California

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 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 .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 3

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

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 10

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 10

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 13

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 14

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 14

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 29

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................31

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 33

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 37

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 39

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 43

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 46
2016 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 $60.79 million was obligated for alcohol impaired 

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

Safety Plan activities.

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. The projects 

evaluated in this report are funded by the Collision Reduction Category, which includes both 

federal HSIP and State highway funds.

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

significantly high collision concentrations. The identified locations are systematically 
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 Collisions, Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collisions, and Wrong Way 

Collisions. Nearly 2,972 traffic safety investigations were completed between 01-01-2015 and 

12-31-2015. In addition, 509 “Other Safety” investigations were completed. These other safety 

related investigations were not generated by TSN but by calls, letters, and e-mails from 

public. Finally, as of February, 2012, Caltrans has developed and in the process of 

implementing a 5-year “California Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan” which 

identified over 7,000 locations for potential 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 in TSN database was for 

2004 to 2013. During the 2013 calendar year, 1,076 fatal collisions, 41,791 injury collisions, 

and 69,777 property-damage-only (PDO) collisions were reported on the SHS. Caltrans 

estimates that these collisions resulted in societal economic losses of approximately $19.6 billion 

assuming collision costs for various injury severities derived by the National Safety Council.

The HSIP and other State programs have contributed to making highways safer through the 

implementation of highway safety projects. This fact is evident from the fatality rate 

trends. Between 2004 and 2013, the fatality rate on all State highways has decreased 34 

percent. For the same period, the fatality rate on freeways decreased 34 percent, and on nonfreeways it decreased 25 percent. During the same period, the annual travel decreased by 2.2 

percent on all highways. The annual travel on freeways decreased 0.3 percent, and on nonfreeways it decreased by 10.2 percent. Freeway travel in 2013 accounts for 83 percent of travel 

on the SHS even though freeway road miles account for only 29 percent of the SHS.

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 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012. Three years of collision data before project implementation 

was compared with three years of collision data after project implementation. A total of 81 

projects were considered in the evaluation. Analysis of collision data was based on 140 highway 

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

implementing these projects was $144.9 million. The annual savings, in terms of reductions in 

collision frequency and severity, was estimated at $86.2 million. This translates to a savings of 

$1725 million or a benefit-cost ratio of 11.9 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 five year rolling average of collision 

frequencies and collision rates for each of the five years, 2009 thru 2013. These performance 

measures are: 1) the number of fatalities, 2) the number of fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle 
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Miles 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 

2004 to 2013. The rolling averages show a decreasing trend, indicating improvement in road 

safety on California state and local roads. 

MAP-21 put focus on 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, 2008-2010 and 2012-2014. The most recent data available 

was for 2014. Using these two time periods, the moving averages for number of persons killed + 

the number persons severely injured show a downward trend and therefore the implementation of 

the special rule as set by MAP 21 does not apply. The data is for all public roadways in the state.

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

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

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 

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

fatalities and serious injuries using low cost proven systemic countermeasures.

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

Planning

Other-Research Innovation and System Information

Other-HQs’ Traffic Safety and Mobility Program and 12 district offices within Traffic Operations, plan 

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 Planning Division, Division of Programming, 

Division of Research Innovation and System Information, and 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

Local Government Association

Other-California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)

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 agencies are 

involved in planning projects on local roads.

Other-Federal Highway Administration
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

the last reporting period.

Other-The California Local HSIP Advisory Committee was established by Division of Local Assistance. 

This is a committee of transportation safety stakeholders that supports the goal of reducing fatalities 

and serious injuries on local roads in California.

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

would like to elaborate.

The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) was updated in September 2015. Caltrans is 

currently evaluating traffic safety monitoring programs to align with the SHSP priorities, and rewriting 

HSIP Guideline to be in compliance with rules adopted in April 2016.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Roadway Departure Other-2 & 3 Ln Cross Centerline 

Collision Monitoring Pro

Other-Wrong-Way Monitoring 

Report

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

Fatal crashes only

Volume Median width

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Any project that meets the established Median Barrier criteria for project selection can be 

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Collision and volume warrants 100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/2004

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Volume

Lane miles

Other-Fatal and injury crashes on 

Wet Pavement 

Functional classification

Roadside features

Other-see the optional 

description

Other-Fatal & injury crashes 

resulting in Overturned Vehicle 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-see the optional description for this question

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

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).
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Relative Weight in Scoring

100% top 25% of run-off-road 

concentration locations with 

higher scores +100% of identified 

long segments selected based on 

collision frequency, roadway 

type, geometric characteristics 

and traffic volume. 

100

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

Fatal crashes only

Other-See optional description 

pertaining to this subprogram

Volume

Lane miles

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-All projects meeting established criteria can be 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

Crash frequency and rate 100
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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

Fatal crashes only

Lane miles Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Any project that meets the criteria for wrong way collisions can be 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

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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

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

No
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

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).

Ranking based on B/C 1

Competitive application process

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

35%

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

improvements?

Other-Median Barrier (see optional description)

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Other-Moving toward HSM methodology

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

last reporting period.

Other-Rolling out pedestrian safety monitoring program
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

would like to elaborate. 

1) Preliminary progress in HSM implementation is made to integrate Highway Safety Manual 

Roadway Safety Management Process that includes network screening, diagnosis, 

countermeasure selection, economic appraisal, project prioritization, and effectiveness evaluation 

as a framework for highway safety improvement decision by incorporating HSM methodologies 

and tools.

2) 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. Excel spreadsheets that incorporate the new SPFs are 

being developed as an interim tool.

3) 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.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $502,312,000.00 77 % $321,031,344.00 68 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $9,633,734.40 1 % $9,633,734.40 2 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$60,797,613.00 9 % $60,797,613.00 13 %

Other Federal-aid Funds $83,060,431.00 13 % $83,060,431.00 18 %
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Funding summary provided by Caltrans Division of Local Assistance are:

HSIP Dollars Programmed in FFY 15/16 under 2016 FTIP as of 6/30/16 $108,187,682

HSIP Dollars Obligated (Construction Authorization Date: 7/1/15 to 6/30/16) $69,607,920

Percent HSIP Dollars Obligated 64%

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

$108,187,682.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$69,607,920.00

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

$60,797,612.00

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

$60,797,612.00

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

period?

$225,000,000.00

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

period?

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

Totals $655,803,778.40 100% $474,523,122.40 100%
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Getting some Local HSIP projects delivered has been a challenge for the Local HSIP program, so in March 

2015, Division of Local Assistance sent a memo to all local agencies that gave delivery deadlines for their 

project depending on which cycle it was programmed. If no intervention was done by the agency, their 

project would be removed from the program. This proved to be very successful and is now a Local HSIP 

policy that all current projects programmed need to have construction authorization within five years of 

being programmed or will be removed from the program if no justification is provided by the local 

agency. Project delivery delay flags are still in place for PE Authorization and Construction Authorization 

to let agencies know that their project is delayed after set deadlines and they will not be able to submit 

any future HSIP project applications until the flag(s) are cleared.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Working on incorporating the march 2016 rule into our process.
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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

Please see 

"optional 

description"

Access 

management 

Change in access 

- close or restrict 

existing access

5 Miles 1 1 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

reduce 

collision 

severity

The project listed in the template table for this question is a fictitious project. We had to include at least one project in the standard 

template so we can mark the question as complete. The list of projects both for the state highways and for the local roads are 

provided in two separate excel files attached to this question. One file provides the list of projects on the state highways that are 

awarded in State Fiscal Year 2015-16. The second file provided by the Division of Local Assistance lists projects on California local 

roads in State Fiscal Year 2015-16. 
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 3818 3496 3211 3005 2940

Number of serious injuries 12452 11904 11407 10954 10675

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.17 1.07 0.99 0.93 0.91

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 3.8 3.63 3.49 3.36 3.29

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

15
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

For this year reporting period, the performance measures are based on the number of victims killed and 

severely injured. Last year, the performance measures were based on counts of collisions (i.e., number 

of fatal collisions and number of severe injury collisions).

The data used for this question is retrieved from the California Highway Patrol's (CHP) 

database,(SWITRS). the definition of Severe Injury in SWITRS is;

Severe Injury. An injury, other than a fatal injury, that includes the following:

1. Broken or fractured bones.

2. Dislocated or distorted limbs.

3. Severe lacerations.

4. Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries that go beyond “Other Visible Injuries.”

5. Unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene.

6. Severe burns
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

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

Year - 2013

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

288 8044 1.69 46.91

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

235 6014 2.45 62.43

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

20 0.03 0.77

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

22 637 0.22 6.51

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

485.4 45605 0.71 66.58

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

71.6 5330.8 0.13 9.93

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

78 7454.6 0.13 12.34

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

34 1384.8 0.07 2.81
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

3.2 189 0.02 1.01

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

2.6 0.01
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

19
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

20
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

21
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

22
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Year - 2013

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

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 2940 10748.07 0.91 3.29
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

26
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

7. The most recent data available to us was for 2013 calendar year.

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

9. Note that Caltrans currently does not compile collision data for severe injury as a separate category. The data for severe injury was not 

available for developing performance measure for the road classifications listed in this question. 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.

10. 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). 

11. The data input for the“State Highway Agency” in Part-2 (Roadway Ownership) of this question are for state and local roads.

12. For this year reporting period, the 5 year rolling averages are determined based on number of victims in collisions fatally injured and 

severely injured as opposed to the performance measures based on fatal and severe injury collisions.
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

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

For this year's reporting period, the most recent ten-year data available from Caltrans TSN 

database was for 2004 to 2013. During the 2013 calendar year, 1,076 fatal collisions, 41,791 

injury collisions, and 69,777 property-damage-only (PDO) collisions were reported on the 

SHS. Caltrans estimates that these collisions resulted in societal economic losses of 

approximately $19.6 billion assuming collision costs for various injury severities derived by the 

National Safety Council. 

The HSIP and other State programs have contributing to making highways safer through the 

implementation of highway safety projects. This fact is evident from the fatality rate trends. Between 

2004 and 2013, the fatality rate on all State highways has decreased 34 percent. For the same period, 

the fatality rate on freeways decreased 34 percent, and on non-freeways it decreased 25 

percent. During the same period, the annual travel decreased by 2.2 percent on all highways. The 

annual travel on freeways decreased 0.3 percent, and on non-freeways it decreased by 10.2 

percent. Freeway travel in 2013 accounts for 83 percent of travel on the SHS even though freeway road 

miles account for only 29.1 percent of the SHS.

Implementing safety projects has contributed to reductions in fatality rates. 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 

2015/16, there were 70 Major and Minor-A traffic safety projects awarded at a cost of $242.5 

million. All of these project types are consistent with one or more of the 16 challenge areas identified in 

California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Furthermore, during FY 2015-16, Caltrans spent $225 

millions beyond the federal obligated funds on traffic safety projects.

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

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 4.05 3.8 3.54 3.51 3.48

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

9.164 8.852 8.532 8.322 8.29
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

13.216 12.65 12.074 11.828 11.772

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

Calculate Rate of Fatal (F) and Serious Injuries (SI) per capita for Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of 

age and older for year ending in 2014 (2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010) and 2012 (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 

2008). For purposes of this calculation, the term "Annual rate, year XXXX" (or "AR, year 

XXXX") means the following:

F + SI for drivers and pedestrians 65 years of age and older, year XXXX

Pop. of drivers and pedestrians 65 years of age or older, year XXXX 

1. Calculate Rate for 2014

Calculate the following to two decimal places, then round to the nearest tenth:

AR, 2014 + AR, 2013 + + AR, 2012 +AR, 2011 +AR,2010

5

2. Calculate Rate for 2012:

Calculate the following to two decimal places, then round to the nearest tenth:

AR, 2012 + AR, 2011 + AR, 2010 + AR, 2009 +AR,2008

5

3. Compare Rate for 2014 to Rate for 2012

If the rate for 2014 (under step #1) exceeds the rate for 2012 (under step #2), then the Special 

Rule applies.

Rate for 2014 = 11.77

Rate for 2012 = 12.07

Reduction = (11.77-12.07)/11.77 = 2.6%
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

For this reporting year, we have revised the data to include fatalities and severe injuries by victims 

rather than collisions. Last year report was based on Fatal and injury collisions.

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

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

Safety Improvement Program?

Benefit/cost

If 'benefit/cost', indicate the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program benefit/cost ratio.

11.9 to 1

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

None

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

none
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Target 

Crash

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Work Zones 54.1 155.4 0.02 0.05

Reduce Impaired DrivingRelated Fatalities1557.8 3074.23 0.48 0.94

Reduce Occurrance & Conseq 

of Leaving Roadway & HeadOn Colli

792.1 2474.2 0.24 0.76

Increase Use of Safety Belts 

and Child Safety Seats

573 1146 0.18 0.35

Improve Driver Decisions 

about Rights-of-Way and 

Turning

680.9 2311.2 0.21 0.71

Reduce Young Driver Fatalities 429 1952.6 0.13 0.6

Improve Intersection and 

Interchange Safety

568.2 2512 0.17 0.77

Make Walking and Street 

Crossing Safer

663.8 1655.8 0.2 0.51

Improve Safety for Older 

Roadway Users

567 1408.6 0.17 0.43

Reduce Speeding and 

Aggressive Driving

457.2 1948.3 0.14 0.6
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Improve Commercial Vehicle 

Safety

293.8 603.2 0.09 0.19

Improve Motorcycle Safety 409.6 1984.8 0.13 0.61

Improve Bicycle Safety 130.6 939.6 0.04 0.29
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Groups of similar project types
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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

13. 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.

14. 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. 

15. 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 

Year - 2013

HSIP Sub-program Types Target 

Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-Wrong-Way 

Monitoring Report

26 214 0.02 0.14

Other-2 & 3 Ln Cross 

Centerline Collision 

Monitoring Pro

151 3976 0.95 25.02

Roadway Departure 180 3647 0.1 2.07

Other-Local Roads Program 500 20000 2 60

Median Barrier 24.8 172 0.02 0.11
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

performance measures for the sub-programs had to be developed based on injury as a whole. The values shown for severe 

injury columns in this question represent the 3 levels of injuries combined.

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

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.

Year - 2013

Systemic improvement Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-Median Barrier (see 

optional description)

25 172 0.02 0.11
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

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 2013. 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 Collisions, Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collisions, and Wrong Way 

Collisions. 

Nearly 2,972 traffic safety investigations were completed between 01-01-2015 and 12-31-

2015. In addition, 509 “Other Safety” investigations were completed. These other safety 

related investigations were not generated by TSN but by calls, letters, and emails from 

public. Finally, as of February, 2012, Caltrans has developed and in the process of 

implementing a 5-year “California Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan” which 

identified over 7,000 locations for potential low cost countermeasures to systematically 

implement on many state highways in an effort to reduce roadway departure crashes.

Implementing safety projects has contributed to the reduction in fatality rates. 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 2015/16, there were 70 Major and Minor-A safety projects 

awarded at a cost of $242.5 million. All of these project types are consistent with one or more 

of the 16 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 7/1/2011 and 6/30/2012. Three years of collision data before project implementation 

was compared with three years of collision data after project implementation. A total of 81 

projects were considered in the evaluation. Analysis of collision data was based on 140 

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

of implementing these projects was $144.9 million. The annual savings, in terms of reductions 

in collision frequency and severity, was estimated at $86.2 million. This translates to a savings 

of $1725 million or a benefit-cost ratio of 11.9 to1, assuming a project life of 20 years.
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

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)

Interstate 49, 

Section 28, 

Log Mile 

41.44-45.74

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

2 16 42 60 1 12 15 28 3.77

Interstate 

430, Section 

21, Log mile 

8.96-9.86

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

1 5 52 114 172 2 35 96 133 115.47
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Interstate 40, 

Sections 43 

and 51, Log 

mile 216.10 

to 220.71

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

4 9 13 4 7 11 0.05
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

A) Attach-Q23-State-HSIP-2016.xlsx

Progress in Implementing Projects: General Listing 

of Projects

B) Attach-Q23-Local HSIP-Sep2016.xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): Groups of 

similar project types

4) Attach-Q33-HSIP 2016-ORT.xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): Systemic 

Treatments

5) Attach-Q34-HSIP 2016-ORT.xlsx
2016 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

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. 

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.