California

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: CA

 

 

 
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 .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 4

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

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 21

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 21

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 25

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 26

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 26

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 42

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................46

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 47

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 53

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 59

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 66

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 68
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or “MAP–21” (Pub. L. 112–141, 126 

Stat. 405), was signed into law July 6, 2012, and continued the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) as a core program under title 23 United States Code section 148 to reduce 

fatalities and injuries on all public roadways. Title 23 United States Code section 148(h) requires 

each state to submit an annual report to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding 

its HSIP implementation and effectiveness and title 23 Code of Federal Regulations sections 

924.15(a)(1) and 924.15(a)(2) specify that the report be submitted no later than August 31 of 

each year.

This annual report describes the progress being made to implement projects and the status of 

program evaluations for the HSIP as described in Title 23 United States Code section 148, and 

for High-Risk Rural Roads (HR3) (23 U.S.C. § 148(g)). The Railway-Highway Crossings (23 

U.S.C. § 130(g)) report is submitted to FHWA directly by the California Public Utility 

Commission as a separate report.

Under the “MAP–21” (Pub. L. 112–141, July 6, 2012; 126 Stat. 405), the High-Risk Rural Roads 

program was merged into the HSIP for safety improvements on public rural roadways that meet 

the functional classification requirements of title 23 United States Code section 148(a)(1). In 

addition to the above, in accordance with title 23 United States Code section 164 repeat 

intoxicated transfer funds, approximately $35.21million was obligated for alcohol impaired 

driving countermeasures. These funds will be used to support the California Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan.

Caltrans' Division of Traffic Operations provided information on the State Highway System 

(SHS) for this report, and Caltrans' Division of Local Assistance for local roads and the HR3 

Program. Caltrans implements the HSIP for State highways by programming and funding 

projects in the Collision Reduction Category, one of eight categories that make up the State 

Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The Collision Reduction Category is 

further divided into two programs: Safety Improvement, and Collision Severity Reduction. The 

Safety Improvement Program is among Caltrans’ top priorities in the SHOPP and as a result, all 

projects that meet the criteria for the Safety Improvement Program are funded. These criteria 

include a benefit-cost analysis. The projects evaluated in this report are funded by the Collision 

Reduction Category, which includes both federal HSIP and State highway funds.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

2 

Caltrans uses the Transportation System Network (TSN) database to identify locations with 

significantly high collision concentrations. The identified locations are systematically 

investigated to determine probable causes of the collisions in order to implement effective 

countermeasures to improve safety. Other locations identified for investigation and possible 

implementation of countermeasures are generated from three Monitoring Programs: Cross 

Median Collision, Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collision, and Wrong Way Collision. 

Nearly 2,468 traffic safety investigations were processed between 01-01-2014 and 12-31-2014. 

 In addition, 528 “Other Safety” investigations were processed. These safety related 

investigations were not generated by TSN but by citizens’ calls, letters, emails, etc. Finally, as 

of February, 2012, Caltrans has implemented a 5-year “California Roadway Departure Safety 

Implementation Plan” which identified over 7,000 locations for possible low cost 

countermeasures to systematically implement on many state highways in an effort to reduce 

roadway departure crashes. 

For this year's reporting period, the most recent ten-year data available was for 2003 to 2012. 

During the 2012 calendar year, 1,049 fatal collisions, 47,426 injury collisions, and 90,182 

property-damage-only (PDO) collisions were reported on the SHS. Caltrans estimates that these 

collisions resulted in losses of approximately $20.6 billion.

The HSIP and other State programs have made highways safer through the implementation of 

highway safety projects. This fact is evident from the fatality rate trends. Between 2003 and 

2012, the fatality rate on all State highways has decreased 38 percent. For the same period, the 

fatality rate on freeways decreased 40 percent, and on non-freeways it decreased 32 percent. 

During the same period, the annual travel increased by 0.2 percent on all highways. The annual 

travel on freeways increased 1.8 percent, and on non-freeways it decreased by 6.8 percent. 

Freeway travel in 2012 accounts for 82.9 percent of travel on the SHS even though freeway road 

miles account for only 29 percent of the SHS.

The reductions in fatality rates have been accomplished by implementing safety projects. Many 

other improvements such as tree trimming, restriping, or installing warning signs that were 

requested by Traffic Operations staff and performed by Maintenance staff in the districts also 

contributed to improved safety. During FY 2014/15, there were 61 Major and Minor-A safety 

projects awarded at a cost of $100.85 million. All of these project types are consistent with one 

or more of the 17 challenge areas identified in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP).

The effectiveness of the State HSIP was measured by comparing collision data before and after 

safety improvements were implemented at project sites. These projects have been completed 

between 7/1/2010 and 6/30/2011. Three years of collision data before project implementation 

was compared with three years of collision data after project implementation. A total of 78 

projects were considered in the evaluation. Analysis of collision data was based on 110 highway 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

locations as some of the projects contained more than one highway location. The cost of 

implementing these projects was $119.4 million. The annual savings, in terms of reductions in 

collision frequency and severity, was estimated at $78.3 million. This translates to a savings of 

$1565.2 million or a benefit-cost ratio of 13.1 to1, assuming a project life of 20 years.

A set of 4 performance measures were calculated for California highways including state and 

local roads. The performance measures were defined as 5 year rolling average of collision 

frequencies and collision rates for each of the five years, 2008 thru 2012. These performance 

measures are: 1) the number of fatalities, 2) the number of fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle 

Mile of Travel (MVMT), 3) the number of persons severely injured, and, 4) the number of 

persons severely injured per 100 MVMT. The data used to derive the rolling averages is from 

2003 to 2012. The rolling averages show a decreasing trend, indicating improvement in road 

safety on California state and local roads. 

MAP-21 is putting focus in certain areas such as older driver and pedestrian fatalities and severe 

injury rates per capita. Comparison of the 5 year rolling averages for older driver and pedestrian 

fatal + injury are done for two time periods, 2006-2008 and 2008-2012. The most recent data 

available was for 2012. Using these two time periods, the moving averages for fatal + injury 

show a downward trend and therefore the implementation of the special rule as set by MAP 21 

does not apply. The data are from all roadways in the state, not just the State Highway System.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

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. 

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) uses an HSIP application benefit-cost tool to 

provide a consistent, data-driven methodology for ranking local roadway (non-State owned and 

operated) project applications on a statewide basis. This tool was developed by the DLA in 

conjunction with the University of California, Berkeley, Safe Transportation Research and 

Education Center. The DLA HSIP also provides the Local Roadway Safety Manual for 

California local road owners and directly incorporates UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury 

Mapping System website to assist applicants applying for local HSIP funds. These tools and 

resources encourage local agencies to proactively analyze their roadway networks for the highest 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

crash locations and develop and submit applications with the greatest chance of reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries. 

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Headquarters Traffic Safety and Mobility Program, in partnership with 12 district 

offices, plans safety projects on the state highway system. Caltrans Division of Local Assistance in 

conjunction with local agencies, plans projects on local roads.

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

On the State Highway System, the Traffic Safety and Mobility Program in Headquarters within 

the Division of Traffic Operations works with the 12 Caltrans district offices to develop Project 

Initiation Documents to program projects. For local roads, Caltrans Division of Local Assistance 

(DLA) staff manage the local agency share of HSIP funds in conjunction with its local agency 

partners. The DLA prepares the HSIP guidelines and solicits project applications from local 

agencies.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Caltrans has been working with 400 stakeholders from 170 public & private agencies to 

develop CA-SHSP. Projects developed are consistent with SHSP strategies. Caltrans’ DLA with local 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

agencies are involved in planning projects on local roads.

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-The California Local HSIP Advisory Committee was established. This is an action 

oriented committee of transportation safety stakeholders which supports the goal to reduce fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public roadways in California. 

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

would like to elaborate. 

Eligibility of HSIP funds under MAP-21 now includes more flexibility in the types of projects 

and States are no longer required to certify they have met various safety infrastructure needs in 

order to fund non-infrastructure projects. An HSIP project is now any strategy, activity or 

infrastructure and non-infrastructure types of project on a public road that is consistent with the 

State's data-driven Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and must support the State’s safety 

performance targets. HSIP continues to focus on significantly reducing traffic fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads. HSIP also continues to require a data-driven, strategic 

approach to improving highway safety on all public roads. 

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-2 & 3 Ln Cross 

Centerline Collision Monitoring 

Pro

Other: Other-Wrong-Way 

Monitoring Report

Other: Other-Local Roads 

Program

 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/1977

 

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? 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

8 

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 

Other-Any project that meets the established median barrier criteria for project selection is 

programmed
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

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 

Collision and volume warrants 

=100 percent. Safety 

improvement projects are 

Department’s top priority. All 

District recommended and HQ 

approved safety improvement 

projects should have PID 

documents completed as soon as 

practicable.

100

 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/2004

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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-Fatal and injury crashes 

on Wet Pavement 

Other-Fatal & injury crashes 

resulting in Overturned Vehicle 

Other-see the optional 

description 

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-see the optional description for this question
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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 

Other-see the optional description for this question

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 

100% top 25% of runoff-road concentration locations 100

with higher scores +100% of 

identified long segments selected 

based on collision frequency, 

roadway type, geometric 

characteristics and traffic 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

volume. 

Program: Other-2 & 3 Ln Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring Pro

Date of Program Methodology: 1/15/1985

 

 

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-See optional 

description pertaining to this 

subprogram

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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-All projects meeting established criteria programmed

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
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Crash frequency and rate 100

 

Program: Other-Wrong-Way Monitoring Report

Date of Program Methodology: 1/15/1985

 

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

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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-Any identified location that meets the established criteria is programmed for implementation

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 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Crash Frequency and crash 

rate

100

 

Program: Other-Local Roads Program

Date of Program Methodology: 9/3/2010

 

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 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

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-Collision History (5 years minimum), Collision Reduction Factors, Life of Improvement, Project 

Costs

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.

HSIP application benefit-cost tool started with Cycle 4 “call for projects” in Fall 2010

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

selection committee

Other-HSIP Application Benefit-Cost Tool

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 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Competitive application 

process

With respect to the subprogram for the Roadway Departure subprogram, two approaches are 

utilized to identify locations for investigation, namely the conventional approach and the 

systemic approach. In the conventional approach 7 criteria including F+I crashes per year per 

mile, F/(F+I), shoulder width, collisions in darkness, on wet pavement, and overturned vehicle 

collisions are used to develop a list of run-off-road collision concentrations. Top 25% of 

locations with high collision concentration from this list are selected for further field 

investigations. Additionally, a systematic approach is used involving deploying a relatively high 

number of low-cost countermeasures at longer segments of roadway selected based on crash 

history, roadway type, geometry, volume, benefit/cost using collision modification factors, etc.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Regarding 2 and 3 Lane Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring subprogram, the collisions 

considered for selection of locations for investigation are cross-centerline, head-on fatal 

collisions without left turn, and U-turn related collisions. Headquarters staff, use the statistics for 

fatality, fatality rate, and total collisions per mile to evaluate the locations meeting the selection 

criteria.

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

10

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

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 Other-Median Barrier (see optional 

description)

There is no set aside proportion of HSIP funds to addresses systemic improvements. Funding for 

median barrier projects varies annually depending on the number of projects proposed. 

Approximately 10 to 20% of the HSIP projects total cost are expended on median barrier 

projects.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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: Other-New, increased collision costs are used to prioritize projects and develop cost/benefit 

analysis. 

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

would like to elaborate. 

1) Caltrans is currently undertaking a research project to develop safety performance functions 

for highways, intersections and ramps to be used in the Safety Analyst system which is 

consistent with the methodology in Highway Safety Manual (Type-I & Type-II performance 

functions). The goal is to replace the existing Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis 

System (TASAS) with Safety Analyst. 

2) A comprehensive set of Performance Functions for various road types, intersections and 

ramps are being developed that will impact our identification of locations with high collision 

concentrations.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

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) 100847353 100 % 134981470 100 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU)

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer 

Section 164

–

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other 

Funds 

Federal-aid 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Other *****see the 

Optional Description

0 0 % 0 0 %

Totals 100847353 100% 134981470 100%

1. Please see the attached files to question 17. We were not able to provide programmed 

funds for all categories. Due to functional limitation of ORT, data had to be provided as 

an attachment to this question. 

2. In reporting the obligated funds for last year’s HSIP (SFY 2013-14), Caltrans Division of 

Budgets provided inaccurate numbers. The correct values for 2013-14 are:

HSIP: $128,622,808

HRRRP: $7,562,233

Penalty Transfer:$28,675,480

Other Federal-aid Funds: $21,674,805

3. Funding summary provided by the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance are:

HSIP Dollars Programmed in FFY 14/15 under 2015 FTIP as of 6/30/15 $98,389,649 

HSIP Dollars Obligated (Construction Authorization Date: 7/1/14 to 6/30/15) $55,462,990 

Percent HSIP Dollars Obligated 56.37%

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

$98,389,649.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$55,462,990.00
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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

$35,208,515.00

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

$35,208,515.00

We have been able to provide the obligated funds for various categories listed in the table for 

question 17, but unable to specify the programming funds for the various categories except the 

HSIP (section 148) category. The obligated funds of $35,208,515 was for Section 164 repeat 

intoxicated transfer funds for alcohol impaired driving countermeasures. In order to be able to 

complete the question to satisfy the ORT functionality issue, we assumed the same value 

($35,208,515) for programming.

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

period?

$0.00

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

period? 

$0.00
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

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

overcome this in the future. 

The following are changes that were recently implemented (Local HSIP Cycle 7 application period, 

4/7/15 – 7/31/15) to improve the selection, funding and timely delivery of quality safety projects.

• Increase the maximum Local HSIP funds per Agency and per project application to $10 

million, so that complete projects can be funded by HSIP. 

• Application of 23 USC, Section 120(c)(1) for 100% federal funding for Local HSIP 

projects, which includes low-cost, proven safety countermeasures that can be delivered in 

a timely manner.

• Require incremental approach, using lower cost and lower impact countermeasures 

(signing, striping upgrades, rumble strips) and evaluating their effectiveness on safety, 

before moving to higher cost and higher impact countermeasures (road widening, 

improving horizontal/vertical alignments and curve realignment projects). 

For Local HSIP Cycle 6 projects, which are funded at 90% federal funds and minimum 10% local match, 

provide incentive for early project delivery using toll credits to cover 10% local match.

Also, a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Program has been developed, which will be made 

available to local agencies to provide a comprehensive systemic safety analysis of their roadways and 

intersections. The SSAR will assist local agencies in addressing safety issues on their roadway networks 

and help them prepare for future HSIP applications. The SSAR will focus on low-cost, proven safety 

countermeasures that can be delivered in a timely manner. 

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification 

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

See Optional 

Description 

Access 

management 

Median crossover 

- close crossover

Miles HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector 

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Two excel files are provided as attachments to this question. One file provides the list of projects on the state highways that are 

awarded in State Fiscal Year 2014-15. The second file provided by the Division of Local Assistance includes the list of projects on 

local roads. 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

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* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 4024.4 3818.4 3495.8 3211 3005.2

Number of serious injuries 12981.4 12339.6 11791.4 11295 10841.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.22 1.16 1.07 0.99 0.93

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.95 3.76 3.6 3.47 3.34

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

27
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

A set of 4 performance measures were calculated for California highways including the state and 

local roads. The performance measures were defined as 5 year rolling average of collision 

frequencies and collision rates for each of the five years, 2008 thru 2012. These performance 

measures are: 1) the number of fatalities, 2) the number of fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle 

Mile of Travel (MVMT), 3) the number of persons severely injured, and, 4) the number of 

persons severely injured per 100 MVMT. The data used to derive the rolling averages is from 

2003 to 2012. The rolling averages show a decreasing trend, indicating improvement in road 

safety on California's state and local roads. 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

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

Year - 2012

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

308 8651 1.75 49.08

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

248 6409 2.54 65.22

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

1 21 0.05 0.78

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

26 694 0.27 7.1

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 504 44897 0.74 66.02
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

75 5553 0.14 10.32

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

76 7637 0.13 12.83

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

29 1270 0.06 2.59

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

3 178 0.02 0.96

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

0 2 0 0.01
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 3005.2 10841.2 0.93 3.34

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 0 0 0 0

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

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY (FREEWAYS) 0 0 0 0
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY (NON-FREEWAYS) 0 0 0 0

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY (ALL-HIGHWAYS) 0 0 0 0
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

1. The most recent calendar data available to us was for 2012. 

2. The classification “Major Collector” in urban area in Caltrans data is specified as “Collector”.

3. Note that Caltrans currently does not compile collision data for severe injury as a separate category. However, the data is available for 3 

levels of injuries (i.e., severe injury, visible injury, and complaint of pain) combined. Therefore, the input data in ORT columns for severe 

injury and severe injury rate are in fact for injury and injury rate. 

4. For this Fiscal Year reporting period, we developed the travel data for road classifications listed in ORT. The travel data are specific to 

each of the road classifications and are for state highways (travel data on specific local roads not available). 

5. The data input for the“State Highway Agency” in Part-2 (Roadway Ownership) of this question are for state and local roads.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

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

For this year reporting period, the most recent ten-year data was available for 2003 to 2012.

During the 2012 calendar year, 1,049 fatal collisions, 47,426 injury collisions, and 90,182 

property-damage-only (PDO) collisions were reported on the SHS. Caltrans estimates that these 

collisions resulted in losses of approximately $20.6 billion.

The HSIP and other State programs have made highways safer through the implementation of 

highway safety projects. This fact is evident from the fatality rate trends. Between 2003 and 

2012, the fatality rate on all State highways has decreased 38 percent. For the same period, the 

fatality rate on freeways decreased 40 percent, and on non-freeways it decreased 32 percent.

During the same period, the annual travel increased by 0.2 percent on all highways. The annual 

travel on freeways increased 1.8 percent, and on non-freeways it decreased by 6.8 percent.

Freeway travel in 2012 accounts for 82.9 percent of travel on the SHS even though freeway road 

miles account for only 29 percent of the SHS.

The reductions in fatality rates have been accomplished by implementing safety projects. Many 

other improvements such as tree trimming, restriping, or installing warning signs that were 

requested by Traffic Operations staff and performed by Maintenance staff in the districts also 

contributed to improved safety. During FY 2014/15, there were 61 Major and Minor-A safety 

projects awarded at a cost of $100.85 million. All of these project types are consistent with one 

or more of the 17 challenge areas identified in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP).

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)

5.132 4.894 4.71 4.836 4.826

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

216.634 210.478 206.658 206.084 206.628

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

221.766 215.37 211.366 210.918 211.45

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

43

Calculation: 

1. Calculate 5 year average F+I per capita for 2013 

F+I collisions for Driver & Pedestrian (65 yr. and older) for 2009 to 2013 denoted as X9, 

X10, X11, X12, X13. Corresponding Population denoted as P9, P10, P11, P12, P13

2. F+I per capita 2009-2013 denoted as: X9/P9, X10/P10, X/11/P11, X12/P12, X13/P13 

Five Yr. Avg. F+I per capita for 2013 = (X9/P9+X10/P10+ X/11/P11+ 

X12/P12+X13/P13)/5= (210.59+ 211.64+211.28+ 210.05+213.69)/5 =211.45

3. Similarly, 5 Yr. Avg. F+I per capita for 2011 = (X7/P7+ X8/P8 + 

X9/P9+X10/P10+X11/P11)/5 = (211.28+210.05+213.69+207.93+213.88)/5= 211.37

4. Compare 2011 to 2013: = (211.45-211.37)/211.37= 0.0% *

*Per the Special Rule, all rates should be calculated to the hundredths after the decimal point and 

then rounded to the nearest tenths.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

1) The actual calculation is described in the main window for this question. 

2) Please note that the data for severe injury in the table of performance measure was not available. 

We used the data for all injuries (severe + visible + complaint of pain) instead so the default plots 

produced by ORT do not show erroneous and confusing results. 

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

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: Other-Benefit cost derived based on changes in the number of fatal, injury and PDO collsions

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: 

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

The safety work related to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) & HSIP are now under the 

same office.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Work Zones Maintence & Veh 

Accidents

55 156 0.02 0.05 0 0 0

Reduce Impaired 

Driving-Related Fatalities

DUI 1568 3179 0.48 0.98 0 0 0

Reduce Occurrance & 

Conseq of Leaving 

Roadway & Head-On Colli

Head-on & Run-offroad843 2560 0.26 0.49 0 0 0

Increase Use of Safety 

Belts and Child Safety 

Seats

occupants injury 630 1287 0.19 0.4 0 0 0

Improve Driver Decisions 

about Rights-of-Way and 

Turning

All 698 2355 0.21 0.72 0 0 0

Reduce Young Driver 

Fatalities

Speed-related 476 2134 0.15 0.66 0 0 0

Improve Intersection and Intersection 575 2571 0.18 0.79 0 0 0
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

Interchange Safety Accidents

Make Walking and Street 

Crossing Safer

Vehicle/pedestrian 644 1673 0.2 0.51 0 0 0

Improve Safety for Older 

Roadway Users

Vehicle/pedestrian 559 1389 0.17 0.43 0 0 0

Reduce Speeding and 

Aggressive Driving

Speed-related 476 1985 0.15 0.61 0 0 0

Improve Commercial 

Vehicle Safety

Truck-related 301 627 0.09 0.19 0 0 0

Improve Motorcycle 

Safety

Motorcycle 

accidents

426 2000 0.13 0.61 0 0 0

Improve Bicycle Safety Vehicle/bicycle 127 917 0.04 0.28 0 0 0
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

ORT does not have the capability to plot the data for performance measure added by the users. ORT plots data only for default PMs 

that are defined originally in ORT. Work Zone was an ORT defined PM and the data for this challenge area was plotted. The 

remaining challenge areas are user's defined and specific to Caltrans and therefore not plotted.

The data for challenge areas were retrieved from SafeTREC, UC Berkeley. For this year HSIP report, the fatalities and severe injuries 

were available by victim counts as opposed to collision counts. In developing the performance measure, we revised the analysis for 

this report to develop the 5 year rolling averages based victim counts of fatalities and severe injuries.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program Types Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Other-2 & 3 Ln Cross 

Centerline Collision 

Monitoring Pro

Cross 

median

157 4054.4 0.97 25 0 0 0

Roadway Departure Run-offroad

197.2 3986.8 0.15 2.88 0 0 0

Other-Local Roads 

Program

All 500 20000 2 60 0 0 0

Median Barrier Cross 

median

25.4 181.2 0.02 0.12 0 0 0

Other-Wrong-Way 

Monitoring Report

Head on 27.8 208.2 0.02 0.14 0 0 0
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

 

1. Local Road Program is specified as a subprogram due to ORT functionality limitations. We specified it as a subprogram so 

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance can report on their program. The performance measures values for only this subprogram 

are fictitious values so that ORT allows us to show the local roads as a subprogram. The progress for the local road program is 

reported in a separate attachment to question 23.

2. The data provided in the table of performance measures for the 5 subprograms are not plotted. This is due to ORT limitations 

where, only the performance measures that are defined by ORT are plotted. 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

3. Also, note that Caltrans currently does not compile collision data for severe injury as a separate category. However, the data is 

available for 3 levels of injuries (i.e., severe injury, visible injury, and complaint of pain) combined. Therefore, the 

performance measures were developed for injury as a whole. The values shown for severe injury columns in this question 

represent the 3 levels of injuries combined.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

59 

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2012

Systemic improvement Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Other-Median Barrier (see 

optional description)

Cross 

median

25.4 181.2 0.02 0.12 0 0 0
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

 

Caltrans currently does not compile collision data for severe injury as a separate category. However, the data is available for 3 levels 

of injuries (i.e., severe injury, visible injury, and complaint of pain) combined. Therefore, the performance measures were developed 

for injury as a whole. The values shown for severe injury columns in this question represent the 3 levels of injuries combined.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

The most recent annual collision data available was for 2012. Caltrans implements the HSIP for 

State highways by programming and funding projects in the Collision Reduction Category, one 

of eight categories that make up the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). 

The Collision Reduction Category is further divided into two programs: Safety Improvement, 

and Collision Severity Reduction. The Safety Improvement Program is among Caltrans’ top 

priorities in the SHOPP and as a result, all projects that meet the criteria for the Safety 

Improvement Program are funded. These criteria include a benefit-cost analysis. The projects 

evaluated in this report include all projects funded by the Collision Reduction Category, which 

includes both federal HSIP and State highway funds.

Caltrans uses the Transportation System Network database to identify locations with 

significantly high collision concentrations. The identified locations are systematically 

investigated to determine probable causes of the collisions in order to implement effective 

countermeasures to improve safety. Other locations identified for investigation and possible 

implementation of countermeasures are generated from three Monitoring Programs: Cross 

Median Collision, Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collision, and Wrong Way Collision. 

Nearly 2,468 traffic safety investigations were processed between 01-01-2014 and 12-31-2014. 

In addition, 528 “Other Safety” investigations were processed. These safety related 

investigations, were not generated by TASAS but by citizens' calls, letters, emails, etc. Finally, 

as of February, 2012, Caltrans has implemented a 5-year “California Roadway Departure Safety 

Implementation Plan” which identified over 7,000 locations for possible low cost 

countermeasures to systematically implement on many state highways in an effort to reduce 

roadway departure crashes. 

The reductions in fatality rates have been accomplished by implementing safety projects. Many 

other improvements such as tree trimming, restriping, or installing warning signs that were 

requested by Traffic Operations staff and performed by Maintenance staff in the districts also 

contributed to improved safety. During FY 2014/15, there were 61 Major and Minor-A safety 

projects awarded at a cost of $100.85 million. All of these project types are consistent with one 

or more of the 17 challenge areas identified in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP).

The effectiveness of the State HSIP was measured by comparing collision data before and after 

safety improvements were implemented at project sites. These projects have been completed 

between 7/1/2010 and 6/30/2011. Three years of collision data before project implementation 

was compared with three years of collision data after project implementation. A total of 78 

projects were considered in the evaluation. Analysis of collision data was based on 110 highway 

locations as some of the projects contained more than one highway location. The cost of 
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

implementing these projects was $119.4 million. The annual savings, in terms of reductions in 

collision frequency and severity, was estimated at $78.3 million. This translates to a savings of 

$1565.2 million or a benefit-cost ratio of 13.1 to1, assuming a project life of 20 years.
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

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)

Response 

is 

optional. 

ORT 

requires 

one row. 

Info is 

fictitious 

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

Intersection 

geometry

widening 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 10
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: Funds 

Programmed

1) Attach-Q17-HSIP-ORT.xlsx

Progress in Implementing Projects: General Listing 

of Projects

2) Attach-Q23-LOCAL HSIP-ORT.xlsx

Progress in Implementing Projects: General Listing 

of Projects

5) Attach-Q23-State-HSIP-2015-ORT.xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Overview of General Safety Trends

2) Attach-Q23-State-HSIP-2015-ORT.xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Overview of General Safety Trends

2) Attach-Q23-LOCAL HSIP-ORT.xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): Groups of 

similar project types

4) Attach-Q33-HSIP 2015-ORT.xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): Systemic 

Treatments

5) Attach-Q34-HSIP 2015-ORT.xlsx
2015 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

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.