Page 1 of 46

OKLAHOMA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 46

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 16

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 16

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 18

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 21

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 21

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 32

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 33

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 35

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 35

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 36

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 41
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 46

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 46

Executive Summary 

For FFY 2017, exclusive of rail projects, ODOT obligated $37.7 million in HSIP funds. 55 percent of HSIP 

funds were used for bridge projects. Signing projects used 11 percent of funds, with center-line rumble strips 

following at 6.4 percent, striping at 6.2 percent, guardrail at 5.7 percent, and traffic signals at 5.1 percent. The 

remaining funds were distributed between horizontal curves, ADA compliance, cable barrier, ITS operations, 

pedestrian hybrid beacons, and school signs.
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 46

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. 

HSIP funding is distributed among field offices and the central Traffic Division office. Safety infrastructure 

programs using HSIP funds administered by Traffic Engineering Division constitute a minority of HSIP funds 

allocated.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Traffic Engineering

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Central Office

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

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

Local road projects do not currently use HSIP funds.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Districts/Regions
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 46

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The majority of HSIP funds are not allocated to the Division (Traffic) which is responsible for preparing this 

report. This report applies primarily to those funds which are allocated to Traffic Division. Traffic Division is not 

able to report on the administrative practices relevant to the remainder of the HSIP spending. The Traffic 

Division provides field offices with an annual Crash Digest, which can be used for selecting optimal safety 

project locations.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Other-None

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

Coordination with external partners does not involve use of HSIP funds at this time.

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?

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

File Name:

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

Page 7 of 46

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve 

Roadway Departure

Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Shoulder Improvement

Other-Striping

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2018 

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 

Other-run off road injury/fatal Traffic 

Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

Other-Shoulder Width 

Other-Speed Limit 

Other-Design Speed 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment 

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 46

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

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

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Angle Crashes 

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?
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 46

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

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

Other-Crash Frequency : 1 

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Crossover Crashes Traffic 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Other-Access Control 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Other-Crash Severity Prediction Function 

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

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 46

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

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

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-run off road injury/fatal Traffic 

Lane miles 

Roadside features 

Other-terrain type 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 46

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-run off road injury/fatal Traffic 

Lane miles Other-terrain type 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 46

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

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

Reference Tab 2B Collision Digest. Funding may not all be HSIP. These projects are from Roadway 

Engineering, not Traffic Engineering.

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Other-Safety Infrastructure

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 

Other-None 

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

Other-District Selection
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 46

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-District Selection

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).

Other-District Selection : 1

Program: Other-Striping 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 46

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-option of field districts 

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).

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50.2 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

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

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

Stakeholder input 
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 46

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

HSM predictive method is used to evaluate potential benefits of projects.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

Most HSIP projects created by Traffic Division are systemic. Predictive methods are used to prioritize locations 

for treatment where practicable, otherwise crash frequency is used. Predictive methods have been used in one 

case (median cable barrier) as a way of indirectly prioritizing one program in comparison to others. Predictive 

methods are also used to help identify hot spot locations and (outside of Traffic Division) to prioritize locations

for shoulder widening. The core metric for prioritization is benefit/cost ratio, either explicitly or through some 

metric that is an approximate surrogate.
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 46

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal 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) $36,856,761 $36,752,355 99.72%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$48,729 $48,729 100%

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $36,169 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$1,234,493 $765,143 61.98%

State and Local Funds $6,698,052 $25,549,357 381.44%

Totals $44,874,204 $63,115,584 140.65%

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

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

0% 

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

0% 

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

Local government safety projects are funded through STP funds.

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

$0 

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

Page 17 of 46

$0 

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

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

N/A

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

No
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 46

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

HSIPY-299S134 Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

1 Operation $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

None N/A ITS Operations

HSIPIG-299I132 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

497.03 Miles $568160 $568160 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic N/A Signing

HSIPG-261B070 Roadway Rumble strips - center 12.6 Miles $78181 $78181 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,600 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-204N021 Roadway Rumble strips - center 19.31 Miles $198692 $198692 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-213N020 Roadway Rumble strips - center 18.44 Miles $153853 $153853 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-230N025 Roadway Rumble strips - center 19.44 Miles $213130 $213130 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-235C032 Roadway Rumble strips - center 13.1 Miles $65987 $65987 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,100 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-270N024 Roadway Rumble strips - center 18.51 Miles $172176 $172176 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-270N025 Roadway Rumble strips - center 19.55 Miles $198532 $198532 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-270N026 Roadway Rumble strips - center 19.67 Miles $343244 $343244 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-270N027 Roadway Rumble strips - center 17.58 Miles $183565 $183565 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIP-226B047 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $135941 $169927 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

13,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signals

HSIP-216B063 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 2.38 Miles $232185 $232185 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,800 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Signing

HSIPG-209C059 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - modify 

existing

1 Intersections $46474 $46574 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,900 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signals

HSIP-257C057 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

0.2 Miles $61557 $68398 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

1,700 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A School Signs

SEC1934-

272C223

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - replace 

existing indications 

(incandescent-to-LED and/or 8-

to-12 inch dia.)

33 Intersections $1776846 $2195392 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signals

HSIP-216N068 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $115249 $153666 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

28,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signals
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 46

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

HSIPG-237F040 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

25.1 Miles $450000 $450000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

NHPP-268N048 Roadway Roadway - other 0.4 Miles $3226304 $4032881 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

23,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

HSIP-274F020 Roadside Barrier- metal 3 Locations $222969 $278712 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

Program

ACSTP-208C048 Roadway Roadway - other 0.34 Miles $7193817 $8992271 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

ACSTP-251C081 Roadway Roadway - other 0.2 Miles $163856 $204820 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

HSIPG-240F059 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

27.51 Miles $333000 $333000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPG-204F024 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

42.08 Miles $354000 $354000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPG-251N074 Roadside Barrier - cable 2.8 Miles $754206 $754206 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

9,600 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Cable Barrier

STP-272B208 Roadway Roadway - other 0.25 Miles $6349079 $7936349 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

HSIP-263N047 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1 Intersections $135863 $153929 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

7,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Pedestrian 

Hybird Beacon

HSIP-258N036 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $141523 $176904 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

10,200 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signals

HSIPG-211F031 Roadway Rumble strips - center 32.42 Miles $118889 $118889 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-219F057 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

11 Locations $1315133 $1315133 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Horizontal Curve

HSIPG-250C016 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1.95 Miles $460329 $475194 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

11,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians ADA Compliance

HSIP-262C044 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Locations $22019 $24466 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,200 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A School Signs

HSIPG-212F041 Roadside Barrier- metal 4.72 Miles $2284952 $2284952 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

Program

HSIPG-215F027 Roadway Rumble strips - center 71 Miles $494775 $494775 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-265B020 Roadway Rumble strips - center 8.62 Miles $63730 $63730 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-208F059 Roadway Rumble strips - center 80.48 Miles $473445 $473445 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 46

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

HSIPG-255F449 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

18.31 Miles $597286 $597286 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPG-260B034 Roadway Rumble strips - center 3.44 Miles $7070 $7070 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

10,400 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

STP-219B054 Roadway Roadway - other 0.35 Miles $7361579 $9201974 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,800 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

HSIPG-277N042 Roadway Rumble strips - center 5.3 Miles $23566 $23566 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

9,800 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

HSIPG-013N165 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

72.04 Miles $996478 $996478 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic N/A Signing

HSIPIG-3500044 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

36.73 Miles $3285108 $3285108 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic N/A Signing

HSIPG-260B031 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

0.5 Miles $748000 $748000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

7,100 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians ADA Compliance

HSIPG-226F064 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

91.62 Miles $985000 $985000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

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

0s in AADT and Speed Limit denote multiple roadway characteristics.
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 46

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 732 664 684 709 672 653 634 645 623

Serious Injuries 16,198 16,624 16,201 16,378 15,040 14,907 14,344 13,064 12,760

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.558 1.391 1.441 1.485 1.400 1.369 1.329 1.320 1.275

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

34.466 34.818 34.134 34.306 31.335 31.252 30.063 26.727 26.105

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

43 75 46 72 75 55 76 84 94

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

569 555 583 606 543 554 685 568 563
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 46

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

760

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 23 of 46

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 24 of 46

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

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

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

37.6 112

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

4 7.6

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

82 226

Rural Minor Arterial 79 192

Rural Minor Collector 1.6 6.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 25 of 46

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 Major Collector 87 248

Rural Local Road or Street

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

46 234

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

18 107

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

38 257

Urban Minor Arterial 15 61.6

Urban Minor Collector 3.6 9.2

Urban Major Collector 7 37

Urban Local Road or Street
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 46

Year 2016

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 408.6 1,487.6 0 0

County Highway Agency 110.4 443.8 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

121.6 1,041.4 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad 4.6 2.6 0 0

State Toll Authority 28 78.4 0 0

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 46

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 46 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Railroad State Toll Authority

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 46

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Railroad State Toll Authority

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 46

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Railroad State Toll Authority

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 46

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

Serious Injuries in this table only includes Incapacitating Injuries.

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 699.0 

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

This target was set by the Highway Safety Office using an ARIMA model. It projects 

a limit to an increasing trend. 

Number of Serious Injuries 2806.0 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Railroad State Toll Authority

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 46

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

This target was set by the Highway Safety Office using an ARIMA model. It predicts 

that the recent decrease can be sustained. 

Fatality Rate 1.430 

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

This target was set by the Highway Safety Office using an ARIMA model. It projects 

a limit to an increasing trend. 

Serious Injury Rate 27.580 

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

This target was calculated by applying the difference between the projections for total 

fatalities and fatality rate to the serious injury total established by the Highway Safety 

Office. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 812.0 

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

The target is a linear least-squares regression of the five-year rolling averages 

calculated for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017. 

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. 

ODOT has met regularly with HSO to discuss goal setting methodology.

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
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 46

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 65 years of age and 

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

72 91 77 81 97 92 75

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

245 233 247 235 202 230 204

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 46

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

There is no measure for the HSIP as a whole. Specific projects and programs may be evaluated by 

Benefit/Cost ratio or by reductions in targeted crash types.

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

level evaluations.

High Friction Surface Treatment: Empirical Bayes before and after studies have suggested a statistically 

significant decrease in KAB collisions for the pilot sites. 

Systemic Intersection Improvements: A naive before and after analysis showed a statistically significant 

decrease in KAB collisions at a 95 % confidence interval. 

Crash data are insufficient for evaluation, or cannot be isolated, for signal backplate upgrades, centerline 

rumble strip, guardrail upgrades, ITS installations, and district signing and striping.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP 

More systemic programs

Policy change 

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

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

Miles of improvement has been used for median cable barrier. Recent systemic programs include intersection 

sign and marking improvement, retroreflective backplate upgrades, curve delineation, centerline rumble strip, 

and high friction surface treatment. The introduction of centerline rumble strips represents a policy change.

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.
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 46

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure Exclude intersection, 

head-on, sideswipe, 

fixed object

248 799 0.51 1.63

Roadway Departure Roadway 

Departure>0

450 1,535 0.92 3.14

Intersections Intersections 125 1,007 0.26 2.06

Pedestrians Unit Type = P 90 142 0.18 0.29

Bicyclists Unit Type = B 6 43 0.01 0.09

Older Drivers Driver = Y, Age>=65 81 286 0.17 0.59

Motorcyclists Unit Type = D, 

Vehicle Type = 15

106 514 0.22 1.05

Work Zones Special Feature = 5 12 68 0.02 0.14
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 46

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 38 of 46

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?

Yes

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 39 of 46

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: High Friction Surface Treatment 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 6 

Number of Installations: 6 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 1.5 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: Results for 6 locations suggested a 

reduction in KAB crashes. 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: Systemic Intersection Improvements 

Description: 

Signing improvements such as 

doubled stop, 4' signs, flashers, and or 

rumble strips were installed at 

intersections. 

Target Crash Type: Intersections 

Number of Installations: 310 

Number of Installations: 310 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 2 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

Results suggest a statistically 

significant reduction in crashes for 

some of the locations. Other locations 

did not show a statistically significant 

result. Using disaggregate analysis, 

Doubled Stop signs, doubled stop 

ahead, 4' Stop Ahead, Doubled Xroad signs, and transverse rumble 

strips all head a statistically 

significant reduction in collisions. 

File Name: Hyperlink
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 46

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0

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

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

No
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 46

Compliance Assessment

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

 04/27/2018 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2018 To: 2023 

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

 2022 

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 0 0 0 0 0

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 0

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

50 0 0 0

Surface Type (23) 90 0 0 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

0 0 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 95 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 90 0 0 0 0 0

Median Type (54) 50 0

Access Control (22) 50 0
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 46

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

95 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

95 0 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

90 0 0 0

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 0 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 46

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

78.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

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.

ODOT intends to implement the MIRE implementation plan and some data collection is underway.

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 4 No N/A No N/A No

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

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred.

No Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred.

No

Crash Database 4 No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary A No As reported by police. No As reported by police. No

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

This is being addressed by the Department of Public Safety and Highway Safety Office.

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 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 46

2020 

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

Page 45 of 46

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 46

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.