Page 1 of 59

MARYLAND

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 59

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 25

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 27

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 29

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 29

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 42

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 45

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 47

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 48

Year 2016 .............................................................................................................................................................. 48

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 53

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 54
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 59

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 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 59

Executive Summary 

Summary Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CY 2017

• The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on 

public roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the 

State: 1) develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and 

analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) 

produces a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan 

on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) 

submits an annual report to the FHWA Division. 

• The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual 

basis, to identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision 

experience and, as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these 

deficiencies. 

• HSIP Staff is located in Planning, Engineering and Highway Safety Office portions of MDOT. 

• HSIP is administered centrally via Statewide Competitive Application Process. 

• Local roads were not allocated HSIP funds in CY 2017. 

• The Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) along with the Maryland Transportation Authority and the 

Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services are important partners with the Maryland State 

Highway Administration (SHA) in the HSIP process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and 

several regional planning organizations along with local governments, various police agencies and 

academic organizations also coordinate with the SHA. 

• Programs administered under the HSIP 

1. Median Barrier 

2. Horizontal Curve 

3. Skid Hazard 

4. Roadway Departure 

5. Left-turn crash 

6. Intersection Crash Data 

7. Low Cost Spot Improvements 

8. Pedestrian Safety 

9. Rural State Highway 

10. Right Angle Crash 

11. Highway Sections 

• The data types used in the HSIP program methodology are vehicle crashes, traffic volume and highway 

mileage. 

• The project identification methodology used in the HSIP program are crash frequency and relative 

severity index. 

• The HSIP projects are advanced for implementation by a SHA selection committee. The criteria 

considered are Safety, Congestion, Operations and Local Support. 

• The proportion of HSIP program Funds used in CY 2016 for funding systemic improvements is 98.5% 

• The types of systemic improvements include 

• Other-Pedestrian and bicycle access 

1. Rumble Strips 

2. Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

3. Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

4. Upgrade Guard Rails 

5. Install/Improve Lighting 

6. Other-Sidewalk Improvements 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 59

7. Other-Intersection geometry 

• Engineering studies and Road Safety Assessments are used to identify potential countermeasures. 

• The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies that are related to the HSIP. 

• Reporting period for HSIP funding is CY 2017. 

• Programmed - $ 15,556,000 

• Obligated - $ 12,620,408 

• Programmed Non-infrastructure portion - $ 902,393 

• Obligated Non-infrastructure portion - $ 844,326 

• All police crash reports used for the crash database are in electronic format as of January 1, 2015 

• The general listing of projects includes various traffic control, roadside, intersection geometry and noninfrastructure projects. 

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of fatalities (FARS) have decreased 

from 511 in 2012 to 505 in 2016 (annual format) and that the number of serious injuries (MD) have 

decreased from 3,312 in 2012 to 3,164 in 2016 (annual format). Please note that all 2016 FARS totals 

are preliminary at the time of this report. 

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of non-motorized fatalities (FARS) 

have increased from 102 in 2012 to 120 in 2016 (annual format) and that the number of non-motorized 

serious injuries (MD) have increased from 406 in 2012 to 584 in 2016 (annual format). Please see 

above note on 2016 FARS totals. 

• Overall five-year average crash trends for the individual functional classification and roadway 

ownership are shown in tables in the annual report. 

• Maryland maintains the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce 

fatalities by at least 50 percent in the next two decades. 

• The same methodology was used for serious injury targets. However, it should be noted that due to 

significant declines in serious injuries in recent years, the use of historical trends currently puts the 

State at or below current targets. This method was applied to the five performance measures required 

by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) fatalities, fatality rate, serious injury, serious injury rate, 

and non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. 

• “A wide range of stakeholder groups - including federal, state and local government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, regional authorities, and individual advocates - participated in the 

development of the SHSP (Maryland Strategic Plan). Each EA (Emphasis Area) Team - which includes 

regional and local agencies - held at least two facilitated discussions to identify, develop, and finalize 

strategies for the 2016-2020 SHSP. Each EA Team wrestled with difficult decisions regarding how to 

cover the essentials of transportation safety while remaining strategic and focused on the most vital 

needs” (2016-20 SHSP). 

• Older Driver and pedestrian (65+) Fatalities decreased from 76 in 2009 to 71 in 2015 (FARS – annual 

numbers) and Severe Injuries also decreased from 287 in 2009 to 172 in 2015 (MD – annual numbers). 

• The State measures effectiveness of the HSIP by the change in fatalities and serious injuries 

• Overall yearly crash trends for the individual SHSP (Strategic Highway Safety Program) emphasis 

areas are shown in tables in the annual report. 

• All Maryland counties along with Baltimore City are now provided a three-year listing of pedestrian 

involved crashes which includes a summary of severe injury and fatal crashes on state highways along 

with a detailed listing for local roads. 

• Maryland’s current SHSP was approved by the Governor or designated State representative on 

05/31/2017. 

• The years being covered by the current SHSP are 2016 to 2020. 

• Maryland anticipates completing its next SHSP update by 2020. 

• The status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts are shown in 

tables in the annual report. 

• MDOT SHA is implementing Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway 

and LRS data for HPMS submission. With the Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manage 

intersection data, and data gaps, we will be able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026. 

• In conjunction with the ESRI R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline 

(OMOC) program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 59

sharing of data between jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate 

authority. This geometry will be the base of the R&H data model. This data share and cooperation 

between levels of jurisdictions will also allow us to identify and fill data gaps, with the appropriate, 

authoritative information. 

• The suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by Maryland for both the crash 

report form and the crash database are shown in tables in the annual report. 

• Also indicated in these tables is whether these elements are compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition 

criteria for data element P5 - Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

• The purpose/scope of the HSIP review in 2016 was to determine if Maryland HSIP Planning Process 

meets the requirements of 23 CFR 924.9 and identify areas for improvement and successful practices 

in Maryland HSIP Planning Process. 

• An action plan was developed in CY 2016 to bring Maryland’s HSIP planning process into compliance 

with the HSIP Final Rule. 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 59

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 purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division.

Emphasis on Maryland’s highways is placed on improving the safety of intersections, sections and ramps that 

are identified as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs) or through Road Safety Audits and on 

implementing proven blanket safety improvements on a systematic basis. Safety improvements include the 

installation of rumble strips and median barriers; upgrading signs, signals, and markings; improving 

geometrics; and highway and bridge widening, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

The processes used to identify locations, referred to in the HSIP as hazardous locations, which have abnormal 

accident experience. Those locations, referred to herein as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs), 

include intersections, spots and sections where the combination of accident frequencies and/or rates are 

significantly higher than those at similar locations. The identification of CSILs is based on all police reported 

collisions, i.e., those crashes reported by law enforcement agencies across Maryland to the Maryland State 

Police. Information from these reports is entered into a statewide accident database for analysis.

The State Highway Administration (SHA) typically identifies CSILs only on the state maintained highway 

system. Several local jurisdictions use the accident data, which SHA provides to all of the jurisdictions 

annually, to identify similar location on their road systems.

The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, to 

identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience and, 

as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. Locations 

identified by the District Engineers as having a combined safety/capacity problem although not necessarily 

qualifying as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations, also can be included as candidate Fund 76 Program 

projects. The SHA Administrator makes the final project selection.
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 59

Maryland's Fund 76 Spot Improvement Program was developed under the guidelines set forth in 23 CFR 924, 

and was designed to address the most critical highway safety problems statewide through a systematic and 

unbiased approach. The Fund 76 Program is under the direction of the SHA's Deputy Administrator/Chief 

Engineer for Operations, with program development and assistance from the Office of Traffic and Safety.

Through the Fund 76 process, accident data for all State highways is reviewed annually, and all sections and 

intersections experiencing abnormally high accident rates are studied to determine what countermeasures are 

applicable. In addition, listings of accidents on local roads are sent to the local governments for their use.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Engineering 

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.

Local Roads are usually not given HSIP funds from the State

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Planning 

Districts/Regions

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Other-Maryland State Highway District Offices

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Within the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) the State Highway Administration (SHA) Office of 

Traffic and Safety and Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering along with the Motor Vehicle 

Administration (MVA) Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) provided leadership, support, and coordination 

for Maryland's highway safety projects in CY 2017. Part of SHA and MVA's responsibility is to work with other 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 59

State agencies to address highway safety issues. This effort results in a multi agency approach which includes 

the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services and others that 

have roles in highway safety problems. The seven SHA District Offices also provide a network of field 

personnel willing to coordinate and provide technical assistance to local agencies.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-External partners including MPOs, local government, police agencies and academic organizations were 

included in the 2016-20 SHSP planning process 

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

As stated in the 2016-20 SHSP (Maryland Highway Strategic Plan), stakeholder groups which included HSIP 

external partners participated in the development of the SHSP to identify, develop, and finalize strategies for 

the 2016-2020 SHSP. Stakeholder groups have coordinated in the collection and maintaining of safety data for 

all public roads and processes for advancing the State's capabilities for safety data collection and analysis 

through the TRCC).

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

period?

Yes

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

An action plan was developed to bring Maryland's HSIP Planning process into compliance with the HSIP final 

rule in 2016. As a result changes are anticipated in the near future.

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
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 59

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.

The current process for the planning and implementation is detailed in the Safety and Spot Improvement 

Program Fund 76. The evaluation process was documented in the HSIP evaluation reports before the new 

template was created. A new process/manual is in development and was an action plan item from the July 

2016 HSIP Process review.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve 

Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash

Segments

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage Functional classification 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 59

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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]
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 59

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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?

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Left Turn Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 59

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 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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?

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 59

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Opeartions : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 59

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

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

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).
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 59

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 59

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Right Angle Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 59

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 59

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?

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Rural State Highways 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage Roadside features 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 59

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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]
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 59

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 59

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Saftey : 60

Other-Congestion / Operations : 30 

Other-Support / Opportunity : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 59

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 98.5 

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Install/Improve Lighting

Other-Sidewalk Improvements

Other-Intersection geometry

Other-Pedestrian and bicycle access

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

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.

This is expected to be addressed in the future.

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.

The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies as part of the HSIP Planning Process. It was also in 

the development of a intersection safety implementation plan.
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 59

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?

No
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 59

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar 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) $15,556,000 $12,620,408 81.13%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $15,556,000 $12,620,408 81.13%

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

Please note updated totals

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.

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

$902,393 

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

Page 26 of 59

$844,326 

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?

49% 

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.

none at this time

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

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

All Police crash reports used for the crash database are in electronic format as of January 1 2015
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 59

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

3430 Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$450000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

3362 Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$225000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B149 Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$152393 $169326 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B237 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

$1536648 $1904723 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 4

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B238 Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

$1984374 $2460014 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 5

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B233 Roadside Barrier- metal $1738853 $1750293 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 3

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B203 Roadside Barrier - other $3235829 $3595365 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 7

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

1301173 Roadside Barrier- metal $3043349 $3043349 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

123,250 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B230 Roadside Barrier - other $832775 $832775 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 1

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B176 Roadside Barrier - other $2143600 $2421121 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 6

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B182 Roadside Barrier - other $1818069 $2020076 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 5

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B203 Roadside Barrier - other $3341996 $3713329 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 7

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B160 Roadside Barrier - other $828290 $930472 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 5

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B196 Roadside Barrier - other $2486021 $2762245 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 4

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B233 Roadside Barrier- metal $307585 $307585 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

24,160 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

000B136 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

$2756273 $3037947 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 4

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve roadway 

environments for 

walking

000B125 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

$4297634 $4760950 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 1

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve roadway 

environments for 

walking
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 59

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

000B038 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

$3192155 $3192155 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 4

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve roadway 

environments for 

walking

000B124 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

$4253084 $4419611 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Areawide SHA 

District 1

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve roadway 

environments for

walking

1251063 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$5191565 $5728098 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

38,701 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

6956382 Lighting Site lighting - 

interchange

$1525051 $1525051 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

97,630 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

2511077 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$1354129 $1508949 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

28,230 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

2571016 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$3276643 $3688348 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

19,565 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

1249006 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$1621902 $1672373 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

22,862 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

3161032 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$2054555 $2266616 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

20,732 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

1189009 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$3831945 $4333517 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,872 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor safety 

improvements

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

Page 29 of 59

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 591 549 496 485 511 465 442 520 505

Serious Injuries 4,544 4,383 4,051 3,809 3,312 2,957 3,053 2,595 3,164

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.070 0.990 0.880 0.860 0.900 0.820 0.780 0.910 0.860

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.090 7.880 7.210 6.800 5.870 5.240 5.410 4.550 5.370

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

122 124 110 107 102 114 106 103 120

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

531 482 437 430 406 396 431 373 584
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 59

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 31 of 59

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 32 of 59

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

The 2016 Fatality rate (per HMVMT) is estimated. The actual FARS fatality rate was not available at the time of 

this report.

Describe efforts to obtain most current calendar year’s crash data. 2016 FARS fatality information is obtained 

by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which releases prior-year fatalities twice: a 

preliminary report in the spring of the following year, and sometime after the 12-month closing of the final 

FARS file. The State will update 2016 fatality information when it is available and final from NHTSA (sometime 

in 2018). The State will also have to update the 2015 data when NHTSA releases the final 2015 FARS file. 

State data for serious injuries (all and non-motorists) will be available when the Maryland State Police and 

State Highway Administration determine that all 2016 crash reports have been submitted by local law 

enforcement agencies. The projection for this ‘closeout’ is summer/fall, 2017.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

State fatality totals used for selected questions in the HSIP as noted

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

Year 2016

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 33 of 59

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

23 49.8 0.99 2.13

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

32.2 156 1.42 6.78

Rural Minor Arterial 38 173 2.02 9.17

Rural Minor Collector 15.8 56.6 1.5 5.47

Rural Major Collector 32.8 145.4 1.99 8.76

Rural Local Road or Street 20.6 89.6 1.24 5.39

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

73.4 527.4 0.5 3.53

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

45 230 0.73 3.73

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

157.2 1,065.8 1.44 9.79

Urban Minor Arterial 70.4 497.6 1.02 7.22

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 32.8 234.2 0.83 5.83

Urban Local Road or Street 21 212.8 0.68 6.88
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 59

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 351 1,807

County Highway Agency 124 710

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

26 222

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)

0 10

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 59

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 36 of 59

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 37 of 59

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 38 of 59

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 39 of 59

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Other Local Agency Other Public

Instrumentality (e.g.

Airport, School,

University)

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 40 of 59

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Other Local Agency Other Public

Instrumentality

(e.g. Airport,

School, University)

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 59

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

Other Local Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 59

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 435.0 

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable, and data 

driven, maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim 

targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next

two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling 

averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious 

injuries, e.g., 2012–2016 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2015–2019 

(five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant declines in 

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

Other Local Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 43 of 59

serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five 

performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): 

fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities 

and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP. 

Number of Serious Injuries 3211.1 

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable, and data 

driven, maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim 

targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next

two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling 

averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious 

injuries, e.g., 2012–2016 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2015–2019 

(five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant declines in 

serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five 

performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): 

fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities 

and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP. 

Fatality Rate 0.771 

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable, and data 

driven, maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim 

targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next 

two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling 

averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious 

injuries, e.g., 2012–2016 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2015–2019 

(five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant declines in 

serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five 

performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): 

fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities 

and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP. 

Serious Injury Rate 5.702 

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable, and data 

driven, maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim 
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 59

targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next

two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling 

averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious 

injuries, e.g., 2012–2016 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2015–2019 

(five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant declines in 

serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five 

performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): 

fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities 

and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 473.9 

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable, and data 

driven, maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim 

targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next 

two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling 

averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious 

injuries, e.g., 2012–2016 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2015–2019 

(five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant declines in 

serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five 

performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): 

fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities 

and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP. 

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. 

"Stakeholders. A wide range of stakeholder groups - including federal, state and local government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, regional authorities, and individual advocates - participated in the 

development of the SHSP (Maryland Strategic Plan). Each EA (Emphasis Area) Team - which includes 

regional and local agencies - held at least two facilitated discussions to identify, develop, and finalize strategies 

for the 2016-2020 SHSP. Each EA Team wrestled with difficult decisions regarding how to cover the essentials 

of transportation safety while remaining strategic and focused on the most vital needs.”[1] This list of 

stakeholder safety partner agencies is as follows:

Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Washington Regional Alcohol Program

Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services System

National Study Center

State Highway Administration

Maryland Highway Safety Office
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 59

Motor Vehicle Administration

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Highway Administration

Maryland Transportation Authority Police

Maryland State Police

Montgomery County Police Department

Howard County Police Department

Maryland Chiefs of Police Association

Leidos consultants

Sabra, Wang & Associates consultants[2]

[1] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2016-20 PG 5

[2] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2016-20 Appendix A

The process stakeholders from SHSP were consulted to establish 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.

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 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

76 58 69 60 50 63 71

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

287 272 295 254 235 258 172
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 59

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 59

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

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

level evaluations.

Progra

m 

Type

Target 

Crash 

Type

Fataliti

es

2014

Fataliti

es

2015

Fataliti

es 

2016

Serio

us 

Injurie

s 

2014

Serio

us 

Injurie

s

2015

Serio

us

Injurie

s 

2016

Fatali

ty 

Rate

(per 

HMV

T)

2014

Fatali

ty 

Rate

(per 

HMV

T)

2015

Fatali

ty 

Rate

(per 

HMV

T)

2016

Seriou

s Injury 

Rate

(per 

HMVM

T)

2014

Seriou

s Injury 

Rate

(per 

HMVM

T)

2015

Seriou

s Injury 

Rate

(per 

HMVM

T)

2016

Wet 

Surfac

e 

Crash

es

Wet 

Road 72 88 78 513 378 410 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.91 0.66 0.70

Left 

Turn 

Crash

Left 

Turn 22 43 29 252 181 235 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.45 0.32 0.40

Angle 

Crash Angle 55 56 71 575 485 608 0.10 0.10 0.12 1.02 0.85 1.03

Media

n 

Barrier

Opposi

te 

Directi

on

51 67 67 203 237 274 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.36 0.41 0.46

For wet surface crashes over a three year period there was a 13% decrease in the serious injury rate. For left 

turn crashes over a three year period there was a 11% decrease in the serious injury rate.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 59

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

All Maryland counties along with Baltimore City are now provided a three year listing of pedestrian involved 

crashes which includes a summary of severe injury and fatal crashes on state highways along with a detailed 

listing for local roads. In 2016 SHA established a HSM implementation team. Work continues on an updated 

process for project selection and evaluation for the HSIP program.

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

Yes

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

A review of Maryland's HSIP planning process was completed in 2016 and an action plan is in progress to 

bring Maryland SHA's HSIP program into compliance with the HSIP final rule.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Pedestrians All 104.6 367.8 0.18 0.64 0 0 0

Bicyclists All 8.6 60 0.02 0.11 0 0 0

Impaired Driving (NHSTA) All 144 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aggressive Driving All 38.2 220 0.07 0.39 0 0 0

Occupant Protection All 102.2 302.2 0.18 0.53 0 0 0

Highway Infrastructure All 321.8 1,942.6 0.56 3.4 0 0 0

Distracted Driving All 164 1,460.6 0.29 2.57 0 0 0

Impaired Driving 

(Maryland)

All 155.6 416.8 0.27 0.73 0 0 0
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 59

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 50 of 59

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

Question 43

Note 1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 51 of 59

“An aggressive driving crash occurs when at least one driver in the crash was reported to be driving 

aggressively, defined by having one of the following values in both the primary and secondary Contributing 

Circumstance fields from the standard crash report form:

Failed to yield right-of-way

Failed to obey stop sign

Failed to keep right of center

Failed to stop for a school bus

Too fast for conditions

Followed too closely

Failed to obey other traffic control

Exceeded speed limit

Failed to obey traffic signal

Improper lane change

Improper passing

Other improper action

Disregarded other road markings

Wrong way on a one way street

Failure to obey traffic signs, signals, or officer

Operated motor vehicle in erratic/reckless manner “

Note 2

“A distracted driving crash occurs when a driver shifts attention away from the driving task due to a number of 

things, including adjusting a radio, attending to a child, or using a cell phone (e.g., talking, texting, or other 

use).”

Note 3

“According to NHTSA’s Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS), drivers are considered to be alcoholimpaired when their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is 0.08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any 

fatality occurring in a crash involving a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher is considered to be an alcoholimpaired driving fatality. In Maryland, an impaired driving crash as indicated on the Maryland crash report is 

determined by the investigating officer based on the driver’s condition, BAC, and/or substance use detection. It 

will include any level of alcohol in the system and/or drug impairment. Therefore Maryland impaired driving 

targets are different than the targets based on FARS data.” 2016 FARS totals are preliminary at the time of this 

report.
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 59

Note 4

“An unrestrained-occupant crash is defined as including a passenger vehicle (automobile, station wagon, van, 

SUV, or pickup truck) occupant:

• Less than eight years of age recorded as not using a “Child/Youth Restraint,” 

• Eight years of age or older recorded as not using a “Lap and Shoulder Belt” or “Air Bag and Belt,” or 

• Whose restraint use was recorded as using “None” or “Air Bag Only.” 

Note 5

“Intersection-related and run-off-the-road crashes are the prime indicators of roadway infrastructure 

opportunities for improvement. Work-zone crashes also are included in this emphasis area.

A Run-Off-the-Road Crash is defined as a crash where the first event was recorded as striking a fixed object or 

running off the road, or the location of the crash was reported as off-road or in the median.

Intersection Crashes are those crashes reported as occurring in an intersection or being intersection-related 

(i.e., in a traffic situation resulting from an intersection).

Work-Zone Crashes are those crashes reported as occurring in a work zone in the standard crash report. They 

can include construction, maintenance, and utility work zones.”

Note 6

“Pedestrian crashes are defined as crashes involving a person reported as a pedestrian on foot (using the 

‘pedestrian’ person type and ‘pedestrian on foot’ pedestrian type), including a motorist who has exited a 

vehicle. Bicyclist crashes are defined as crashes involving a person reported as a bicyclist or pedalcyclist 

(using the ‘bicyclist’ or ‘other pedalcyclist’ type).”

All notes are from the Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2016-20

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 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 59

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)

Maryland has 

chosen not to 

complete this 

optional section

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 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 59

Compliance Assessment

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

 05/31/2017 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 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) 100 100

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

Page 55 of 59

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 90

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 5 0

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

70 70

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

50 50

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

99 99

AADT Year (80) 99 99

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

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 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 59

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) 100 100

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):

100.00 100.00 89.75 89.75 100.00 100.00 89.44 87.78 100.00 100.00

*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.

•

MDOT SHA has implemented Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and LRS data for HPMS submission. This year MDOT SHA used Roads and Highways for their HPMS submission. With the 

Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manager intersection data, and data gaps, we will be able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026.

• In conjunction with the Esri R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline (OMOC) program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of data between 

jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate authority. We have begun a pilot conflation process between MDOT SHA and two county jurisdictions to test process and develop the protocols that will be 

used for the integration of the remaining counties of Maryland. This geometry will be the base of the R&H data model. This data sharing and cooperation between the local and state jurisdictions will better allow us to identify and fill 

data gaps, with the appropriate, authoritative information.

• FHWA has authorized several pilots to investigate developing methodologies to more accurately calculate local AADTs for lower functionally classified roadways. MIRE FDEs require this type of data, while the local jurisdictions do 

not have the wherewithal nor need to completely capture and maintain this type of data. Therefore, the need to develop better proxies or models to better estimate these AADTs for local roads is an ongoing FHWA investigation.

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 Injury Severity 04: Suspected Serious 

Injury

Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Injury Severity 04: Suspected Serious 

Injury

Yes A suspected serious injury is any injury 

other than

fatal which results in one or more of the 

following: (see MMUCC P5 Injury Status)

Yes A suspected serious injury is any 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 the body)

Yes
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 59

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 * 

Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene

Paralysis

Crash Database Injury Severity 04: Suspected Serious 

Injury

Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Injury Severity 04: Suspected Serious 

Injury

Yes A suspected serious injury is any injury 

other than

fatal which results in one or more of the 

following: (see MMUCC P5 Injury Status)

Yes A suspected serious injury is any 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 the body)

Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene

Paralysis

Yes

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 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 59

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 59 of 59

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.