Page 1 of 29

IOWA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 29

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 9

Funds Programmed........................................................................................................................... 9

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................11

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................12

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................12

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................19

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................20

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................20

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................20

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................24

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................25
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 29

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.”
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 29

Executive Summary

Progress continues to be made toward implementing a more data-informed approach for identifying locations 

and potential countermeasures for safety improvements. The Iowa DOT has established a Safety Analysis 

Incorporation (SAI) group, with representatives from various offices across the DOT, to oversee the 

development of tools and processes to advance the consideration of safety at all stages of project 

development. Some efforts overseen by the SAI group include: calibration of the Highway Safety Manual 

(HSM) safety performance functions (SPFs) to Iowa conditions, publication of an Iowa-specific list of crash 

modification factors (CMFs), development of a suite of HSM spreadsheet tools to evaluate project impacts and 

alternatives, and replacement of Iowa's historical intersection crash rates with SPFs calculated using opensource software.
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 29

Introduction

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

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to 

advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The state's HSIP funds are distributed amongst two different pots: statewide and districts. Statewide projects 

are identified by central office staff based on research/study results, and can involve a mixture of hot-spot and 

systemic improvements. District projects are identified by the districts, based on their judgment or the results of 

a safety study, such as their District Road Safety Plan. All projects are selected for funding by central office 

staff. District projects are approved for funding based on whether they were identified by their respective 

District Road Safety Plan or whether the benefit-cost ratio exceeds one. District projects are typically designed 

in-house, but the majority of statewide projects are designed by an outside consultant. All projects are tracked 

by central office staff, including crashes, costs, and construction dates. Crashes for 3 to 5 years preconstruction are compared 3 to 5 years of post-construction crashes, and a benefit-cost analysis is conducted 

for all projects.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

HSIP staff are located in the Traffic & Safety Bureau, which is located in the Operations Division of the Iowa 

DOT.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Formula via Districts/Regions

The Traffic & Safety Bureau retains 20 percent of the funds for statewide initiatives while the remaining funds 

are allocated by formula to the DOT's six districts. The distribution formula is based on the split amongst 

districts of the state's serious injury and fatal crashes. Districts 1 and 6 each receive 16 percent of the funds, 

while the remaining four districts each receive 12 percent of the funds.

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

Iowa's HSIP addresses local roads through the HSIP-Secondary program. This program was established in 

2013 as a $2 million yearly set-aside out of Iowa's HSIP to address safety issues on the secondary (county-
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 29

owned) roadway system. This program is focused on providing funding for projects that incorporate systemic, 

low-cost safety improvements, typically costing less than $10,000 per mile. Typical countermeasures include 

rumble strips, grooved-in pavement markings, paved shoulders, improved signage, and guardrail updates. This 

past year, the HSIP-Secondary program switched from utilizing federal HSIP funding to state funds.

Safety improvements on other local roads, including county, city, and tribal roads, are addressed via the state's 

Transportation Safety Improvement Program (TSIP). TSIP is a competitive, application-based program that 

awards approximately $7 million in state funds annually for safety projects on and off the state system. Funding 

is provided in three categories: the completion of studies, the purchase of traffic control devices, and the 

construction of larger infrastructure projects.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Districts/Regions

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Iowa DOT districts are typically charged with developing and overseeing HSIP projects, so they are consulted 

early and often in the HSIP planning process. HSIP projects are chosen that align with SHSP emphasis areas, 

typically intersections and lane departures. A large majority of funding goes toward addressing lane departure 

crashes through shoulder improvements, most commonly paving existing shoulders. District Road Safety Plans 

have been completed, so the districts utilize the project recommendations that resulted from the data-driven, 

risk-based plans, either by submitting these as HSIP candidate projects, or by addressing locations with their 

own forces.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Other-None.

Describe coordination with external partners. 

None.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

HSIP Manual FINAL FY 19.pdf

An update to the HSIP Manual is planned to occur in the Fall of 2019.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HSIP (no subprograms)
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 29

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-Risk Factors

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 49

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers

• High friction surface treatment
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 29

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Yes

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

Iowa is in the early stages of implementing the HSM. The foundation for increased usage is being laid by 

calibrating the SPFs in the HSM to local conditions. The SPFs will be used to screen the system for locations 

that could benefit from a safety improvement. 

Although the state has been using CMFs for years, the number of CMFs available on the CMF clearinghouse 

has grown exponentially, yet there remains many countermeasures for which a good CMF does not exist - 

especially for those countermeasures that typically occur simultaneously (such as paving shoulders and adding 

rumble strips). Therefore, the need for state-specific CMFs was identified, and a list of approximately 70 CMFs 

was published in August 2019. 

Finally, a consultant is developing a state-specific framework for conducting safety evaluations consistent with 

HSM methods, via a spreadsheet tool. The rural two-lane and rural multilane versions of the tool should be 

operational by 2020.
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 29

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $17,808,950 $16,865,403 94.7%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $17,808,950 $16,865,403 94.7%

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

safety projects?

0%

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

0%

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 under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 29

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

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

the future. 

Impediments to fully obligating programmed HSIP funds include proper estimating and long development 

timelines. Initial cost estimates tend to be high in order to account for project uncertainties and to avoid having 

to ask for more money at a later time. Project development timelines can be affected by multiple external 

forces including coordination, clearances, and unforeseen circumstances. Our goal is to work with project 

sponsors and project managers to improve the accuracy of cost estimates and to minimize time delays in order 

to obligate HSIP funds to the fullest extent.
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 29

General Listing of Projects

List the projects obligated using HSIP funds for the reporting period. 

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

HSIPX000-T(1)--

3L-00

Roadway Rumble strips - center 850 Miles $1885442 $2094936 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Rumble 

Strips

HSIPX000-T(2)--

3L-00

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

4 Intersections $604640 $671822 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersection 

Awareness

IHSIPX035-

2(469)73--

08-77

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

3 Interchange 

Ramps

$168378 $187087 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

HFST

HSIPX052-

2(120)--

3L-31

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1419941 $9222736 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,100 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Alternative 

Intersections

IHSIPX080-

1(493)58--

08-15

Roadside Barrier - cable 16 Miles $4001644 $4446271 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate22,600 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Mecian 

Cable 

Barrier

HSIPX092-5(68)-

-3L-91

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 14 Miles $2157291 $2396990 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Paved 

Shoulders

HSIPX136-3(51)-

-3L-31

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 4.5 Miles $728395 $809328 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialOther2,650 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Paved 

Shoulders

HSIPX150-3(74)-

-3L-10

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 0.7 Miles $107501 $119446 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,600 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Paved 

Shoulders

HSIPX220-0(17)-

-3L-48

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 5 Miles $482509 $536121 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Paved 

Shoulders

HSIPX346-1(18)-

-3L-19

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

0.3 Miles $49602 $55113 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,600 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic SpeedRelatedGeometric 

Strategies

Since "varies" was not a valid option for the AADT entries, segments with widely varying AADTs were entered as "0".
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 29

Safety Performance

General Highway 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 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 390 360 365 317 322 320 402 330 319

Serious Injuries 1,647 1,510 1,637 1,549 1,522 1,470 1,510 1,467 1,309

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.235 1.146 1.156 1.005 0.996 0.967 1.209 0.978 0.952

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.215 4.807 5.184 4.911 4.707 4.440 4.540 4.347 3.907

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

28 31 25 23 25 32 29 29 29

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

126 126 124 115 101 121 112 98 97
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 29

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 29

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 29

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

25.6 79.2 0.47 1.47

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

28.6 77 0.53 1.43

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

32 99.6 0.59 1.85

Rural Minor Arterial 44.6 142.8 1.77 5.67

Rural Minor Collector 32.6 128.4 4.35 17.14

Rural Major Collector 77 292.8 2.49 9.49

Rural Local Road or 

Street

64 240 6.76 25.33

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 29

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

13 53.2 0.44 1.82

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

11.6 47.2 0.4 1.62

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

20.8 127 0.71 4.35

Urban Minor Arterial 35.8 220.2 0.98 6.02

Urban Minor Collector 1.6 5.8 2.35 8.52

Urban Major Collector 20.2 121.2 1.43 8.59

Urban Local Road or 

Street

36 273.6 1.43 10.89
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 29

Year 2018

Roadways Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

173.8 666.6 0.84 3.22

County Highway 

Agency

117 461.6 2.15 8.47

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

46.8 323 0.67 4.62

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:345.8

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

A simple trend analysis of historical fatality data was performed. An integrated moving average model 

was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with each set of predictions. Our working 
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 29

group settled on using a 75% confidence level. This means we are at least 75% confident the actual 

5-year rolling average will be less than the target.

Number of Serious Injuries:1396.2

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

simple trend analysis of historical serious injury data was performed. An integrated moving average 

model was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with each set of predictions. Our 

working group settled on using a 75% confidence level. This means we are at least 75% confident the 

actual 5-year rolling average will be less than the target.

Fatality Rate:1.011

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

A simple trend analysis of historical fatality data was performed. An integrated moving average model 

was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with each set of predictions. Our working 

group settled on using a 75% confidence level. This means we are at least 75% confident the actual 

5-year rolling average will be less than the target. This target supports the SHSP goal of continuing to 

reduce the fatality rate to 1.000 per HMVMT by 2020.

Serious Injury Rate:4.083

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

A simple trend analysis of historical serious injury data was performed. An integrated moving average 

model was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with each set of predictions. Our 

working group settled on using a 75% confidence level. This means we are at least 75% confident the 

actual 5-year rolling average will be less than the target. This target supports the SHSP goal of 

continuing to reduce the serious injury rate below 4.300 per HMVMT by 2020.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:138.1

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

A simple trend analysis of historical non-motorized fatality and serious injury data was performed. An

integrated moving average model was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with each 

set of predictions. Our working group settled on using a 75% confidence level. This means we are at 

least 75% confident the actual 5-year rolling average will be less than the target.

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

safety performance targets. 

The DOT's safety target working group established the methodology for setting the performance targets, using 

the same process as last year. The chosen targets and a description of the methodology were shared with 

representatives from the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau for comment. None were received. 

A draft safety memo outlining the chosen targets and methodology was sent to all MPOs in the state with a 
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 29

request for comments. No substantive comments regarding the targets or the methodology were received 

during the comment period.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

The state of Iowa met each of the five safety performance targets for calendar year 2018.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

55 59 56 52 61 50 50

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

131 157 145 91 129 115 129
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 29

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

Overall since fiscal year 2001, the state's HSIP expenditures have resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 

approximately 6 to 1. Some of the highest B-C ratios resulted from roadway signs, lighting, and roadside 

improvements.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• Policy change

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period. 

Iowa DOT's local road safety initiative, HSIP-Secondary, has historically been funded with a $2 million setaside out of the state's HSIP allocation. Recently, the state received approval to swap federal funds for state 

funds in many of the DOT's programs. HSIP-Secondary was one of the programs selected to utilize swap 

funds. Therefore, starting in FY 19 and moving forward, all new HSIP-Secondary projects will be funded with 

state funds. However, some HSIP-Secondary projects that were already programmed were also switched over 

to state funds, which ultimately reduced the amount of HSIP funds that were obligated in FY 19. 

This program change will necessitate identifying at least $2 million in additional HSIP funding opportunities to 

make up for the loss of the federally funded HSIP-Secondary Program.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 196.6 619.4 0.59 1.85

Intersections 70.2 368.6 0.21 1.1
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 29

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Pedestrians 23.8 71.6 0.07 0.21

Bicyclists 5.8 36.6 0.01 0.11

Older Drivers 69.2 198.2 0.21 0.59

Motorcyclists 47.2 217.4 0.14 0.65

Work Zones 7.4 17.4 0.02 0.05
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 29

0

50

100

150

200

250

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 29

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 29

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Optional
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 29

Compliance Assessment

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

 12/20/2018

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2019 To: 2023

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

 2023

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 29

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 29

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

It is understood that individual data elements may not be 100% accurate at all times due to reporting lags.

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026. 

No actions required - state is already compliant.

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period? 

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2019
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 29

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Manual FINAL FY 19.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 29

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects: are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of 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.

Systematic: refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across 

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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