Page 1 of 41

WISCONSIN

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 41

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 12

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 12

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 14

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 17

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 17

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 27

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 29

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 30

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 30

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 30

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 30

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 35

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 36
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 41

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 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 41

Executive Summary 

The following report outlines the details of projects obligated in SFY2018 for Wisconsin's Highway Safety 

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

trends, information on subprograms, and project evaluation data.
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 41

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The 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. Projects are identified by state DOT 

regional safety engineers on the state-owned system and by local government staff on the local system. All 

candidate projects must compile crash data and develop a proposed treatment strategy as part of a 

competitive application process. The applications are considered through a peer review process that involves 

statewide and regional safety engineering staff, as well as HSIP program management staff.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Programming

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements on the State Trunk Network.
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 41

In addition, Wisconsin has continued the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) despite its formal 

elimination in MAP-21. Wisconsin has developed a statewide data analysis methodology which identifies 

county rural roads with run-off-road non-intersection crash issues. Counties with such corridors are offered a 

field review of the corridor that identifies potential treatments and are invited to apply for HSIP funding to 

implement some or all of the identified treatment options. A primary goal of the HRRRP is to install low-cost 

safety treatments on these roadways to mitigate KA crash rates as quickly as possible. It is unlikely these 

county trunk highways would receive federal investments outside of the HRRRP.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning 

Operations 

Other-Division of State Patrol

Other-Division of Motor Vehicles 

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

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

several internal partners that both directly and indirectly influence the decision making process. Below is a 

summary of these partners and their role in the program.

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

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

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

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

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which helps guide the safety efforts of the HSIP Program.

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

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

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

state.

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

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

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

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

evaluation, a recommendation to approve or not approve is forwarded to the State HSIP Coordinator for final 

review.

- State Project Oversight Engineers: The State Project Oversight Engineers are a critical component of the joint 

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

Regional Traffic Safety Engineers, the State Traffic Safety Engineer, and the State HSIP Coordinator provide a 
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 41

consensus approval or disapproval of HSIP funding after a comprehensive in-person peer review. Each Region 

has one Project Oversight Engineer. State Project Oversight Engineers only review applications originating 

from the Region in which they are assigned. This consensus approval or disapproval is advisory to the 

DTIM/BSHP.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

The HSIP is fully coordinated and integrated with the work of other organizations, associations, and 

stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement, academia, local governments, MPOs) that play a role in reducing fatalities 

and serious injuries. One of the basic foundations of the HSIP is the direct linkage between the data-driven 

priorities established in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the identification, development and 

implementation of HSIP projects. Local and regional governments alike which contribute towards achieving the 

goals and objectives of the SHSP help guide program decisions and project selections. More specifically, wh 

ere there are a high percentage of crashes that occur off the State system, WisDOT works with local 

jurisdictions to help them develop and implement HSIP projects that address priority safety issues on locallyowned roadways. This is either done by locals doing work as local forced accounts or they are let by WisDOT.

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?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 41

File Name:

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

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

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2005 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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-All CMC Other-Centerline miles Functional classification 

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?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Non-competitive application process 
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 41

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 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 28 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

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) 

Other-County Traffic Safety Commission recommendations 

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.
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 41

HSIP Project Prioritization

Wisconsin evaluates potential HSIP projects by comparing the estimated crash reduction benefits expected 

from the project and the cost of that project. Crash reduction benefits are estimated by multiplying up to two 

crash modification factors (CMF) by 5-years of observed crash data. CMFs and target crashes are identified by 

the safety analyst and a spreadsheet tool is used to calculate the estimated crash reduction benefits. The 

spreadsheet tool incorporates the WisDOT CMF Table and logic described in our statewide policy described at 

the link below.

http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/12-03.pdf

HSIP Safety Effectiveness Evaluations

Wisconsin evaluates the effectiveness of all HSIP projects that were prioritized based on crash history. The 

Empirical-Bayes Before/After Safety Evaluation method, described in chapter 9 of the Highway Safety Manual, 

is used for these safety effectiveness evaluations. No evaluations are completed for systemic safety projects 

within our HSIP.

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.

A key component in the development of the HSIP is the Project Evaluation Factor (PEF). The PEF is a 

measurement that is used to evaluate and compare proposed projects. It provides a comparison of the 

estimated crash reduction potential of a proposed improvement with the overall cost of the project. Although it 

has similarities to a benefit/cost analysis, it does not include all of the elements of a traditional benefit/cost 

analysis tool for ranking the relative merits of a group of projects, and should not be compared to a benefit/cost 

analysis.

An Excel-based program is used to perform a safety project analysis and computes the PEF. The following 

provides a general overview of several key elements of the PEF:

• All costs associated with the project (design, utilities, real estate, construction, etc.) must be included in the 

PEF calculation, regardless of whether HSIP funds are requested for all elements of the project. Cost 

estimates must be in current year dollars.

• The analysis requires crash data from the most recent 5-year period for which crash information is available. 

Ideally, the analysis would include crash data from the most recent calendar year. For example, an analysis 

submitted in 2016 would include crash information from the 2011-2015 period. However, given that: (a) it can 

take several months after the end of a calendar year for the Department to finalize crash information and 

integrate the crash information into departmental datasets; and (b) it can take several months for a safety 
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 41

proposal to be developed and scoped, the use of an additional, older year of crash data is allowed. For 

example, an analysis submitted in calendar year 2016 may use crash data from either the 2011-2015 period or 

the 2010-2014 period.

For local projects, it is the responsibility of the project sponsor to compile and provide the required crash data 

to the regional office for the PEF evaluation.

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

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

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

mechanism assigns higher values to Type A and Fatal crashes.

• The current values used within the PEF tool to calculate the potential crash reduction benefits of a safety 

improvement are influenced by the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) developed by the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

• Standardized crash reduction factors are included in the Excel tool for a wide range of safety improvements. 

These factors are based on national safety research and are regularly updated as new research becomes 

available.

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

acknowledges the PEF contains many variables and that sometimes additional expense is needed to 

sufficiently address a safety issue. As such, the HSIP Review Committee may consider applications with a 

PEF greater than or equal to 0.9 for approval. Projects with a PEF less than 0.9 will not be approved.

• Projects treating locations identified on the annual "Locations of Interest Report" (LOIR) may be approved 

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

• The PEF requirement is generally waived for projects identified through a statewide safety analysis. The PEF 

requirement is currently waived for: 

o High Risk Rural Roads Program projects

o Crossover Median Crash Initiative projects

o Bridge Friction Treatment Initiative projects

o Beam Guard Initiative projects
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 41

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) $24,347,180 $24,347,180 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $2,705,242 $2,705,242 100%

Totals $27,052,422 $27,052,422 100%

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?

$6,183,844 

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

$6,183,844 

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

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

$461,632 

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

$461,632 
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 41

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?

$21,180,942 

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.

Project delays can make it challenging to fully utilize HSIP funding. Such delays occur for a variety of reasons, 

including changes in project scope during t he design process (which triggers a required re-evaluation of the 

project), changes in associated projects that are linked to the HSIP project, and unforeseen issues arising 

during the project development process. WisDOT continues to work on developing a list of projects that could 

be advanced from later program years into earlier program years to ensure that HSIP funding is fully utilized 

even if projects are delayed or fall out of the program.

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

No
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 41

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

4538-05-71 3.274 Miles $234377 $260418.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

5198-01-60 7.144 Miles $243721.59 $270801.77 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

5808-00-02 8.1 Miles $63142.2 $70158 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

5809-00-60 11.12 Miles $494621.24 $549579.15 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

5817-00-60 8.144 Miles $278431.53 $309368.37 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

7068-01-60 10.26 Miles $501480.27 $557200.3 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

8938-01-72 Miles $191651.04 $212945.6 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1000-99-65 Miles $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

SHSP 

Development

Data

1000-99-71 Miles $325468.8 $361632 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Data Mapping 

project

Data

1010-02-85 3.718 Miles $107818.98 $119798.87 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1022-03-83 0 Miles $76093.61 $84548.46 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1022-08-72 4.65 Miles $315892.89 $350992.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1023-06-64 0 Miles $208598 $231775.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1050-00-07 Miles $62573 $69525.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1050-02-71 0.17 Miles $308544.24 $342826.93 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

1071-02-64 0 Miles $183906 $204340 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1077-01-65 0 Miles $468329 $520365.55 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1100-13-71 0 Miles $122922.76 $136580.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1112-02-61 0 Miles $422828.96 $469809.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 41

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

1130-49-71 0 Miles $114988.97 $127765.52 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1150-68-71 8.812 Miles $1626978.81 $1807754.23 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1161-02-74 1.203 Miles $1530000 $1700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

1198-00-78 0.321 Miles $694319 $771465.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

1223-17-71 6.27 Miles $1387680.4 $1541867.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1430-18-71 7.68 Miles $438258 $486953.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1500-66-71 7.655 Miles $490383 $544870 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1500-67-60 2.588 Miles $189108 $210120 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1510-00-70 5.54 Miles $2044085.86 $2271206.51 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1510-00-71 3.59 Miles $376374.34 $418193.71 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

1517-13-71 0 Miles $97024.27 $107804.74 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1610-08-79 7.41 Miles $244590.76 $271767.51 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

1610-08-82 7.41 Miles $194621.86 $216246.51 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

2025-00-70 0.188 Miles $431877.3 $479863.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

2030-04-75 0.13 Miles $1031760 $1146400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

2050-05-71 Miles $683501 $759445.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2240-18-70 0.05 Miles $834725.7 $927473 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2290-08-71 0 Miles $171719.07 $190798.97 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

2375-07-70 0.51 Miles $332210.67 $369122.97 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

2595-08-90 Miles $362828 $403142.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

2753-01-70 0.09 Miles $597248.08 $663608.98 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 41

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

2762-00-70 0.11 Miles $755255 $839172.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2774-01-70 0.05 Miles $916727 $1018585.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2990-14-00 0.006 Miles $63036 $70040 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

2998-06-00 Miles $151881 $168756.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians

3110-07-70 0.075 Miles $131832.41 $146480.45 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

3887-01-02 0.042 Miles $40500 $45000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure

4050-24-60 11.44 Miles $383400 $426000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

5290-02-70 0.689 Miles $1530000 $1700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

6180-00-72 1.49 Miles $51750 $57500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

7130-00-76 7.32 Miles $183015.49 $203350.54 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

7130-00-77 0.35 Miles $181939 $202154.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

8050-04-80 4.66 Miles $276527.6 $307252.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

8120-04-74 0.051 Miles $390695.14 $434105.71 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

8120-04-75 0.003 Miles $196218.52 $218020.58 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

8510-02-76 0.32 Miles $469624.5 $521805 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

9566-02-01 5.05 Miles $50094.9 $55661 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure

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

Page 17 of 41

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 0 0 0 615 543 506 566 607 597

Serious Injuries 0 0 0 3,582 3,309 2,986 2,999 3,039 3,288

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.040 0.910 0.840 0.910 0.980 0.910

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.060 5.560 4.970 4.830 4.880 5.030

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

0 0 0 388 351 337 365 366 390

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 41

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 19 of 41

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 20 of 41

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

Non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries are reported as a single number

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 21 of 41

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

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or Street

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street

Rural City Street 8.2 81.1

Rural County Trunk 

Highway

104 513.4

Rural Interstate Highway 23 120

Rural State Trunk Highway 194 875.8

Rural Town Road 64.2 339.4

Urban City Street 98.8 746.8

Urban Interstate Highway 12 74.6

Urban State Trunk 

Highway

46.6 370.4

Rural City Street

Rural County Trunk 

Highway

Rural Interstate Highway

Rural State Trunk Highway

Rural Town Road

Urban City Street
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 41

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Urban Interstate Highway

Urban State Trunk 

Highway
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 41

Year 2013

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 0 0

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 41

0

50

100

150

200

250

Rural City

Street

Rural

County

Trunk

Highway

Rural

Interstate

Highway

Rural State

Trunk

Highway

Rural Town

Road

Urban City

Street

Urban

Interstate

Highway

Urban State

Trunk

Highway

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 25 of 41

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Rural City

Street

Rural

County

Trunk

Highway

Rural

Interstate

Highway

Rural State

Trunk

Highway

Rural Town

Road

Urban City

Street

Urban

Interstate

Highway

Urban State

Trunk

Highway

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 26 of 41

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 27 of 41

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 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 555.7 

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

The 2% reduction in traffic fatalities is supported by the stated goals and actions steps 

of the SHSP. 

Number of Serious Injuries 2967.6 

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 41

The 5% reduction in number of serious injuries is supported by the stated goals and 

action steps of the SHSP. 

Fatality Rate 0.915 

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

The 2% reduction in traffic fatalities is supported by the stated goals and actions steps 

of the SHSP. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.785 

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

The 5% reduction in number of serious injuries is supported by the stated goals and 

action steps of the SHSP. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 342.0 

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

The 5% reduction in number of serious injuries is supported by the stated goals and 

action steps of the SHSP. 

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

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

targets. 

The HSIP is fully coordinated and integrated with the work of other organizations, associations, and 

stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement, academia, local governments, MPOs) that play a role in reducing fatalities 

and serious injuries. One of the basic foundations of the HSIP is the direct linkage between the data-driven 

priorities established in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the identification, development and 

implementation of HSIP projects. Local and regional governments alike which contribute towards achieving the 

goals and objectives of the SHSP help guide program decisions and project selections. More specifically, 

where there are a high percentage of crashes that occur off the State system, WisDOT works with local 

jurisdictions to help them develop and implement HSIP projects that address priority safety issues on locallyowned roadways. This is either done by locals doing work as local forced accounts or they are let by WisDOT. 

Stakeholders will continue to contribute to and support the goals established in the SHSP. This in turn 

encourages safety projects that meet established safety performance targets.

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.
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 41

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

85 75 78 64 99 91 92

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

252 263 245 231 198 227 249

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

Years were incorrectly reported in the 2017 report. All years have been updated for the 2018 report.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

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 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 41

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.

While a simple change in fatal and serious injury crashes is overall indicator of the effectiveness of the safety 

culture in the state, it's influenced by many other factors outside the scope of normal HSIP projects. For this 

reason we rely on a "before and after" Empirical Bayes Analysis of HSIP project to determine their 

performance.

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

level evaluations.

An annual program effectiveness evaluation has not been completed at this time.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP 

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

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 2017 
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 41

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)

Intersections 159.8 1,174

Pedestrians 47.8 214.8

Bicyclists 9.4 85.8

Motorcyclists 77.2 518

Work Zones 10 56.8

Reduce Speed-related 

Crashes

164.6 834.2

Prevent/Mitigate Roadway 

Departure Crashes

281 1,356.8

Reduce Alcohol/Drug-impaired 

Driving

225 591

Improve Driver 

Alertness/Reduce Driver 

Distraction

84.6 639.6

Improve Occupant Protection 163 478.8

Improve Safe Travel in Bad 

Weather

110 649.2

Reduce Cross Median 

Crashes

74.8 269.2
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 41

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 41

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

The 2017 HSIP report numbers for this question included all injuries in the Serious Injury column. This has 

been corrected in the 2018 report. The 2018 report now includes both alcohol and drug-impaired crashes, 

rather than just alcohol.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 41

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

No

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

Page 35 of 41

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)

x

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

Evaluation planned for 2019

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.

The Transportation Safety Engineers Work Group (TSEWG) is a committee, comprised mainly of regional WisDOT traffic safety engineers as well as an FHWA safety engineer, that meets approximately every two months to discuss the 

overall HSIP effectiveness and other safety-related issues. In addition, they are primarily responsible for forwarding/developing and evaluating eligible HSIP projects. These work group members frequently conduct project and program 

evaluations and share insights with other TSEWG members.
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 41

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/07/2017 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2020 

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

 2020 

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) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 7

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

Page 37 of 41

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)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 65 100 1

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

80 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

80 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

80 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

80 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

80 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

80 0

AADT Year (80) 80 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

80 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 41

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) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

88.89 81.78 80.00 0.00 90.91 90.91 88.89 77.89 80.00 80.00

*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.

Wisconsin already collects most of the MIRE FDEs. The department plans to begin a project to evaluate gaps in the collection of MIRE FDEs. The outcome of this analysis will be incorporated into a more encompassing effort to assess 

corporate data needs (e.g. ARNOLD). The expectation is to have an implementation plan for addressing FDE gaps by 2020.

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 Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury Yes An injury other than fatal which results in 

one or more of the following: 

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood, 

broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), 

crush injuries, 

suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations, 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of body), 

unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene, or paralysis.

Yes An injury other than fatal which results in 

one or more of the following: 

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood, 

broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), 

crush injuries, 

suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations, 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of body), 

unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene, or paralysis.

Yes

Crash Database Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected Serious Injury Yes An injury other than fatal which results in 

one or more of the following: 

Yes An injury other than fatal which results in 

one or more of the following: 

Yes
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 41

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 * 

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood, 

broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), 

crush injuries, 

suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations, 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of body), 

unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene, or paralysis.

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood, 

broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), 

crush injuries, 

suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations, 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of body), 

unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene, or paralysis.

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.

2019 

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

Page 40 of 41

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 41

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.