Page 1 of 54

KANSAS
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 54

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 21

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 26

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 26

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 39

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 41

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 43

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 43

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 43

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 48

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 49
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 54

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.” 
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 54

Executive Summary

In Kansas we continue to spend our HSIP dollars in a variety of independently managed sub-programs, 

including intersections, signing, pavement markings, lighting, rail, HRRR, and general safety 

improvements. The rail program is reported with the RHGCP report. This is the fifth year HRRR is 

reported with the HSIP report. We are working with our sub-program managers to develop program 

manuals specific to each sub-program in a manner consistent with the requirements of this report and 

related strategies in our Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Collectively, these programs cover all 140,000 

centerline miles of public roads in Kansas while applying a multitude of proven countermeasures 

designed to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes statewide.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 54

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. 

Our HSIP is managed via seven independent sub-programs, including intersections, signing, pavement 

markings, lighting, rail, HRRR, and general safety improvements. Each of these programs is described in detail 

within this report.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Design

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

Intersections, signing, pavement markings, lighting, and general safety improvements are managed in the 

Bureau of Transportation Safety and Technology within the Division of Planning and Development. HRRR is 

managed by the Bureau of Local Projects and rail by the Bureau of Road Design, both within the Division of 

Engineering and Design.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Headquarters

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

A committee made up of the HSIP Program Manager, FHWA Division Safety Engineer, sub-program 

managers, and management meet twice a year to measure program progress based on planned obligations and to 

estimate and distribute allocations for future years. 

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

Our HSIP program is made up of seven sub-programs: lighting, pavement marking, signing, rail, intersections, 

HRRR, and general safety improvements. Lighting, pavement marking, signing, and general safety 

improvement projects are exclusive to the State Highway System, although projects may impact intersecting 

non-state roads. Intersections and rail projects may include local roads, that is, public roads not a part of the 
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 54

State Highway System. HRRR is exclusive to local roads. The rail program is addressed in the Rail-Highway 

Grade Crossing Program report.

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

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Lighting sub-program: Projects are selected with input from the structural engineer in our State Bridge Office 

responsible for foundations for lighting, as well as field information from our Area Offices, and road safety 

audits performed by our Traffic Engineering Section.

Signing sub-program: This blanket replacement program was programmed to cover the entire state highway 

system in ten years. Our Area Offices complete a sign inventory for each project. Projects that are primarily on 

conventional roads the Area Offices typically install the new signs and posts. Projects that are on urban 

expressways and freeways are typically contractor let. Area Offices then administer the construction 

engineering duties.

Pavement Marking sub-program: Our pavement marking technician works closely with our district maintenance 

engineers to identify recommended routes. Works also with Traffic Engineering Section to identify locations in 

need of improved markings for safety.

Intersections sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to cities and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program reports 

(TEAP) and road safety audits. When the intersection is located on the State Highway System, our District and 

Area Offices are made part of the discussion as well. Once locations are identified a competitive process for 

funding begins.

HRRR sub-program: District Offices provide construction oversight. The Bureau of Local Projects manages the 

program.

General Safety Improvements sub-program: Projects are selected and scoped in partnership with District and 

Area Offices.

All sub-programs: The Crash Data Unit in our Bureau of Transportation Safety & Technology manage and 

report on crash data as needed.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 54

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

Other-Kansas Association of Counties

Other-Local Roads Emphasis Area Team (SHSP)

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

Intersections sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to cities and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program reports 

(TEAP) and road safety audits.

HRRR sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to counties and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program reports 

(TEAP) and road safety audits.

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

period?

No

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. 

A total of $24,636,098 in safety funds (HSIP and Rail) was apportioned for FFY 2017, distributed to each 

sub-program as follows:

Lighting: $750,000 HSIP

Pavement Marking: $3,000,000 HSIP
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 54

Signing: -$3,800,000 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $7,260,505 ($6,260,505 Rail & $1,000,000 HSIP)

Intersection Safety: $10,480,000 HSIP

High Risk Rural Roads: $3,000,000 HSIP

General Safety Improvements: $3,945,593 HSIP

The following dollars were obligated for SFY 2017 in each program:

Lighting: $10,217.35 HSIP 

Pavement Marking: $8,329,346.49 HSIP 

Signing: $4,073,030.39 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $10,175,933.54 ($9,854,012.49 Rail; $321,921.05 HSIP; -

$1,408,750.10 ACHSIP)

Intersection Safety: $2,435,239.01 HSIP

High Risk Rural Roads: $3,303,129.10 (-$25,181.78 HRRR & $3,328,310.88 HSIP)

General Safety Improvements: $735,659.15 HSIP ($50,000 ACHSIP)

Each of the programs discussed further in this report are consistent with our SHSP. It is our intent that strategies 

identified or developed as part of the SHSP process will contribute to the continued success of these programs. 

A portion of our HSIP funding is programmed as part of our RHGCP. See RHGCP report for more information.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

We are planning an HSIP evaluation with our FHWA Division Office in FY 2018 with the understanding a key 

outcome will be completion of our HSIP manual which has been a work in progress for a number of years.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety

Other-Pavement Marking
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 54

Other-Lighting

Other-General Safety Improvements

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

Our HRRR program may also be referred to as Local Safety since it applies to locally owned roads.

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/25/2016 

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]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Fatal and SI crashes 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Lane miles 

Functional classification 

Other-Turn lanes 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Crash rate

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?

No

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

State projects consider only pattern and crash rate. The method for local road projects is more time-consuming 

to validate counter-measures, including information such as EPDO, CMFs and BC.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 54

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 : 3

Available funding : 4

Other-EPDO and crash rate : 1

Other-Project viability : 2

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

This program is increasingly focusing on low-cost safety improvements at site-specific locations 

and systematic improvements to signing, pavement marking, roadsides, and horizontal curves. A 

scoring rubric is used to rank applications.

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/11/2011 

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]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Shoulder width, sign sheeting 

type, percent in district, past 

projects, cost, road safety audit, 

county priority 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 54

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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?

No

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

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated.)

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Scoring rubric

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Other-Scoring rubric : 1

Other-Geographical distribution : 3

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006 

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
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 54

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Sign inventory 

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

Other-Pre-programmed blanket replacement program

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

No

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

No

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

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated.)

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Projects were pre-programmed based on a blanket replacement program.

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Per established cyclical program : 1

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

This program was established in 1996 to address necessary sign replacements on the State 

Highway System due to pending (now final) federal requirements for minimum retro-reflectivity 

of highway signs. This program schedules sign replacements based upon highway route-mileage 

statewide and the total mileage of all the routes in each District Sub-Area with multiple SubAreas in each District being addressed each year. This program excludes signs on any other 

state project that include sign replacement for that highway route in the same year. This 

program also excludes any signs that were replaced within seven years of the scheduled date of 

the replacement project. This is the tenth year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve 

permanent signing. The projects in the program are administered using two separate methods. 

Sub-Areas comprised primarily of routes classified as freeways and expressways with 

interchanges are let to contract via normal letting procedures. Sub-Areas with routes that are 

classified as expressways and conventional roads are administered by releasing contracts to 
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 54

purchase the signs and posts with installation performed by KDOT maintenance crews. However, 

due to KDOT maintenance work force reductions, the program will rely on contractors to install 

the signs regardless of route classification within some Sub-Areas.

Program: Other-Pavement Marking 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Volume 

Population 

Other-If we considered only traffic 

volumes, only high volume districts 

(1 and 5) would get funded, thus 

population is taken into account. At 

the district level, we then consider 

higher volume routes first and take 

into account retro-readings. 

Other-Retro-reflectivity. 

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

Crash frequency

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

No

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

No

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

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated.)

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 54

Other-Pavement Marking Specialist works closely with district maintenance engineers to select projects.

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

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

This set-aside program was established in FY 1996 to address pavement marking necessary due 

to pending new federal requirements for minimum retro-reflectivity of pavement markings. 

Improvements in this category utilize high-performance, long-life pavement marking materials. 

Efforts are also made to identify those marking materials with wet-weather retro-reflectivity. 

This program is limited to projects that do not have high-performance markings included under 

any other KDOT program. Projects are selected by the BTS&T based upon a roadway's traffic 

volumes, past performance of marking material, geometry, surface condition, surface type, 

crash history, and, in the case of new marking materials, the research benefit. This is the 12th 

year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve pavement markings.

Program: Other-Lighting 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006 

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 

Volume Other-Road type: Interchanges 

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

Other-Locations are brought to our attention

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 54

No

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

No

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

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated.)

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Lighting Unit

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

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

Because lighting is beneficial to the safety and operation of the highway system, this set-aside 

program was established in FY 2000. Projects are selected by the Bureau of Transportation 

Safety & Technology (BTS&T) based on the roadway's volume and the potential for night-time 

crash history. This program is limited to projects which are not included under any other KDOT 

program. Projects are scheduled until the available lighting funds are exhausted. This is the 12th 

year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve lighting.

Program: Other-General Safety Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/10/2012 

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 
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 54

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Population 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

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

No

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

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated.)

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2

Cost Effectiveness : 1

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

Every year the FHWA provides funds for DOT’s to make safety improvements to their system 

through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). As a pilot KDOT developed a 

program that directed up to $6,000,000 of HSIP funds to projects that were selected using a 

new system that combines quantitative safety analysis and prediction (IHSDM) with District 

input. The goal was to distribute these funds throughout the state and address spot locations, 

like individual curves, intersections, or short tangent sections that were identified with tools 

developed for the Transparency Report. Moreover the hope is that the program can help address 

locations that demonstrate a potential safety issue but have not been addressed through 

traditional KDOT funding programs. This program has not received additional funding since the 

original $6,000,000 was allocated to it. However, projects in the program continue to be let to 

contract which is why the program continues to be included in this report.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 54

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 43

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

apply.

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Install/Improve Lighting

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

Percent was calculated by summing dollars obligated for lighting and pavement marking and dividing by the 

total obligated.

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other-Highway Safety Manual and CMF Clearinghouse

Other-Crash data analysis to identify systematic countermeasures

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

The State of Kansas has formed an autonomous vehicle (AV) task force to consider the impacts of this 

emerging technology on everything from state statutes to infrastructure safety expenditures.

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.

Our intersections sub-program is working to integrate Part B (Roadway Safety Management Process) and Part 

D (Crash Modification Factors) into the program methodology. 

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

period?

No
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 54

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

No
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 54

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) $18,375,593 $19,233,724 104.67%

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 $2,832,936 $2,722,562 96.1%

Totals $21,208,529 $21,956,286 103.53%

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

HSIP values were provided by our Management Systems Analyst; State and Local values were provided by our 

WinCPMS Administrator. Both persons in our Bureau of Program and Project Management.

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

79%

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

$4,140,142

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 54

Programmed is the total apportionment to those programs that include non-state owned roads in the 

methodology and may include dollars that get obligated to projects on state-owned roads: $1.00 mil (rail) + 

$10.48 mil (intersections) + $3.00 mil (hrrr) / $18.38 mil (total) = 79%

Obligated is the total obligated to those programs that include non-state owned roads in the methodology 

excluding projects in the intersections program on state-owned roads. $321,921 (rail) + $489,910 (intersection 

projects on locally-owned roads) + $3,328,311 (hrrr) = $4,140,142

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

0%

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

$300,000

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

$300,000 represents dollars obligated to C-4855-17, which is our Traffic Engineering Assistance Program that 

provides TE help to local agencies in Kansas. An additional $50,000 was obligated to KA-4535-01, which is a 

study to review 2017 federal-aid 1R safety improvements, and for this purpose not considered noninfrastructure, thus not included in the total above.

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?

$7,420,302

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.

Signing sub-program: Due to delays in the 2016 HSIP project selection and construction lettings, no new 2017 

projects were initiated. Funding was reallocated to support other HSIP sub-programs.

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

No
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 54

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

C-0313-01 Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 33 Miles $-11199.38 $277556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Improve shoulders 

where reasonable

C-0486-01 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

0.3 Miles $-13982.4 $263860 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Promote proven 

engineering 

countermeasures

C-4592-01 Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading 9.1 Miles $556.46 $1348685 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Improve shoulders 

where reasonable

C-4634-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

115 Miles $-31853.23 $76488 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4671-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

74 Miles $188967.25 $193967 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4672-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

276 Miles $52809.21 $280113 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4673-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

75 Miles $-69736.51 $81245 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4676-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

77 Miles $-33553.23 $63815 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4677-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

92 Miles $-40467.88 $186733 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4678-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

23.5 Miles $-21710.45 $50148 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4681-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

345 Miles $-39225.79 $214782 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4683-01 Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

1.1 Miles $493638.89 $603732 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Improve shoulders 

where reasonable

C-4688-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

284 Miles $-26397.04 $104876 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4689-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

0 Miles $-18974.6 $27589 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4692-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

11 Miles $7021.13 $41417 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4798-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

70 Miles $255560 $290560 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4800-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

127 Miles $217910 $239910 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4801-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

73 Miles $157584 $184584 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 54

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

C-4802-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

26 Miles $76800 $93800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4803-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

81 Miles $80087.59 $102088 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4804-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

103 Miles $125585 $146585 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4805-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

38.4 Miles $189545 $192195 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4806-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

77 Miles $268640 $322658 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4807-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

125 Miles $195300.21 $236814 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4808-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

70 Miles $198330 $236532 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4809-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

254 Miles $383856.21 $435210 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4810-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

2.2 Miles $77535 $97189 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4811-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

81 Miles $146794 $182830 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4812-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

60 Miles $101225.38 $129226 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4814-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

95 Miles $202400 $228400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4815-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

41 Miles $121393.88 $140394 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4816-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

363 Miles $51000 $60800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemwide Roadway 

Departure

Maintain sign 

retro-reflectivity

C-4856-01 Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading 7 Miles $22604.4 $397598 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Improve shoulders 

where reasonable

C-4860-01 Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 8 Miles $-4914 $0 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Improve shoulders 

where reasonable

KA-4539-01 Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 0.75 Miles $169851 $170833 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

34,900 60 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Provide street 

lighting at highervolume 

intersections and 

interchanges

U-0164-01 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $242406.68 $303008.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,900 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Perform 

improvements of 

crash-prone 

intersections

KA-4226-01 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - replace 

existing indications 

4 Intersections $109245.01 $206938.69 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

24,000 55 State of Kansas Spot Intersections Signal 

improvements
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 54

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

(incandescent-to-LED and/or 8-

to-12 inch dia.)

N-0639-01 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - leftturn phasing (permissive to 

protected/permissive)

1 Intersections $400000 $1883743.13 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

19,644 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Signal 

improvements

U-0543-01 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - leftturn phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

1 Intersections $89910 $99900 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

24,845 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Signal 

improvements

KA-4420-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

15.2 Miles $437542 $101249.54 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

17,600 75 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4507-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

9.55 Miles $400890 $432677.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4508-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

7.755 Miles $291968 $224932.57 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

6,700 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4510-01 Roadway

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

10.8 Miles $327097 $279024.69 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

10,500 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4511-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5.435 Miles $142720 $134466 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,360 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4513-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

3.54 Miles $57258 $59497.7 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,980 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4538-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

11.982 Miles $880811 $783099.15 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

69,185 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4540-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

8.6 Miles $513050 $446226.43 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4545-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

$570000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Pavement 

Markings

KA-4546-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4.5 Miles $293066.07 $215000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

21,700 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4554-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

8.009 Miles $188974 $215000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

14,000 75 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4555-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

23.258 Miles $637088 $698750 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

16,000 75 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4556-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

7.247 Miles $186913 $215000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

16,000 75 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4557-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

2.6 Miles $61960 $53750 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

15,400 75 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4558-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

11.474 Miles $338746 $215000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

12,600 75 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4559-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

14.3 Miles $438264 $322500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

12,900 75 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 54

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

KA-4560-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

2 Miles $50029 $53750 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,460 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4561-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

7 Miles $188257 $215000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,880 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4562-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1.2 Miles $122368 $53750 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and

Expressways

12,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4564-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4.34 Miles $340783.91 $322500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

25,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4565-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

12.016 Miles $815448 $752500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4566-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

0.379 Miles $58656 $53750 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

67,500 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4567-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

10.346 Miles $487784.06 $376250 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

11,500 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4568-01 Roadway

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1.2 Miles $68712.93 $53750 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,700 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4569-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

10.7 Miles $481219.37 $376250 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4570-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

6.6 Miles $199341.07 $107500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,670 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4571-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4.4 Miles $111725.13 $107500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,430 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4592-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

25 Miles $592991.52 $483750 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,090 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-4535-01 Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

KA-4472-01 Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7.22 Miles $16659 $16659 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install shoulder 

rumble strips 

where appropriate

KA-4493-01 Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

21.059 Miles $31606 $31606 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install shoulder 

rumble strips 

where appropriate

KA-4500-01 Roadway Rumble strips - edge or

shoulder

64.94 Miles $121515 $121515 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install shoulder 

rumble strips 

where appropriate

KA-4501-01 Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

17.477 Miles $36002 $36002 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install shoulder 

rumble strips 

where appropriate

KA-4494-01 Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

55.001 Miles $63410 $63410 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Install shoulder 

rumble strips 

where appropriate
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 54

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

C-4855-17 Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Local Roads Package solutions 

with data through 

programs such as 

TEAP

KA-4563-01 Speed 

management

Traffic calming feature 1 Numbers $282600 $314000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 54

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 384 386 431 386 405 350 385 355 429

Serious Injuries 1,708 1,675 1,717 1,581 1,592 1,446 1,201 1,185 1,137

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.290 1.310 1.440 1.290 1.325 1.159 1.250 1.130 1.340

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.746 5.679 5.742 5.266 5.207 4.787 3.911 3.776 3.550

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

24 28 16 16 33 31 30 27 46

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

78 88 95 97 106 108 84 101 102
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 54

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 54

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.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 54

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

FARS data is used through 2015. KCARS (state) data is used for 2016. 

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 -

Interstate

24 78 0.67 2.12

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

10 25 0.8 1.89

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

67 137 2.1 4.3

Rural Minor Arterial 48 111 2.07 4.81
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 54

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 Minor Collector 6 20 1.94 6.05

Rural Major Collector 48 141 1.84 5.36

Rural Local Road or Street 54 144 3.07 8.2

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

22 115 0.54 2.76

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

14 51 0.7 2.62

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

29 187 2.19 14.1

Urban Minor Arterial 29 138 0.64 3.06

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0.18

Urban Major Collector 10 43 0.44 1.95

Urban Local Road or Street 21 114 0.84 4.66
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 54

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 202 647 1.12 3.59

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 175 750 1.31 5.61

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 54

0

50

100

150

200

250

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 54

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 54

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 54

0

50

100

150

200

250

State Highway Agency Other Local Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 54

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

State Highway Agency Other Local Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 54

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

State Highway Agency Other Local Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 54

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

State Highway Agency Other Local Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

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

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 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 364.0 

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

The 2018 five year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 364 

total fatalities. A zero percent reduction in this projection would derive our goal of 364 

total fatalities in 2018. Based upon recent history, the trend line of the target, the zero 

percent reduction goal is realistic and attainable. The 2018 HSP and 2018 HSIP fiveyear moving average targets are equal. The goal in our SHSP is to reduce fatalities by 
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 54

half between 2009 and 2029. Our five-year average in 2009 was 417 fatalities per 

year. Our 2029 goal is thus less than 208 fatalities per year. To be on pace requires 

323 fatalities per year in 2018, which is well below our target. This is discouraging, 

though not unexpected. It is our hope that continued efforts via the SHSP as well as 

advancing vehicle technologies will drive us closer to our goal by 2029. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1190.0 

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

The 2018 five year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 

1,202 serious injuries. A one percent reduction in this projection would derive our goal 

of 1,190 serious injuries in 2018. Based upon recent history, the trend line of the 

target, the one percent reduction goal is realistic and attainable. The 2018 HSP and 

2018 HSIP five-year moving average targets are equal. The goal in our SHSP is to 

reduce serious injuries by half between 2009 and 2029. Our five-year average in 2009 

was 1762 serious injuries per year. Our 2029 goal is thus less than 881 serious injuries 

per year. To be on pace requires 1366 serious injuries per year in 2018, which is well 

above our target. This is encouraging, and surprising given the struggle with fatality 

numbers. Further, even as fatalities have increased in 2016 and into 2017, serious 

injuries continue to decrease. 

Fatality Rate 1.160 

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

The 2018 five year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 1.17 

fatalities per 100 million VMT. A one percent reduction in this projection will produce 

our goal of 1.16 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2018. Based upon recent history, 

the trend line of the target, the one percent reduction goal is realistic and attainable. 

Our target for fatality rate is slightly more aggressive than for fatalities since the 

former accounts for exposure while the latter does not. The 2018 HSP and 2018 HSIP 

five-year moving average targets are equal. Our SHSP does not include a goal based 

on rates. However, it is understood that in order to reduce fatalities and serious injuries 

by half over 20 years, the rates for each must reduce by more that half as long as VMT 

continues to increase. 

Serious Injury Rate 3.774 

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

The 2018 five year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 

3.851 serious injury rate per 100 million VMT. A two percent reduction in this 

projection would lead to our goal of 3.774 serious injury rate per 100 million VMT in 

2018. Based upon recent history, the trend line of the target, the two percent reduction 

goal is realistic and attainable. Our target for serious injury rate is slightly more 

aggressive than for serious injuries since the former accounts for exposure while the 

latter does not. The 2018 HSP and 2018 HSIP five-year moving average targets are 

equal. Our SHSP does not include a goal based on rates. However, it is understood that 
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 54

in order to reduce fatalities and serious injuries by half over 20 years, the rates for 

each must reduce by more that half as long as VMT continues to increase. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 138.0 

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

The 2018 five year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 139 

fatalities and serious injuries. A one percent reduction in this projection would derive 

our goal of 138 fatalities and serious injuries in 2018. Based upon recent history, the 

trend line of the target, the one percent reduction goal is realistic and attainable. Our 

SHSP does not address non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries based on a 

strategic approach to planning. However, unlike overall fatalities and serious injuries, 

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries have been on the increase through 2015. 

And since these numbers contribute to the overall numbers, we are considering adding 

pedestrians as an emphasis area in our next update to the SHSP in 2019. 

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

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

targets. 

On February 22, 2017 we hosted a Kansas Safety Target Setting Coordination Training Workshop presented by the 

FHWA. Most MPOs in the state were represented at this training. On April 17, 2017 we hosted a conference call with all 

the MPOs to present state targets and discuss next steps. We have been and will continue to provide each MPO with the 

data necessary to calculate their 2018 targets. At present, we are not certain whether individual MPOs will adopt the state 

targets or their own. There also remains some uncertainty as to what it means to adopt the state targets. Our SHSO and 

SHSP/HSIP coordinator are housed in the same section within the Kansas DOT, making coordination simple. Our state 

targets were discussed and established at a meeting dated March 21, 2017. On May 18, 2017, our state targets were 

presented to the Executive Safety Council, a multi-agency committee that oversees development and implementation of 

our SHSP. On June 1, 2017, our state targets were presented to KDOT Executive Staff. 

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
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 54

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

50 66 54 68 70 63 50

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

104 122 116 107 117 84 89

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries

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

The numbers above reflect our interpretation of the older driver rule. Specifically, these are only older drivers 

and pedestrians who have died or been seriously injured. These numbers do NOT include older passengers, or, 

for example, fatal crashes where an older driver was involved but did not have serious injuries.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 54

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Other-Obligation of HSIP dollars. 

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.

In FFY 2017 we were apportioned $18,375,593. In SFY 2017 we obligated $19,233,724, providing indication 

we are spending our HSIP funding. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations 

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 54

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 234 649 0.73 2.03

Intersections 82 388 0.26 1.21

Pedestrians 29 68 0.09 0.21

Bicyclists 5 30 0.02 0.09

Older Drivers 90 208 0.28 0.65

Motorcyclists 46 196 0.14 0.61

Work Zones 6 35 0.02 0.11

Teen Drivers 48 221 0.15 0.69

Large Commercial 

Vehicles

64 120 0.2 0.37
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 54

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

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

800

900

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 54

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

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?
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 54

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 54

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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Nothing to report

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?

Yes

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

It remains our intent to develop performance measures for each of these HSIP sub-programs. This will be in concert with completing new "white papers" for each 

eligible sub-program, and be driven by our SHSP which includes reallocation of HSIP funding as a key strategy for the emphasis areas intersections and roadway 

departure. As an example, three of these programs (lighting, pavement marking, and signing) can be measured by wet-weather and/or nighttime crashes.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 54

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/26/2017 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2019 

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

 2019 

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

We are updating our 2015 SHSP. This minor update will be known as the 2017 SHSP. The 2019 update will be our next major revision. 

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) 99 99 99 99 99 99

Route Number (8) 99 99

Route/Street Name (9) 99 99

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

99 99

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

99 99 99 99

Surface Type (23) 99 99 99 99

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

99 99 99 99 99 99

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

99 99 99 99 99 99

Segment Length (13) 99 99

Direction of Inventory (18) 99 99

Functional Class (19) 99 99 99 99 99 99

Median Type (54) 99 99
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 54

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

Access Control (22) 99 99

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

99 99

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

99 99 99 99

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

99 99 99 99

AADT Year (80) 99 99

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

99 99 99 99 99 99

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

75 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

75 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

75 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

75 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

75 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

75 0

AADT Year (80) 75 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

75 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

99 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) 99 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

99 0
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 54

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 Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

99 0

Interchange Type (182) 50 0

Ramp AADT (191) 99 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 99 0

Functional Class (19) 99 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

99 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

99.00 99.00 75.00 0.00 76.55 0.00 99.00 99.00 99.00 99.00

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

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

Complete access to MIRE FDE on all public roads in Kansas should be accomplished by two projects: K-Hub and work associated with Next Generation 911. 

K-Hub: 

K-Hub is a new Linear Referencing and Transportation Database System, which will replace our existing CANSYS II database system.

K-Hub is an opportunity for KDOT to develop a combined statewide geospatially enabled roadway and transportation data management system that allows KDOT to efficiently meet current and future business requirements. Successful 

deployment of K-Hub will position KDOT to maintain data on all 140,000 miles of Kansas public roads with the current level of staffing. Bottom line, this is a colossal IT project that will influence almost every KDOT system. 

Primary objectives of the K-Hub project include:

• Deploy an innovative solution that balances upfront project cost, system lifecycle cost and total cost of ownership to achieve the best value and level of service for KDOT.

• Utilize commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software components licensed to KDOT and additional components, as needed, to meet K-Hub System Requirements.

• Innovative approaches to accomplish system functions and data exchanges to support current and future KDOT business processes while minimizing the need for custom components.

• Project planning and execution to ensure successful and timely transition to K-Hub from the existing system.

• Integration of hardware and software components to provide system response performance that consistently meets system benchmarks.

• Flexibility that allows for modification and enhancement by KDOT, the bidder team or third parties.

• User friendly and easily accessible design for enterprise-wide usage.

• Configurable system parameters.

• Position KDOT to maximize its ability to support the system post implementation.

Next Generation 911: 

Next Generation 9-1-1 (abbreviated NG9-1-1) refers to an initiative aimed at updating the 9-1-1 service infrastructure in the United States and Canada to improve public emergency communications services in a growingly wireless mobile 

society.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 54

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 Disabling Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Disabling Injury No Any injury other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

he/she was capable of performing before 

the injury occurred. 

No Incapacitating No

Crash Database Disabling Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Disabling Injury No See crash report form instruction manual. No Where # of fatalities = 0 and # of disabled > 

0.

No

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

A project called the Crash Portal Project is in progress to replace the current motor vehicle crash records management system for crash report processing. After the project is complete, the Crash Data Unit at KDOT will revise the current 

Motor Vehicle Crash Report forms to comply with the MMUCC 4 standards and include the required Serious Injury coding and definition. 

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

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

No

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

2018 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 54

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 54

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.