Kansas

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: KS
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 

for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or 

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

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

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

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State 

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 23

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 23

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 26

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 36

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 36

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 50

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................53

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 56

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 61

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 66

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 72

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 74
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

related strategies in our Strategic Highway Safety Plan. These manuals will include performance 

measures, which continue to be a work in progress as we await a final rule on this subject from the 

FHWA.
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

with the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

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

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

are exclusive to the State Highway System, although projects may impact intersecting non-state roads. 

Intersections and rail projects may include local roads, that is, public roads not a part of the State 

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

Grade Crossing Program report.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

road safety audits performed by our Traffic Engineering Section.

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

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

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

that are on urban expressways and freeways are typically contractor let. Area Offices then administer 

the construction engineering duties.

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

maintenance engineers to identify recommended routes. Works also with Traffic Engineering Unit to 

identify locations in need of improved markings for safety.

Intersections sub-program: Projects are identified based on recommendations from cities, Traffic 

Engineering Assistance Program reports, and proactive road safey audits. When the intersection is 

located on the State Highway System, our District and Area Offices are made part of the discussion as 

well.

HRRR sub-program: District Offices provide construction oversight.

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

and Area Offices.
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

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

and report on crash data as needed.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Kansas Association of Counties

Other: Other-Local Roads Emphasis Area Team (SHSP)

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Continuing transition to data-based allocation of funds to each sub-program.

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

would like to elaborate.

A total of $23,808,683 in safety funds (HSIP and Rail) was apportioned for FFY 2015, 

distributed to each sub-program as follows:

Lighting: $1,000,000 HSIP

Pavement Marking: $3,000,000 HSIP
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Signing: $8,000,000 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $7,886,861 ($5,886,861 Rail & $2,000,000 HSIP)

Intersection Safety: $721,822 HSIP

High Risk Rural Roads: $3,200,000 HSIP

General Safety Improvements: $0 HSIP

The following dollars were obligated for SFY 2015 in each program:

Lighting: $2,227,909.42 HSIP 

Pavement Marking: $3,332,864.81 HSIP 

Signing: $4,017,837.47 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $5,639,529.87 ($5,230,174.47 Rail; $25,430.80 

STP; $383,924.60 HSIP)

Intersection Safety: $3,596,987.31 HSIP

High Risk Rural Roads: $4,402,863.96 ($2,841,588.53 HRRR & $1,561,275.42 HSIP)

General Safety Improvements: $2,928,660.76 HSIP 

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

intent that strategies identified or developed as part of the SHSP process will contribute to the 

continued success of these programs. A portion of our HSIP funding is programmed as part of 

our RHGCP. See RHGCP report for more information.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Pavement 

Marking

Other: Other-Lighting Other: Other-General Safety 

Improvements

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1980

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 3

Available funding 4

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

EPDO and crash rate 1

Project viability 2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

Other-Sign inventory

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Other-Pre-programmed blanket replacement program

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Per established cyclical 

program

1
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/11/2011

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Shoulder width, sign 

sheeting type, percent in district, 

past projects, cost, road safety 

audit, county priority

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Scoring rubric

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Scoring rubric 1

Geographical distribution 3

Program: Other-Pavement Marking

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-If we considered only 

traffic volumes, only high volume 

districts (1 and 5) would get 

funded, thus population is taken 

into account. At the district level, 

we then consider higher volume 

routes first and take into account 

retro-readings.

Other-Retro-reflectivity. 
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Pavement Marking Specialist works closely with district maintenance engineers to select 
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

projects.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Other-Lighting

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Road type: 

Interchanges

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Locations are brought to our attention

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Lighting Unit

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Other-General Safety Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 2/10/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 1

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

31

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: Other-Highway Safety Manual and CMF Clearinghouse

Other: Other-Crash data analysis to identify systematic countermeasures

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

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

would like to elaborate. 

Intersections sub-program:

Kansas chooses to devote a portion of its HSIP funding to intersection projects, as Intersections have 

been identified as one of the emphasis areas in our Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Recently, the majority 

of funds have been spent in the metro areas. Metropolitan and Urban jurisdictions are requested to 

submit three years of crash data for up to four high-crash locations on any system where the major street 

is not classified as a local street or rural minor collector within their areas. High-crash locations are 

determined and ranked by descending equivalent-property-damage-only (EPDO) accident rate. The top 

20 (approximately) are considered for further analysis. To determine if a location is a high-frequency 

location on Rural State Highways, a comparison is made between the actual crash rate and the statewide 

average rate for similar highways. KDOT conducts county-wide road safety audits. From these audits and 

from traffic studies, high-crash locations are established. High-crash locations are ranked in descending 

EPDO crash rate order, with further analysis done on the top ten locations. Identified high-crash locations 

are prioritized on the basis of the average annual net return for each location. The average net return is a 

dollar amount found by subtracting the average annual costs from the average annual benefits. First 

priority is given to the location with the highest average annual net return. Remaining projects are 

selected in descending order until funds are exhausted. Exceptions to this practice might be caused by 

the unavailability of city matching funds, future projects that may encompass the selected location, a 

grouping of proximate locations into one project, or combining several smaller projects for a total net 

return larger than another single project. Projects on County Roads and other roadways are selected by 

local units of government. These projects are subject to approval by the Federal Highway Administration 

and are administered by KDOT.

Lighting sub-program:

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

was established in FY 2000. Projects are selected by the Bureau of Transportation Safety & Technology 

(BTS&T) based on the roadway's volume and the potential for night-time crash history. This program is 

limited to projects which are not included under any other KDOT program. Projects are scheduled until 

the available lighting funds are exhausted. This is the tenth year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve 

lighting.

Pavement Marking sub-program: 

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

pending new federal requirements for minimum retro-reftectivity of pavement markings. Improvements in 

this category utilize high-performance, long-life pavement marking materials. Efforts are also made to 

identify those marking materials with wet-weather retro-reftectivity. This program is limited to projects that 

do not have high-performance markings included under any other KDOT program. Projects are selected 

by the BTS&T based upon a roadway's traffic volumes, past performance of marking material, geometry, 
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

surface condition, surface type, crash history, and, in the case of new marking materials, the research 

benefit. This is the tenth year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve pavement markings.

Signing sub-program:

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

System due to pending (now final) federal requirements for minimum retro-reftectivity of highway signs. 

This program schedules sign replacements based upon highway route-mileage statewide and the total 

mileage of all the routes in each District Sub-Area with multiple Sub-Areas in each District being 

addressed each year. This program excludes signs on any other state project that include sign 

replacement for that highway route in the same year. This program also excludes any signs that were 

replaced within seven years of the scheduled date of the replacement project. This is the eighth year 

KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve permanent signing. The projects in the program are administered 

using two separate methods. Sub-Areas comprised primarily of routes classified as freeways and 

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

that are classified as expressways and conventional roads are administered by releasing contracts to 

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

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

regardless of route classification within some Sub-Areas.

HRRR sub-program:

This program focuses on low-cost safety improvements at site-specific locations and systematiic 

improvements to signing, pavement marking, roadsides, and horizontal curves. A scoring rubric is used to 

rank applications. 

General Safety Improvement sub-program:

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). As a pilot KDOT developed a program that directed up to 

$6,000,000 of HSIP funds to projects that were selected using a new system that combines quantitative 

safety analysis and prediction (IHSDM) with District input. The goal was to distribute these funds 

throughout the state and address spot locations, like individual curves, intersections, or short tangent 

sections that were identified with tools developed for the Transparency Report. Moreover the hope is that 

the program can help address locations that demonstrate a potential safety issue but have not been 

addressed through traditional KDOT funding programs. This program has not received additional funding 

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

contract which is why the program continues to be included in this report.
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 17921822 100 % 18074891 86 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 2841589 14 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

0 0 % 25431 0 %

State and Local Funds
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Totals 17921822 100% 20941911 100%

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

33 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$5,640,038.00

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

0 %

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

0 %

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

period?

$0.00
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Signing sub-program:The FY15 program is a continuation of the FY13 program.Projects identified and 

obligated required additional funding above the allotment allocated to signing under the FY13 program. 

The decision was made to delay construction lettings and the purchase of materials for several projects. 

New project-level obligations are not shown in the HSIP annual report for FY15, since the obligations 

were previously shown in the FY13 report. It is anticipated many project-level obligations will be shown 

in next year's report.

HRRR sub-program: Project programming and design time requirements. Plan to overcome by selecting 

three year's worth of projects and programming projects with a potentially longer design period in later 

years.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Nothing to note at this time.
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Projec

t

Improvemen

t Category 

Output HSIP Cost Total Cost Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AADT Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

C0051-

01

Alignment 

Horizontal 

and vertical 

alignment

0.22 

Miles

1500000 2494259 HRRRP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

Rural Major 

Collector

1700 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

C1183-

01

Alignment 

Vertical 

alignment or 

elevation 

change

0.12 

Miles

144823 161494 HRRRP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

Rural Major 

Collector

117 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

C4595-

01

Roadside 

Removal of 

roadside 

objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

0.69 

Miles

1003447 116203 HRRRP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

Rural Major 

Collector

4608 60 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

C0314-

01

Roadside 

Removal of 

roadside 

objects 

0.39 

Miles

272762 303241 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

141 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

C4633-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

197 

Miles

211362 211362 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

C4634-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

115 

Miles

116500 116500 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

C4635-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

152 

Miles

84834 84834 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

post) - new 

or updated

C4636-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

87.5 

Miles

78808 78808 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

C4637-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

37.3 

Miles

63000 73020 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

C4638-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

14 Miles 23531 50196 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

post) - new 

or updated

C4640-

01

Roadside 

Removal of 

roadside 

objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

3 Miles 498750 554259 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4779 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

C4672-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

275.5 

Miles

190000 190000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

C4689-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

53 Miles 50620 50620 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

KA2770-

02

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 

Number

s

1900000 4895875.0

9

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2400 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

KA3074-

01

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Number

s

850000 1290963 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

5800 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

N0578-

01

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Number

s

73249.03 263351.66 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

N0586-

01

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

right-turn 

lane

1 

Number

s

330000 546297.07 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

U0168-Intersection 

traffic 

2 

Number

450000 513351.39 HSIP 

(Section 

Urban 

Principal 

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Intersection
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

01 control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

s 148) Arterial -

Other

Highway 

Agency

s

KA3967-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

355043.59 355043.59 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

5088

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

KA4019-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

130474.99 130474.99 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

5330 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

KA4020-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

1549355.1

5

1549355.1

5

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1059

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

KA4017-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

7.781 

Miles

64197.55 64197.55 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1540 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA4018-Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

8.49 

Miles

32829.16 32829.16 HSIP 

(Section 

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1280 65 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

01 pavement 

markings -

remarking

148) Agency

KA4027-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

12.591 

Miles

3180 164763.1 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3180 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA4140-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

18.797 

Miles

1091000 1091000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1670

0

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA4146-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

5.97 

Miles

230050 230050 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1760

0

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA4147-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

5.488 

Miles

201025 201025 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1770

0

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

remarking

KA4150-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

6.589 

Miles

107500 107500 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5350 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA4157-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

17.152 

Miles

763000 763000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1820

0

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA4158-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

2.839 

Miles

74000 74000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2030

0

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA4160-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

0.675 

Miles

35500 35500 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8840 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

KA4169-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

5.579 

Miles

150000 150000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

6610 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA4173-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

7.036 

Miles

419000 419000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4160 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA0004-

01

Alignment 

Horizontal 

and vertical 

alignment

1 

Number

s

2784705 3290047 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

920 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

KA3143-

01

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Number

s

250000 483223 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

KA3646-

01

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface -

high friction 

0.2 

Miles

115424 128248 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

high 

friction 

surface 
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

surface Interstate treatment

s
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 417 401 398 392 391

Number of serious injuries 1731 1700 1655 1603 1503

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.39 1.33 1.31 1.3 1.27

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.79 5.66 5.43 5.31 4.89

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

37
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

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

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

22 92 0.66 2.75

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

7 14 0.56 1.1

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

78 176 2.47 5.56

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

47 132 2.07 5.82

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

8 28 2.25 7.94

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

51 158 1.86 5.8

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

60 162 3.45 9.34

URBAN PRINCIPAL 23 133 0.59 3.43
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

13 59 0.73 3.28

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

28 212 1.63 12.4

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

26 159 0.66 4.08

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

8 50 0.41 2.47

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

20 129 0.85 5.56
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 210 694 1.2 3.96

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 182 811 1.38 6.14

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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

Overall, based on five-year averages, fatalities are down nine percent from 2008 to 2014. On the State 

Highway System fatalities are down 15 percent. However, on locally-owned roads fatalities are 

essentially unchanged. Similarly, serious injuries are down 17 percent overall, 20 percent on state 

highways, while only 13 percent on locally-owned roads since 2008. The trend on locally-owned roads is 

discouraging and indicates more attention should be focused on the 93 percent of our public roads 

owned by cities, counties, and townships.

The goal in our Strategic Highway Safety Plan is to cut in half fatalities and serious injuries between 2009 

and 2029. In 2009 our five-year fatality average was 416, meaning we need to be at 364 by 2014. We are 

at 391. In 2009 our five-year serious injury average was 1763, meaning we need to be at 1542 by 2014. 

We are at 1503. In summary, we are ahead of pace in serious injuries and behind pace in fatalities. Of 

course, the vision in our SHSP is zeros, across the board.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.418 0.432 0.4 0.428 0.456

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.908 0.874 0.892 0.87 0.874

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

1.33 1.31 1.296 1.302 1.334

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

Fatality rate per capita per year equals total number of older drivers and pedestrians (65+) killed based 

on FARS data, divided by the state population figured for Kansas provided in the guidance.

Serious injury rate per capita per year equals total number of older drivers and pedestrians (65+) 

seriously injured based on the state crash database, divided by the state population figured for Kansas 

provided in the guidance.

Fatality and serious injury rate per capita per year equals the fatality rate plus the serious injury rate.
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

The rates per capita per year are then averaged over five years. For example, the 5-yr average for 2010 

equals the average of the five years 2006 thru 2010. 

Here is the data we used, followed by the calculations:

Year Fatals DisabledTotal

State 

Population 

Figure

2006 74 105 179 129

2007 47 120 167 129

2008 47 109 156 131

2009 50 108 158 130

2010 65 129 194 133

2011 55 120 175 133

2012 68 113 181 137

2013 70 119 189 140

2010 ((179/129)+(167/129)+(156/131)+(158/130)+(194/133))/5 1.309408 1.3

2011 ((167/129)+(156/131)+(158/130)+(194/133)+(175/133))/5 1.295047 1.3

2012 ((156/131)+(158/130)+(194/133)+(175/133)+(181/137))/5 1.300366 1.3

2013 ((158/130)+(194/133)+(175/133)+(181/137)+(189/140))/5 1.332198 1.3
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-We continue to transition to a data-based distribution of HSIP dollars.

Other: Other-Scoring rubric used to objectively evalute projects on locally-owned roads.

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

A scoring rubric was developed to help rank projects in the High Risk Rural Roads (Local Safety) subprogram:

Points

Past Project 10 None

7 Obligated 2009

6 Obligated 2010

5 Obligated 2011

4 Obligated 2012

3 Obligated 2013

2 Obligated 2014

1 Obligated 2015

0 Obligated 2016

Statewide Distribution 10 <3%

9 <6%

8 <9%District 3 - 9 projects 6.1%

7 <12%

6 <15%District 4 - 20 projects 13.6%

5 <18%District 1 - 22 projects 15.0%

4 <21%

District 2 - 28 projects 19.0%

District 5 - 29 projects 19.7%

3 <24%

2 <27%District 6 - 39 projects 26.5%

1 >27%

Submittal 10 1 Project - Plan

9 2 Projects

8 3 Projects

7 4 Projects

6 5 Projects

5 6 Projects

4 7 Projects

3 8 Projects

2 9 Projects

1 10 Projects

Type 10 LRSP

0 Anything Else

Proposed FY 3 2016

2 2017

1 2018

0 Not Specified

Roadway Type 10 Major Collector
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

5 Minor Collector

0 Local Road

Low-Cost 10 <50k

9 <100k

8 <150k

7 <200k

6 <250k

5 <300k

4 <350k

3 <400k

2 <450k

1 <500k

0 >=500k

Length Miles/100 LRSP assumed 500 miles

Crashes Crashes/Yr
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure 234 729 0.76 2.37 0 0 0

Intersections 89 452 0.29 1.47 0 0 0

Pedestrians 22 70 0.07 0.23 0 0 0

Bicyclists 4 27 0.01 0.09 0 0 0

Older Drivers 87 229 0.28 0.75 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 44 216 0.14 0.7 0 0 0

Work Zones 6 44 0.02 0.14 0 0 0

Occupant Protection 167 350 0.54 1.14 0 0 0

Teen Drivers 50 283 0.16 0.92 0 0 0

Impaired Driving 148 288 0.48 0.94 0 0 0

Large Commercial 

Vehicles

65 136 0.21 0.44 0 0 0
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2014

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-Lighting Night-time 160 471 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

It remains our intent to develop performance measures for each of these HSIP sub-programs in 

preparation for next year's report. This will be in concert with completing new "white papers" for each 

eligible sub-program, and be driven by our SHSP which includes reallocation of HSIP funding as a key 

strategy for the emphasis areas intersections and roadway departure. As an example, three of these 

programs (lighting, pavement marking, and signing) can be measured by wet-weather and/or nighttime 

crashes. Data can be shown to demonstrate a positive trend in each of these areas.
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

None NA
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2015 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location 

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data 

are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance dated 

February 13, 2013. 

Performance measure means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor 

changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives.

Programmed funds mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.

Roadway Functional Classification means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into 

classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety 

data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systemic safety improvement means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk 

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal 

year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.