Wisconsin

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

  

   

Prepared by: WI

  
ii

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.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

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

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 5

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 13

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 13

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 16

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 26

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 26

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 41

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

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 44

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 50

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 55

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................61

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................63
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The following report outlines the details of projects obligated in SFY2015 for Wisconsin's Highway Safety

Improvement Program (HSIP). Also included are program methodologies, historical crash data and safety

trends, information on subprograms, and project evaluation data.
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 MAP‐21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects,

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the

effectiveness of the improvements.  

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State?  

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

HSIP applications from local governments are solicited by the WisDOT Regions as part of the regular

HSIP Program. All applications derived from local governments are selected and submitted voluntarily by

local governments. Projects on the local system or sponsored by local governments must meet the same

requirements and follow the same process as HSIP applications submitted by WisDOT Regions for

improvements on the State Trunk Network.  

In addition, Wisconsin has continued moving forward in implementing a data‐driven High Risk Rural

Roads Program (HRRRP) despite its formal elimination in MAP‐21. Wisconsin has developed a statewide
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

data analysis methodology which allows for the focused use of safety funding to improve eligible

segments on county rural roads exhibiting particular run‐off‐road non‐intersection crash issues. A

primary goal of the HRRRP is to install low‐cost safety treatments on these roadways to mitigate KA

crash rates as quickly as possible. It is unlikely these county trunk highways would receive federal

investments outside of the HRRRP. In SFY 2015, five projects with estimated costs totaling nearly $2

million were approved for various years of the HSIP on county highway systems throughout the state.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning.  

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other‐Division of State Patrol

Other: Other‐Division of Motor Vehicles

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners.  

The HSIP Program is managed by WisDOT's Division of Transportation Investment Management (DTIM)

and the Bureau of State of Highway Programs (BSHP). DTIM/BSHP makes all final application approvals

or denials and related project change or cost increase requests. However, DTIM/BSHP coordinates its

efforts with several internal partners that both directly and indirectly influence the decision making

process. Below is a summary of these partners and their role in the program.

‐ Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV): DMV receives, edits, and maintains all law enforcement crash report

files.

‐ Traffic Safety Council (TSC): The TSC is comprised of representatives from Division of Transportation

System Development (DTSD), DTIM, DMV, Division of State Patrol (DSP), and various Executive Offices

within WisDOT. Among this group's responsibilities is developing and maintaining the Wisconsin

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which helps guide the safety efforts of the HSIP Program. During
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

SFY2015, the TSC successfully completed an update of the SHSP, which went into effect in September,

2014.

‐ Safety Engineer Executive Group (SEEG): This is a high‐level group comprised of representatives from

DTSD and DTIM management. Its focus is to identify safety trends and issues to develop and offer

direction and initiatives to both the HSIP Program and the TSC on important safety engineering issues

throughout the state.  

‐ Traffic Safety Engineering Workgroup (TSEWG): TSEWG is comprised of the State HSIP Coordinator,

State Traffic Safety Engineer, and the Regional Traffic Safety Engineers. In some cases, the Regional HSIP

Coordinators also participate. This group identifies and evaluates potential safety initiatives both within

and outside of the HSIP Program, provides peer support, and reviews proposed HSIP projects. After a

group evaluation, a recommendation to approve or not approve is forwarded to the State HSIP

Coordinator for final review.

‐ State Project Oversight Engineers: The State Project Oversight Engineers are a critical component of

the joint process with the TSEWG for application review and approval. The DTSD State Project Oversight

Engineers, Regional Traffic Safety Engineers, the State Traffic  Safety Engineer, and the State HSIP

Coordinator provide a consensus approval or disapproval of HSIP funding after a comprehensive in‐

person peer review. Each Region has one Project Oversight Engineer. State Project Oversight Engineers

only review applications originating from the Region in which they are assigned. This consensus approval

or disapproval is advisory to DTIM/BSHP.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning.  

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other‐University of Wisconsin‐Madison's Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory (UW TOPS

Lab)

Other: Other‐FHWA

Other: Other‐Local municipalities and counties
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since

the last reporting period.

Multi‐disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other‐updated HSIP Guidelines in the Program Management Manual

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you

would like to elaborate.

  

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.  

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low‐Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other:      

   

   
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2005

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐All CMC Lane miles Roadside features

Other‐Centerline miles Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other‐Non‐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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C   

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements?  

7   

   

Highway safety improvement program funds are used to address which of the following systemic

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other  

   

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures?  

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: Other‐County Traffic Safety Commission recommendations
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other‐no change

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you

would like to elaborate.  

Project Evaluation Factor (PEF)

The Project Evaluation Factor (PEF) is a tool that is used to evaluate and compare proposed projects. It 

provides a comparison of the estimated crash reduction potential of a proposed improvement with the overall 

cost of the project. Although it has similarities to a benefit/cost analysis, it does not include all of the 

elements of a traditional benefit/cost analysis tool for ranking the relative merits of a group of projects, and 

should not be compared to a benefit/cost analysis.

Costs in the PEF are estimated by the Regions/Locals in current year dollars. All costs associated with the 

project (design, utilities, R/E, construction, etc.) must be included in the PEF calculation, regardless of 

whether HSIP funds are requested for all elements of the project. 

Accident reduction benefits are one of the elements needed to justify infrastructure projects for the HSIP 

program. Establishing values associated with loss of life and quality of life is obviously very challenging. 

When developing values related to various types of crashes, it is necessary to consider, among other things, 

the available data regarding crash values, the relative causes of different types of crashes and the ability of 

traditional treatment options to address safety issues. Following identification of crash problems, and 

treatment solutions, projects are compared on a relative basis so that funding decisions can be made.

The following values per crash are to be used in the Excel spreadsheet program for estimating various types 

of crash reductions: 

Property damage crashes $10,000

Possible Injury (Type C) crashes $50,000
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Non-incapacitating injury (Type B) crashes $200,000

Incapacitating Injury (Type A) crashes $200,000

Multiple incapacitating injury (Type A) crashes $230,000

Each incapacitating injury (Type A) crash in combination with one or more Fatal (Type K) crashes$230,000

Fatal (Type K) crash $200,000

Multiple fatal (Type K) crashes $250,000

 The “Multiple incapacitating injury (Type A) crashes,” “Each incapacitating injury (Type A) crash in 

combination with one or more Fatal crash/es,” and “Multiple fatal crashes” crash severity values are triggered 

if the multiple or combination scenarios occur at any point throughout the required five year analysis period.

The current values used within the PEF calculation are influenced by the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 

developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The 

above crash severity values are adjusted to approximate 2011 dollars using the Consumer Price Index, 

correlating to the most recent year of available crash data.

Although Wisconsin designs solutions to reduce all crashes, a number of targeted engineering, educational 

and enforcement efforts have been implemented with the defined goal of reducing crashes involving serious 

injuries and fatalities. Because of this focus on reducing serious injuries and fatalities, the PEF scoring 

mechanism assigns higher values to reoccurring Type A and Fatal crashes.

An Excel spreadsheet program is available that performs a safety project analysis and computes the PEF. It 

should be used for all standard HSIP projects, except for minor installations of safety hardware, such as beam 

guard, impact attenuators, etc. Operational costs should be included in the computations for signal projects. 

It is critical appropriate reduction factors are used to calculate PEFs. More information on the use of 

reduction factors is below.

Projects require a PEF of 1.0 or greater for approval. However, the HSIP Review Committee acknowledges 

the PEF contains many variables and that sometimes additional expense is needed to sufficiently address a 

safety issue. As such, the HSIP Review Committee can consider applications with a PEF greater than or equal 

to 0.9 for approval. Projects with a PEF less than 0.9 will not be approved. Projects treating LOIR locations 

require a PEF of 0.50 or greater for approval. LOIR locations with a PEF less than 0.5 will not be approved. 

After a project is approved, all project funding cap increase requests for projects over $200,000 in total costs 

must include a recalculated PEF spreadsheet. The recalculated PEF must be greater than or equal to 1.0 to 

receive cost increase approval consideration.

All data fields should be inputted to ensure accurate and consistent PEF calculations across projects. The 

most recent five years of available crash data is required.

Construction, such as intersections, left turn storage lanes and geometric improvements, requires justification 

with a PEF. Traffic signals must meet warrants in addition to having a favorable PEF.

The following additional information and guidance is provided for the Regions and local officials on how to 

use the crash data.
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

 Rather than use typical reduction factors for various types of improvements in the spreadsheet, the 

following more site-specific approach should be used:

 Gather all crash reports from the most recent 5 year period for the site under consideration. Local 

officials are required to submit this information. Applicants may use 6th year data as Year 1 of the 

required consecutive 5 year data period. The Division of State Patrol Bureau of Transportation Safety 

does not have an established annual deadline for finalizing crash data. For example, if the current 

calendar year is 2015, 2009-2013 or 2010-2014 data is acceptable for required crash histories.  

 Plot collision diagrams (include all crashes except deer hits). Locals provide collision diagrams for their 

requests.  

 Identify those crashes that likely would have been avoided if the proposed safety improvement had 

been constructed.  

 Estimate what percentage of those crashes, by crash type, would be reduced by constructing the 

proposed improvement and enter that percentage on the spreadsheet. Several resources are available 

to help determine the use of appropriate crash modification and reduction factors. Contact the State 

Traffic Safety Engineer with any immediate questions related to CMFs and/or CRFs. The Crash 

Modification Factors Clearinghouse and FHWA Crash Reduction Factors Desktop Reference can be 

used to help determine appropriate CMFs and CRFs. In addition, historical CMFs and CRFs used in 

previous applications can be found in the HSIP Application Database on the DOTNET server. Please 

contact the Statewide HSIP Coordinator for access to the HSIP Application Database.   

 The program will then compute the total crash reduction factor.

 2. To aid Regions in identifying exceptionally hazardous locations, average crash rates for sections of 

various types of streets and highways, and average intersection crash rates will be provided.

Application Review Process

Program approval is a joint process between the Regional Safety Engineers, the Statewide Traffic Safety 

Engineer, applicable Regional Project Oversight Engineers, and the Statewide HSIP Coordinator. These 

individuals together comprise the HSIP Review Committee and are advisory to BSHP.

Efforts will be made to streamline the approval process by gathering all members of the HSIP Review 

Committee at in-person HSIP Application Review Meetings after the Standard or Mid-Cycle HSIP 

application deadline. These meetings will serve as a comprehensive peer review and ultimately provide a 

consensus approval or disapproval of application submittals.

HSIP applications occasionally require a “tabling” to allow time for further review led by the application’s 

primary Regional Safety Engineer contact. Depending on the timeline of this work, efforts to generate a HSIP 

Review Committee consensus approval or disapproval on the subject application will occur over email or at 

the next bi-monthly TSEWG meeting.
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

BSHP will distribute the HSIP approval memos containing a regional HSIP project listing and FIIPS loading 

instructions to the Regions for implementation as soon as possible after approval.
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 26185542   88 % 25819377   88 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA‐LU) 413214     1 % 413214     1 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer	‐	

Section 154

      

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

100800    0 % 100800    0 %

Incentive Grants	‐		

Section 163

      

Incentive Grants

(Section 406)

Other Federal‐aid

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

      

State and Local Funds 2966617   10 % 2925932   10 %
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Totals 29666173 100% 29259323 100%

How much funding is programmed to local (non‐state owned and maintained) safety projects?

36 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

36 %

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

3 %

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

3 %

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

period?

$0.00
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

period?

$20,504,499.00

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to

overcome this in the future.

Project delays, particularly on the local system, can make it challenging to fully utilize HSIP funding.  

Such delays occur for a variety of reasons, including changes in project scope during the design process

(which triggers a required re‐evaluation of the project), changes in associated projects that are linked to

the HSIP project, and local public agency unfamiliarity with HSIP and federal rules and regulations.

WisDOT undertakes periodic outreach and education efforts with local governments to improve their

familiarity and knowledge of HSIP and the federal‐aid process.  WisDOT is also working to develop a list

of HSIP projects that could be advanced from a later program year to replace projects that are delayed

or fall out of the program.  

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None.
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

General Listing of ProjectsList each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period.

Project Improvement Category Outp

ut

HSIPCost

TotalCost

FundingCategory

FunctionalClassification

AADT

Speed

RoadwayOwnership

1000‐08‐90

Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 0

Miles

695250 772500 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 VAR 

1000‐99‐59

Non‐infrastructureData/traffic records

0Miles

159249.6 176944 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 VAR 

1009‐42‐64

Roadway Pavement

surface ‐ high friction

surface

0Miles

172105.5 191228.3

3

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 USH 

1021‐00‐71

Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 6.29

Miles

54000 60000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 IH 

1058‐20‐01

Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 0.706

Miles

31500 35000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

1060‐ Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 8.709 333720 370800 HSIP

(Section

0 0 IH 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

49‐00 Miles 148) 1090‐34‐70

Roadway Pavement

surface ‐ high friction

surface

0Miles

197451 219390 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 IH 

1090‐38‐00

Roadway Pavementsurface ‐ high frictionsurface

0.426Miles

93627 104030 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 IH 

1100‐47‐70

Roadway Pavement

surface ‐ high friction

surface

1.87

Miles

761938 846597.7

8

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 USH 

1107‐00‐74

Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 7.32

Miles

829867.5 922075 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 USH 

1110‐10‐71

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

0.465Miles

987242.2 1096935.

78

HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

3/1/1176

Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 1.59

Miles

45000 50000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 USH 

1510‐00‐00

Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 5.54

Miles

185400 206000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 USH 

1510‐ Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 3.59 74160 82400 HSIP

(Section

0 0 USH 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

00‐01 Miles 148) 1540‐00‐72

Pedestrians and bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons

0.033Miles

88200 98000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 LOC 

1590‐21‐01

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Curve‐relatedwarning signs and flashers

4.49Miles

24936.3 27707 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 CTH 

3/2/1610

Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control

‐ other

0.02Miles

67500 75000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

1670‐01‐75

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1.2Miles

644400 716000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 USH 

2070‐09‐70

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

0Miles

572642.6 636269.5

6

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

2155‐03‐71

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ modifyleft‐turn lane offset

0.064Miles

227108 252342.2

2

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 STH 

2155‐03‐90

Intersection traffic control

Modify traffic signal ‐ modify signal mounting

(spanwire to mast arm)

0Miles

45000 50000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 LOC 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

2155‐03‐91

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ modifyleft‐turn lane offset

0Miles

59918 66575.56 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

1/2/2160

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ modifyleft‐turn lane offset

0Miles

94932.9 105481 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

2160‐15‐00

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ modifyleft‐turn lane offset

0Miles

100800 112000 Penalty

Transfer–Section164

0 0 CTH 

2240‐18‐00

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ modifyleft‐turn lane offset

0.05Miles

127926 142140 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

2340‐00‐73

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ modifyleft‐turn lane offset

0.51Miles

1530000 1700000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

2375‐07‐00

Shoulder treatments

Widen shoulder ‐ paved orother

0.51Miles

49680 55200 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

2595‐08‐00

Intersection traffic controlModify traffic signal ‐ modify signal mounting(spanwire to mast arm)

0Miles

234531 260590 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 NON 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

2695‐10‐00

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

0.2Miles

92700 103000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

3/1/2718

Intersection geometryThrough lanes ‐ addadditional through lane

0.65Miles

83430 92700 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 LOC 

2758‐01‐70

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

0Miles

1061078 1178975.

55

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

2762‐00‐00

Intersection traffic controlIntersection traffic control‐ other

0Miles

104715 116350 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

2967‐16‐70

Pedestrians and bicyclists

Pedestrian signal ‐ modify

existing

0Miles

130406.9 144896.5

5

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 VAR 

2984‐08‐75

Intersection traffic controlModify traffic signal ‐ modify signal mounting(spanwire to mast arm)

0Miles

568087.7 631208.5

5

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 VAR 

2984‐08‐95

Intersection traffic control

Modify traffic signal ‐ modify signal mounting

(spanwire to mast arm)

0Miles

287100 319000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 OFF 

3080‐ Intersection geometry 0.189 230130 255700 HSIP 0 0 USH 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

01‐72 Auxiliary lanes ‐ modify

left‐turn lane offset

Miles (Section

148)

3677‐00‐73

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

0.152Miles

255518.94

283909.93

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

3756‐01‐00

Roadside Removal ofroadside objects (trees,poles, etc.)

9.124Miles

18540 20600 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 CTH 

3854‐01‐00

Roadway Rumble strips ‐ 

center

2.56Miles

32445 36050 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

3947‐05‐71

Alignment Horizontalcurve realignment

0.334Miles

324000 360000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

4085‐43‐71

Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ no

control to roundabout

0.35

Miles

1485000 1650000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

4160‐05‐71

Intersection traffic controlModify control ‐ trafficsignal to roundabout

0.565Miles

1530000 1700000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

4210‐06‐71

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

0.271Miles

691117.11

767907.9 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 CTH 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

4550‐06‐71

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.25Miles

453600 504000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

4986‐11‐00

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add right‐

turn lane

0.1Miles

30405.6 33784 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 LOC 

4998‐03‐71

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

0.02Miles

22050 24500 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 LOC 

5301‐04‐74

Intersection traffic control

Modify traffic signal ‐ modify signal mounting

(spanwire to mast arm)

0.2Miles

380970 423300 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 USH 

5310‐00‐78

Roadway Rumble strips ‐ center

2.45Miles

1269878 1410975.

56

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 USH 

5569‐00‐72

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

3.257Miles

1026476 1140528.

89

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 USH 

5966‐00‐73

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add right‐turn lane

0.037Miles

612052 680057.7

8

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

5992‐ Intersection geometry 0.18 1196800. 1329777. HSIP 0 0 LOC 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

06‐64 Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

Miles 15 95 (Section

148)

6083‐00‐73

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

0.18Miles

634707 705230 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

6207‐03‐73

Roadway signs and traffic

control Curve‐related

warning signs and flashers

0Miles

351198 390220 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 VAR 

6243‐02‐70

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.189Miles

400539.48

445043.87

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

6414‐01‐72

Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ no

control to roundabout

0.323Miles

1049400 1166000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

6844‐00‐70

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

0.029Miles

14223.92 15804.36 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 CTH 

6/8/6999

Intersection traffic control

Modify traffic signal ‐ modernization/replacement

0Miles

27810 30900 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 LOC 

7/18/6999

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ 

0Miles

49131 54590 HSIP

(Section

0 0 LOC 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

148)

7130‐00‐05

Roadway Pavement

surface ‐ high friction

surface

0.409Miles

18540 20600 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

7130‐00‐07

Roadway Roadwaywidening ‐ add lane(s)along segment

0Miles

23175 25750 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

1/4/7130

Roadway Roadway ‐ other 0.06

Miles

36000 40000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

7220‐01‐71

Roadway Roadway ‐ other 0.82

Miles

918000 1020000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

7550‐02‐70

Roadside Removal ofroadside objects (trees,poles, etc.)

0.13Miles

8550 9500 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

8010‐01‐75

Intersection traffic controlModify control ‐ nocontrol to roundabout

0.05Miles

1350000 1500000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

8620‐07‐73

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

0.06Miles

288000 320000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

8865‐00‐03

Alignment Horizontalcurve realignment

0.11Miles

28644 31826.67 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 STH 

8997‐00‐22

Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control

‐ other

0.067Miles

438012 486680 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 LOC 

9286‐04‐00

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Curve‐relatedwarning signs and flashers

4.02Miles

18540 20600 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 CTH 

0955‐00‐01

Non‐infrastructureEducational efforts

0Miles

175500 195000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 VAR 

0954‐00‐02

Non‐infrastructureEnforcement

0Miles

495000 550000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 VAR 
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 628 599 571 559 551

Number of serious injuries 4382 4114 3834 3625 3451

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.06 1.02 0.98 0.95 0.93

Serious injury rate (per

HMVMT)

7.38 7.03 6.55 6.16 5.83

*Performance measure data is presented using a five‐year rolling average.
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership.

Year ‐ 2014

FunctionClassification

Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious inj

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHERFREEWAYS ANDEXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINORARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJORCOLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 0
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

ARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATEURBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

FREEWAYS AND

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINORCOLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL CITY STREET 9.2 90.2 0 0RURAL COUNTY TRUNK

HIGHWAY

108.8 577.2 0 0

RURAL INTERSTATEHIGHWAY

22 132 0 0

RURAL STATE TRUNK

HIGHWAY

200.6 1022.2 0 0

RURAL TOWN ROAD 69.2 383.4 0 0
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

URBAN CITY STREET 78.8 730.8 0 0URBAN INTERSTATEHIGHWAY

9.4 71.8 0 0

URBAN STATE TRUNK

HIGHWAY

52.6 443.6 0 0
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Year ‐ 2010

Roadway Ownership Number of

fatalities

Number of seriousinjuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

SH

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0RAILROAD 0 0 0 0STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT,

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate.

None.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the

age of 65.  

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per

capita)

0.592 0.558 0.556 0.546 0.536

Serious injury rate

(per capita)

2.008 1.914 1.904 1.818 1.776

Fatality and serious

injury rate (per capita)

2.598 2.468 2.456 2.36 2.306

*Performance measure data is presented using a five‐year rolling average.

((F+SI 2013 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2013 Population Figure)+

(F+SI 2012 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2012 Population Figure)+

(F+SI 2011 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2011 Population Figure)+

(F+SI 2010 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2010 Population Figure)+

(F+SI 2009 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2009 Population Figure))/5  

((323/148) + (338/144) + (337/139) + (310/137) + (311/134))/5  
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state?  

No
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway

Safety Improvement Program?  

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other‐Reduction in number of fatalities and serious injuries over past five years.

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period?  

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other:  

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

None.
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

SHSP Emphasis AreasFor each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures.

Year ‐ 2014

HSIP‐related SHSP EmphasisAreas

TargetCrashType

Number offatalities

Number ofseriousinjuries

Fatality rate(per HMVMT)

Serious injuryrate (perHMVMT)

Ot1

Roadway Departure 180 884 0 0 19Intersections 157 1345 0 0 42Pedestrians 46 216 0 0 12Bicyclists 9 97 0 0 10Motorcyclists 90 592 0 0 23Reduce Speed‐relatedCrashes

163 861 0 0 18

Prevent/Mitigate Roadway

Departure Crashes

180 884 0 0 19

Reduce Alcohol/Drug‐impaired Driving

203 520 0 0 51

Improve Driver

Alertness/Reduce DriverDistraction

116 822 0 0 21
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Improve Occupant Protection 165 526 0 0 0 Reduce Head‐on Crashes 64 258 0 0 14Improve Safe Travel in BadWeather

111 742 0 0 31

Reduce Cross Median Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Groups of similar project typesPresent the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.HSIP Sub‐program Types

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Oth1
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Systemic TreatmentsPresent the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.Systemicimprovement

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on

which you would like to elaborate.  

None
2015 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Project EvaluationProvide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional).

Location Functional

Class

ImprovementCategory

ImprovementType

Bef‐Fatal

Bef‐Serious

Injury

Bef‐AllInjuries

Bef‐PDO

Bef‐Total

Aft‐Fatal

Aft‐SeriousInjury

Aft‐All

Injuries

AP

PROJECTEVALUATIONDATA NOTAVAILABLE ATTHIS TIME
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

   
2015 Wisconsin     Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, 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.  

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.