 (Toliver Rd)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections $777,000 $777,000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Rural Intersection 

and Curve Warning 

(ODOT)

Roadway Roadway - other Miles $89,521 $89,521 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Region 2 Centerline 

Rumble Strips (Unit 

3)

Roadway Rumble strips - center Miles HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Southern Oregon 

Warning Sign 

Upgrades

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Salem Industrial 

Drive NE Rail 

Crossing

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossings - other Locations $40500 $45,000 RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 

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

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Railroad grade 

crossing 

US30: Traffic 

Signals @ 

McAlister Rd. La 

Grande-Baker 

Highway

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

$77,679 $86,310 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR361 @ Dover, 

Eureka, Gem & 

Highland

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

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

Page 38 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 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 416 377 317 331 337 313 357 446 498

Serious Injuries 1,913 1,231 1,382 1,541 1,618 1,416 1,495 1,777 1,973

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.240 1.110 0.940 0.990 1.020 0.930 1.030 1.240 1.360

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.720 3.620 4.090 4.620 4.880 4.200 4.320 4.940 5.370

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

62 45 69 62 70 55 64 82 84

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

177 149 139 184 185 165 177 186 196

PDO Crashes 23,406 21,887 22,922 24,853 25,036 26,228 26,716 26,025 29,321
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 71

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 40 of 71

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 41 of 71

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

Please note that the 2017 crash data for Oregon has not been coded into our Crash Analysis and Reporting 

System (CARS) database yet. We anticipate that it will be available for next years 2019 HSIP annual report. In 

2017 there were 439 fatalities in Oregon. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

PDO Crashes

PDO Crashes 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 71

Number of non-motorized fatalities means the total number of fatalities (as defined in this section) with the 

FARS person attribute codes: Pedestrian, (6) Bicyclist, (7) Other Cyclist, and (8) Person on Personal 

Conveyance 

Serious injuries means: 

(1) From April 14, 2016 to April 15, 2019, injuries classified as “A” on the KABCO scale through use of the 

conversion tables developed by NHTSA; and 

(2) After April 15, 2019, “suspected serious injury (A)” as defined in the MMUCC.

Describe fatality data source.

Other

If Other Please describe

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Crash Data Base System in comparison with FARS data 

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

Primarily, we use the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) crash data base system because the data 

is available sooner than the FARS data. We compare our ODOT fatality crash data with FARS when possible.

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

Year 2016

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

21.2 53.2 0.55 1.36

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

86.6 227.8 2.06 5.42

Rural Minor Arterial 46.6 140.8 2.5 7.52

Rural Minor Collector 14.2 46.8 0.96 2.38

Rural Major Collector 59.4 175.8 3.19 9.34

Rural Local Road or Street 21.2 64.6 1.15 3.56

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

12.6 72 0.23 1.4

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

3.8 25.4 0.28 1.86
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 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)

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

62.2 375.2 1.18 7.18

Urban Minor Arterial 33.6 258.2 0.82 6.3

Urban Minor Collector 0.4 4.4 0.15 1.64

Urban Major Collector 21.8 149.4 0.86 5.88

Urban Local Road or Street 6.2 63 0.29 2.96
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 71

Year 2015

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 1 1 1 1

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

Suburban Minor Collector 1 1 1 1
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 71

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 71

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 71

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 71

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 71

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Indian Tribe

Nation

Suburban Minor

Collector

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 71

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Indian Tribe

Nation

Suburban Minor

Collector

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 71

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

State Highway Agency Suburban Minor Collector

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 71

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

Please note that the 2017 crash data for Oregon has not been coded into our Crash Analysis and Reporting 

System (CARS) database yet. We anticipate that it will be available for next years 2019 HSIP annual report.

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 343.0 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

State Highway Agency Suburban Minor Collector

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 71

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. Decrease traffic fatalities to 343 by December 31, 2019. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1432.0

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. Decrease serious traffic injuries to 1,432 by December 31, 2019. 

Fatality Rate 0.830 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. Reduce the fatality rate to 0.83, through December 31, 2019. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.240 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. The serious injury rate for our 2019 target is 4.24 people per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 225.0 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. The non-motorized fatalities plus serious injuries for our 2019 target is 225 

people. 

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

For more information regarding how ODOT's performance measures were set, please refer to page 100-105 of 

the Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan 2016 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/TSAP/TSAP_2016_web.pdf .

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

targets. 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 71

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic Highway Safety Plan update 

and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working group including the SHSO (and including a representative 

of an MPO). Afterwards ODOT held meetings with the MPOs from around the state and explained the process 

and the outcome. The Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan 2016 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/TSAP/TSAP_2016_web.pdf .

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 High Risk Rural Roads special rule is triggered in Oregon for next fiscal year 2019 (Oct. 1, 2018 - Sept. 

30, 2019)

We have qualifying roadway departure safety projects in FY 2019 and have not chosen which projects to code 

to those funds at this time.

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 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

46 50 48 56 58 68 87

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

140 162 169 134 167 197 233
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 71

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 71

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

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

level evaluations.

Historically Oregon’s fatalities and serious injuries have trended downwards, Since 2013 however there have 

been annual increases, this increase has been common across the country. Project level evaluations has 

shown that the projects implemented under HSIP funding have improved the locations where invested. A 

recent comparison of Roadway Departure has also shown that the last few years of investments in this key 

area has lessened the percentage of total roadway departure crashes, indicating Oregon’s investments in 

systemic roadway departure has been moving the numbers.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Policy change 

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

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

With the implementation of the ARTS program, there is an increased awareness of safety and a data-driven 

process for developing safety projects across all jurisdictions in Oregon. 

Policy level changes that are a direct result of HSIP implementation efforts like the use of safety edge now 

incorporated into our Highway Design Manual. Improved guidance in our signing and striping manuals to 

reduce wrong way driving at interchange ramps taken from a recent research project that was completed in 

September 2017. Improved guidance in our signal policy and guidelines to eliminate conflicts between left turn 

traffic and pedestrians. 

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Yes

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 71

The second round of the ARTS program primarily uses federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP). The principles and purpose of ARTS and HSIP are:

• The program goal is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. 

• The program must include all public roads. 

• The program is data driven and blind to jurisdiction. 

• The process will be overseen by Oregon DOT Regions. 

• Both traditional “hot spot” methodology and systemic methodology is used.All Projects shall: 

• The objective of ARTS and HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious 

injuries. A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to 

identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway projects incorporate 

design features or elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating guardrail or improvements 

to intersection channelization, signing and pavement markings. But appropriate use of HSIP funds is 

only for locations or corridors where a known problem exists as indicated by location-specific data on 

fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is determined that the specific project can, with 

confidence, produce a measurable and significant reduction in such fatalities or serious injuries. To 

achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the ARTS program is on cost effective use of the funds 

allocated for safety improvements addressing fatal and serious injury crashes. 

• Address a specific Safety problem contributing to fatalities and serious injuries 

• Use proven countermeasures that correct or substantially improve the fatal and serious injury problem 

• Use ODOT crash data to establish the Benefit/Cost ratio (so projects can be compared fairly) 

• Use ODOT Benefit Cost method (or Cost effectiveness for Bicycle/Pedestrian) 

• Be prioritized or categorized based on the Benefit/Cost Ratio for developing the 150% list 

• Use only proven countermeasures from the approved ODOT Crash Reduction Factor list (a written 

process is developed for considering new measures) 

• Projects must include written support from the Road Jurisdiction if the project is proposed by another 

agency 

• Benefit Costs will be based on the most recent available three to five years of crash dataHot Spot 

Projects shall: 

• The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hot spot” locations, and then identify measures to 

implement by diagnosing the “hot spot”. 

• Address a location with a crash history of at least one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five 

yearsSystemic Projects shall: 

• The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then 

implements the measures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic 

measures have been proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. 

The sites may be selected from ODOT’s list of priority corridors for Roadway Departure, Intersections 

or Pedestrian/Bicycle crashes. 

• Use only approved “Systemic” countermeasures as listed in the Crash Reduction factors list 

• Not require the acquisition of significant amounts of right of way (more than 10% of project costs), 

preferably no right of way 

• For the Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis, use Highway Safety Manual methods to estimate predicted 

crashes for pedestrians and bicycles and Cost Effectiveness to prioritize projects selection. 

• Systemic Projects should: 

• Have a history of fatal or serious injury crashes or a risk of high severity crashes and preferably are 

selected from priority corridors within Systemic plans.Systemic funding is intended to be used for 

Roadway Departure, Intersections and Pedestrian/Bicycle type projects. At the statewide level the split 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 71

in F&A between Roadway Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike is about 40%/40%/20% respectively. 

Regions will be given the flexibility to determine the appropriate splits between systemic types of 

projects for their regions. It is suggested: 

• The Safety funds are split to each region based on the amount of fatalities and serious injuries 

occurring in the region on all public roads. Regions will be required to spend a minimum of 50% of their 

funding on Systemic projects. 

• That at least one project per year be developed for each type, if possible. 

• Region splits of systemic funds for each systemic type be roughly equivalent to the proportion of F&A 

occurring in the region Both Hot Spot and Systemic processes will be an application based process. 

Oregon jurisdictions will be invited to submit projects for Hot Spot and Systemic funding, using a large 

list of proven countermeasures. ODOT will distribute data on Hot Spots and Systemic Plans to help 

determine potential locations for improvement. For Systemic projects the submittals will be for three 

systemic categories of funding, roadway departure, intersections and pedestrian/bicycle, attempting to 

solicit submittals amounting to about 300 - 500% of available funding. ODOT Regions will check all 

applications for program purpose and correctness, working with the submitting agencies when 

necessary in order to develop a potential list of projects. The intent is that the ODOT Regions will 

analyze and refine the list of submitted projects in order to prioritize the project list based on program 

purpose of reducing fatal and serious injuries and benefit cost, in order to finalize a draft 150% list for 

field scoping. 

• Once the refined 150% lists are ready, all projects (both hot spot and systemic) will go through a multidiscipline assessment to verify the solution. A multi-disciplinary team, including the owner of the facility, 

will ensure the best countermeasure is chosen to mitigate fatal and serious injury crashes. The project 

will also be scoped to verify the costs and any possible barrier to implementation. A finalized list of 

prioritized projects can then be produced with the best solution and the best cost. 

• For Hot Spots projects agencies will be given the opportunity to submit projects with justification that it 

meets the program purpose. The number of submittals should be limited because of limited funds, but 

ODOT will ask for submittals amounting to 300 to 500% of the funding available to ensure sufficient 

worthwhile projects. Regions will categorize projects based on the project’s ability to reduce fatal and 

serious injury crashes and the benefit cost of the project, and finalize a draft 150% list for field scoping. 

• Funding is eligible to be used for approved countermeasures as long as those countermeasures 

provide an improvement to reducing fatal and serious injury and are prioritized through the ARTS data 

driven process. Safety funds may be used to include or replace elements that are necessary to 

satisfactorily complete the project, such as replacing non-compliant ADA ramps, replacing pavement 

striping that is removed or right of way, but those elements must be included in the cost of the project 

and part of the prioritization process. Other elements (not applicable to the safety project) may be 

combined with the project (i.e., culvert), but must be funded by other sources, not safety funds. 

Both Hot Spot and Systemic processes will be an application based process. Oregon jurisdictions will 

be invited to submit projects for Hot Spot and Systemic funding, using a large list of proven 

countermeasures. ODOT will distribute data on Hot Spots and Systemic Plans to help determine 

potential locations for improvement. 

For Hot Spots projects agencies will be given the opportunity to submit projects with justification that it 

meets the program purpose. The number of submittals should be limited because of limited funds, but 

ODOT will ask for submittals amounting to 300 to 500% of the funding available to ensure sufficient 

worthwhile projects. Regions will categorize projects based on the project’s ability to reduce fatal and 

serious injury crashes and the benefit cost of the project, and finalize a draft 150% list for field scoping.

For Systemic projects the submittals will be for three systemic categories of funding, roadway 

departure, intersections and pedestrian/bicycle, attempting to solicit submittals amounting to about 300 

- 500% of available funding. ODOT Regions will check all applications for program purpose and 

correctness, working with the submitting agencies when necessary in order to develop a potential list of 

projects. The intent is that the ODOT Regions will analyze and refine the list of submitted projects in 
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 59 of 71

order to prioritize the project list based on program purpose of reducing fatal and serious injuries and 

benefit cost, in order to finalize a draft 150% list for field scoping.

Once the refined 150% lists are ready, all projects (both hot spot and systemic) will go through a multidiscipline assessment to verify the solution. A multi-disciplinary team, including the owner of the facility, 

will ensure the best countermeasure is chosen to mitigate fatal and serious injury crashes. The project 

will also be scoped to verify the costs and any possible barrier to implementation. A finalized list of 

prioritized projects can then be produced with the best solution and the best cost.

Once the list is prioritized and a final 100% list is produced ODOT Region’s will work with Jurisdictions 

to determine the delivery methods, delivering agency and timelines (applicable funding year). For 

projects involving local agencies, the ODOT Regions will work with Jurisdictions to develop an 

Intergovernmental Agreement. The delivering agency will be accountable for timely and fiscally 

responsible delivery.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016 

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)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 203.8 612.4 0.58 1.76 0 0 0

Intersections All 76.8 602.2 0.22 1.72 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 63 118 0.18 0.34 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 7.6 63.8 0.02 0.18 0 0 0

Motorcyclists Motorcycle 

crashes

48.2 225.6 0.14 0.65 0 0 0

Work Zones All 5.2 17 0.02 0.05 0 0 0
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 60 of 71

0

50

100

150

200

250

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 61 of 71

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

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

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 62 of 71

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

Page 63 of 71

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)

US101:N BendCoos Bay Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

58.00 57.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 40.00 35.00 102.00 96.00

OR8:N 10th Ave-N 

19th Ave

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

34.00 28.00 4.00 2.00 35.00 38.00 73.00 68.00

Kalmiopsis Elem 

Sch:Easy 

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Stella Mayfield 

Elem Sch 

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Columbia 

Blvd/Mcnary SRTS

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

FFO - OR99W: I-5 

NB Ramps

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway - other 81.00 46.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 87.00 50.00 174.00 102.00

OR:211:Eagle CrSandy HwyUrban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

8.00 7.00 5.00 13.00 9.00 26.00 16.00

OR62: Linn Rd - 

Hwy. 234

Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 20.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 15.00 26.00 40.00 42.00

I-5:Glendale-Hugo 

Climb L

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway Roadway - other 158.00 117.00 3.00 2.00 8.00 7.00 108.00 73.00 277.00 199.00

OR39:Merrill NCLCalif lnRural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

11.00 7.00 1.00 8.00 7.00 19.00 15.00

OR126:Grass 

Butte-Rimrock

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

9.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 14.00 10.00 26.00 17.00

OR99W:SW 

Durham RD-Fische

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

62.00 46.00 3.00 3.00 83.00 44.00 148.00 93.00

OR99E: Vineyard 

Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

5.00 6.00 2.00 1.00 12.00 7.00 19.00 14.00

OR224:SE 135th 

Ave.

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

14.00 6.00 1.00 12.00 9.00 27.00 15.00
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 64 of 71

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)

US26: SE Orient 

Dr.

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

14.00 6.00 1.00 12.00 9.00 27.00 15.00

US20,US26,US395 

Rumbles 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

US97@Cherry Ln 

US26@Dover

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

5.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 10.00 7.00

OR140:Lake of the 

Woods

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

56.00 79.00 1.00 3.00 12.00 3.00 40.00 46.00 109.00 131.00

2014 Reg 1 Curve 

Signing 

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

315.00 199.00 3.00 5.00 25.00 11.00 357.00 261.00 700.00 476.00

Reg 2 CL Rumbles 

Unit 1 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

226.00 178.00 7.00 9.00 24.00 15.00 188.00 171.00 445.00 373.00

US97:Wichiup AvBowery lnRural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

42.00 49.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 29.00 31.00 78.00 83.00

Reg 2 CL Rumbles 

Unit 2

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

119.00 80.00 7.00 13.00 26.00 20.00 131.00 131.00 283.00 244.00

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

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

No
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 65 of 71

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/01/2016 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2021 

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

 2021 

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) 0 0

Route/Street Name (9) 0 0

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

0 0 0 0

Surface Type (23) 0 0 0 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

0 0 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 0 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Median Type (54) 0 0

Access Control (22) 0 0
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 66 of 71

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 Operations 

(91)

0 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

0 0 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

0 0 0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 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)

0 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 67 of 71

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) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

Mire Non Local Paved Roads - Segment Non Local Paved Roads - Intersection Non Local Paved Roads - Ramps Local Paved Roads Unpaved Roads

Fundamental

Data Elements State Non-State State Non-State State Non-State State Non-State State Non-State

70% 15% 70% 5% 60% 20% 90% 5% 90% 5%

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.

Oregon DOT performed a phase 1 pilot to estimate the work necessary to collect intersection data on state highways, the finding of the pilot are being used to plan a phase pilot to collect signalized intersection data in the most populous 

region of the state. While there are about 500 signalized intersections on state highways in this region, the quantity and density will be very useful to hone the attributes collected and the methods used for optimum efficiency. In addition, 

Region 1 was identified for collection of signalized intersection data so HSM methods could be used to identify signalized intersections which, are often over capacity and already identified as crash hot spots, for potential safety 

improvements.

The objectives of this pilot is to collect the FDE for signalized intersection only, utilize HSM methods of network screening for potential safety improvements and finalize the methodology before implementation in other regions of the state. 

Tentatively we have a planned schedule of collection of the data elements.

Winter 2017 Prepare to implement Phases 3-7 

Spring 2018 Begin Phase 3, FDE data collection for signalized intersections in Regions 2, 3, 4 and 5

Fall 2020 Estimated completion of Phase 3 collection of FDE

Spring 2021 Begin Phase 4, FDE data collection for signalized interchange-only intersections state-wide

Winter 2021 Estimated completion of Phase 4 collection of FDE

Spring 2022 Begin Phase 5, FDE data collection for signalized intersections on local roads
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 68 of 71

Winter 2023 Estimated completion of Phase 5 collection of FDE

Spring 2024 Begin Phase 6, FDE data collection for state-owned highway segments between signalized intersections state-wide

Winter 2024 Estimated completion of Phase 6 collection of FDE

Spring 2025 Begin Phase 7, FDE data collection for local road segments between signalized intersections state-wide

Winter 2026 Estimated completion of Phase 7 collection of FDE

Spring 2027 Data maintenance cycle begins

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) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Incapacitated (A) Yes N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitated (A) Yes Incapacitated – any injury that prevents the 

party form walking, driving, or normally 

continuing the activities he or she was 

capable of performing before the injury 

occurred. Example include; broken or 

distorted limbs , skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries , unconscious at or 

when taken from the crash scene, unable 

to leave crash scene without assistance 

Yes Incapacitated – any injury that prevents the 

party form walking, driving, or normally 

continuing the activities he or she was 

capable of performing before the injury 

occurred. Example include; broken or 

distorted limbs , skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries , unconscious at or 

when taken from the crash scene, unable 

to leave crash scene without assistance 

Yes

Crash Database Code 2 - Incapacitating (Serious/Major) Yes N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Code 2 - Incapacitating (Serious/Major) Yes Code 2 is used for participants who suffer 

incapacitating injuries. An incapacitating 

(severe or major) injury is a non-fatal injury 

which "prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities the person was capable of 

performing before the injury occurred". (see 

to ANSI D16.1-2007, definition 2.3.4) 

Examples of incapacitating injuries include 

broken bones, severe bleeding, 

unconsciousness, etc.

Yes Code 2 is used for participants who suffer 

incapacitating injuries. An incapacitating 

(severe or major) injury is a non-fatal injury 

which "prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities the person was capable of 

performing before the injury occurred". (see 

to ANSI D16.1-2007, definition 2.3.4) 

Examples of incapacitating injuries include 

broken bones, severe bleeding, 

unconsciousness, etc.

Yes

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

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?

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 69 of 71

Oregon DOT collected comments and surveyed participants of the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program in order to determine effectiveness of the program and to determine potential program changes. Several of the 

comments will be incorporated into the next round of the ARTS program. ODOT plans to complete its next HSIP program assessment in 2019.
2018 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 70 of 71

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

odot_safety_program_guide[1].pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Oregon 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 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.