Page 1 of 43

WISCONSIN
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 43

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 13

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 15

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 19

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 19

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 28

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 30

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 32

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 32

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 32

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 37

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 38
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 43

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.” 
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 43

Executive Summary

The following report outlines the details of projects obligated in SFY2017 for 

Wisconsin's Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Also included are 

program methodologies, historical crash data and safety trends, information 

on subprograms, and project evaluation data.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 43

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 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 FAST Act Reporting Guidance dated 

March 15, 2016 and consists of six sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of improvements, 

effectiveness of groupings or similar types of improvements, and compliance assessments.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Programming

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

We have HSIP Staff located in the Bureau of State Highway Programs, which is in Central Office of WisDOT 

and is responsible for programming projects.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

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

HSIP applications from local and tribal governments are solicited by the WisDOT Regions as part of the regular 

HSIP Program. All HSIP applications derived from local governments are selected and submitted voluntarily by 

local governments. Projects on the local system or sponsored by local or tribal governments must meet the same 
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 43

requirements and follow the same process as HSIP applications submitted by WisDOT Regions for 

improvements on the State Trunk Network. 

In addition, Wisconsin has continued the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) despite its formal 

elimination in MAP-21. Wisconsin has developed a statewide data analysis methodology which identifies 

county rural roads with run-off-road non-intersection crash issues. Counties with such corridors are offered a 

field review of the corridor that identifies potential treatments and are invited to apply for HSIP funding to 

implement some or all of the identified treatment options. A primary goal of the HRRRP is to install low-cost 

safety treatments on these roadways to mitigate KA crash rates as quickly as possible. It is unlikely these county 

trunk highways would receive federal investments outside of the HRRRP. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning

Operations

Other-Division of State Patrol

Other-Division of Motor Vehicles

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The HSIP Program is managed by WisDOT's Division of Transportation Investment Management (DTIM) and 

the Bureau of State of Highway Programs (BSHP). DTIM/BSHP makes all final application approvals or 

denials and related project change or cost increase requests. However, DTIM/BSHP coordinates its efforts with 

several internal partners that both directly and indirectly influence the decision making process. Below is a 

summary of these partners and their role in the program.

- Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV): DMV receives, edits, and maintains all law enforcement crash report 

files.

- Traffic Safety Council (TSC): The TSC is comprised of representatives from Division of Transportation 

System Development (DTSD), DTIM, DMV, Division of State Patrol (DSP), and various Executive Offices 

within WisDOT. Among this group's responsibilities is developing and maintaining the Wisconsin Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which helps guide the safety efforts of the HSIP Program. 

- Safety Engineer Executive Group (SEEG): This is a high-level group comprised of representatives from 

DTSD and DTIM management. Its focus is to identify safety trends and issues to develop and offer direction 

and initiatives to both the HSIP Program and the TSC on important safety engineering issues throughout the 

state. 

- Traffic Safety Engineering Workgroup (TSEWG): TSEWG is comprised of the State HSIP Coordinator, State 

Traffic Safety Engineer, and the Regional Traffic Safety Engineers. In some cases, the Regional HSIP 

Coordinators also participate. This group identifies and evaluates potential safety initiatives both within and 
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 43

outside of the HSIP Program, provides peer support, and reviews proposed HSIP projects. After a group 

evaluation, a recommendation to approve or not approve is forwarded to the State HSIP Coordinator for final 

review.

- State Project Oversight Engineers: The State Project Oversight Engineers are a critical component of the joint 

process with the TSEWG for application review and approval. The DTSD State Project Oversight Engineers, 

Regional Traffic Safety Engineers, the State Traffic Safety Engineer, and the State HSIP Coordinator provide a 

consensus approval or disapproval of HSIP funding after a comprehensive in-person peer review. Each Region 

has one Project Oversight Engineer. State Project Oversight Engineers only review applications originating 

from the Region in which they are assigned. This consensus approval or disapproval is advisory to the 

DTIM/BSHP.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

Academia/University

Other-FHWA

Other-Local municipalities and counties

Other-University of Wisconsin-Madison Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

The HSIP is fully coordinated and integrated with the work of other organizations, associations, and 

stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement, academia, local governments, MPOs) that play a role in reducing fatalities 

and serious injuries. One of the basic foundations of the HSIP is the direct linkage between the data-driven 

priorities established in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the identification, development and 

implementation of HSIP projects. Local and regional governments alike which contribute towards achieving the 

goals and objectives of the SHSP help guide program decisions and project selections. More specifically, where 

there are a high percentage of crashes that occur off the State system, WisDOT works with local jurisdictions to 

help them develop and implement HSIP projects that address priority safety issues on locally-owned roadways. 

This is either done by locals doing work as local forced accounts or they are let by WisDOT.

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

period?

Yes

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

The Program Management Manual (PMM), which guides the development and implementation of WisDOT 

programs and is used exclusively by WisDOT staff, was updated to reflect the following changes:
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 43

1)Refine types of signage eligible and

2)Remove guard rail treatments from list of High Risk Rural Roads Program eligible activities and

3)Spot shoulder widening

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

HSIP_Guidelines.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

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

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2005 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 43

All crashes 

Other-All CMC Other-Centerline miles Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Non-competitive application process

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

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 27

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

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

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 43

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

Other-County Traffic Safety Commission recommendations

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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.

HSIP Project Prioritization

Wisconsin evaluates potential HSIP projects by comparing the estimated crash reduction benefits 

expected from the project and the cost of that project. Crash reduction benefits are estimated by 

multiplying up to two crash modification factors (CMF) by 5-years of observed crash data. CMFs 

and target crashes are identified by the safety analyst and a spreadsheet tool is used to calculate 

the estimated crash reduction benefits. The spreadsheet tool incorporates the WisDOT CMF Table 

and logic described in our statewide policy described at the link below.

http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/teops/12-03.pdf

HSIP Safety Effectiveness Evaluations

Wisconsin evaluates the effectiveness of all HSIP projects that were prioritized based on crash 

history. The Empirical-Bayes Before/After Safety Evaluation method, described in chapter 9 of the 

Highway Safety Manual, is used for these safety effectiveness evaluations. No evaluations are 

completed for systemic safety projects within our HSIP.

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

period?
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 43

No

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate.

A key component in the development of the HSIP is the Project Evaluation 

Factor (PEF). The PEF is a measurement that is used to evaluate and compare 

proposed projects. It provides a comparison of the estimated crash reduction 

potential of a proposed improvement with the overall cost of the project. 

Although it has similarities to a benefit/cost analysis, it does not include all of 

the elements of a traditional benefit/cost analysis tool for ranking the relative 

merits of a group of projects, and should not be compared to a benefit/cost 

analysis.

An Excel-based program is used to perform a safety project analysis and 

computes the PEF. The following provides a general overview of several key 

elements of the PEF:

All costs associated with the project (design, utilities, real estate, construction, 

etc.) must be included in the PEF calculation, regardless of whether HSIP funds 

are requested for all elements of the project. Cost estimates must be in 

current year dollars.

The analysis requires crash data from the most recent 5-year period for which 

crash information is available. Ideally, the analysis would include crash data 

from the most recent calendar year. For example, an analysis submitted in 

2016 would include crash information from the 2011-2015 period. However, 

given that: (a) it can take several months after the end of a calendar year for 

the Department to finalize crash information and integrate the crash 

information into departmental datasets; and (b) it can take several months for 

a safety proposal to be developed and scoped, the use of an additional, older 

year of crash data is allowed. For example, an analysis submitted in calendar 

year 2016 may use crash data from either the 2011-2015 period or the 2010-

2014 period.

For local projects, it is the responsibility of the project sponsor to compile and 

provide the required crash data to the regional office for the PEF evaluation.

Although Wisconsin designs solutions to reduce all crashes, a number of 

targeted engineering, educational and enforcement efforts have been 

implemented with the defined goal of reducing crashes involving serious 
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 43

injuries and fatalities. Because of this focus on reducing serious injuries and 

fatalities, the PEF scoring mechanism assigns higher values to Type A and 

Fatal crashes.

The current values used within the PEF tool to calculate the potential crash 

reduction benefits of a safety improvement are influenced by the Highway 

Safety Manual (HSM) developed by the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

The current crash severity values are adjusted to approximate 2015 dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index, correlating to the most recent year of 

available crash data.

Standardized crash reduction factors are included in the Excel tool for a wide 

range of safety improvements. These factors are based on national safety 

research and are regularly updated as new research becomes available.

Projects generally require a PEF of 1.0 or greater for approval. However, the 

HSIP Review Committee acknowledges the PEF contains many variables and 

that sometimes additional expense is needed to sufficiently address a safety 

issue. As such, the HSIP Review Committee may consider applications with a 

PEF greater than or equal to 0.9 for approval. Projects with a PEF less than 0.9 

will not be approved.

Projects treating locations identified on the annual "Locations of Interest 

Report" (LOIR) may be approved with a PEF of 0.50 or greater. LOIR locations 

with a PEF less than 0.5 will not be approved.

The PEF requirement is generally waived for projects identified through a 

statewide safety analysis. The PEF requirement is currently waived for: o High 

Risk Rural Roads Program projects

o Crossover Median Crash Initiative projects

o Bridge Friction Treatment Initiative projects

o Beam Guard Initiative projects
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 43

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

SFY 2017 is from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $40,000,680 $40,000,680 100%

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 $4,262,889 $4,262,889 100%

Totals $44,263,569 $44,263,569 100%

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

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

$5,809,911

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

$5,809,911

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

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 43

$473,975

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

$473,975

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$19,323,685

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

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

Project delays can make it challenging to fully utilize HSIP funding. Such delays occur for a variety of reasons, 

including changes in project scope during t he design process (which triggers a required re-evaluation of the 

project), changes in associated projects that are linked to the HSIP project, and unforeseen issues arising during 

the project development process. WisDOT continues to work on developing a list of projects that could be 

advanced from later program years into earlier program years to ensure that HSIP funding is fully utilized even 

if projects are delayed or fall out of the program.

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

No
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 43

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

1000-20-75 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

0 Miles $1179113.99 $1179113.99 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 VAR Roadway 

Departure

1000-20-81 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

0 Miles $455567.05 $455567.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 VAR Roadway 

Departure

1000-99-63 Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

0 Miles $138577.5 $153975 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 VAR Data

1000-99-65 Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0 Miles $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 VAR Planning

1000-99-66 Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

0 Miles $40500 $45000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 VAR Data

1010-02-84 Roadside Barrier - cable 9.748 Miles $152020.93 $168912.14 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Roadway 

Departure

1016-02-60 Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles $3404346.99 $3782607.77 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Roadway 

Departure

1020-02-90 Roadside Barrier - cable 12.524 Miles $2314295.96 $2571439.95 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Roadway 

Departure

1022-07-06 Roadside Barrier - cable 8.427 Miles $18540 $20600 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Roadway 

Departure

1030-06-74 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

0 Miles $617773.92 $686415.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 VAR Lane Departure

1050-00-92 Roadside Barrier - cable 6.089 Miles $641387.15 $712652.39 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Roadway 

Departure

1053-02-10 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

0 Miles $48766 $54184.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Lane Departure

1058-25-70 Access 

management

Access 

management -

other

2.603 Miles $1945448 $2161608.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Intersections

1090-02-74 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

0 Miles $134498.75 $149443.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Lane Departure

1090-38-70 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction

surface

0.426 Miles $517915.62 $575461.8 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Lane Departure

1100-05-71 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

0 Miles $154692.12 $171880.13 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Lane Departure

1130-44-71 Roadside Barrier- metal 10.35 Miles $1347700 $1497444.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Roadway 

Departure
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 43

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

1160-01-07 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

0 Miles $19893 $22103.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Lane Departure

1161-02-66 Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles $382259.5 $424732.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Roadway 

Departure

1204-02-76 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.36 Miles $7014888 $7794320 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

1210-10-71 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

0.061 Miles $176618.8 $196243.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Intersections

1210-12-71 Roadside Barrier - cable 2.98 Miles $647839 $719821.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Roadway 

Departure

1227-08-71 Roadside Barrier - cable 10.59 Miles $248315.27 $275905.86 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 IH Roadway 

Departure

1360-09-71 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

0.005 Miles $1236959.67 $1374399.63 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

1370-15-72 Roadside Barrier- metal 3.644 Miles $925773.09 $1028636.77 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Roadway 

Departure

1400-00-72 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

0.182 Miles $237350.61 $263722.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

1510-00-00 Roadside Barrier - cable 5.54 Miles $185400 $206000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Roadway 

Departure

1510-00-01 Roadside Barrier - cable 3.59 Miles $74160 $82400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Roadway 

Departure

1570-01-74 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

modify right-turn 

lane offset

0.001 Miles $242819 $269798.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

1570-02-73 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.05 Miles $1589139 $1765710 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

1570-02-75 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.02 Miles $1471349.33 $1634832.59 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

1590-21-71 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

4.465 Miles $213513.42 $237237.13 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 CTH Lane Departure

1610-03-72 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

0.008 Miles $545817 $606463.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Intersections

1662-00-76 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

0.242 Miles $146535 $162816.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

2090-03-01 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

0.003 Miles $37080 $41200 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 LOC Intersections
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 43

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

2110-00-02 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

0.004 Miles $162000 $180000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 LOC Intersections

2120-16-00 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

0.022 Miles $130507 $145007.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Intersections

2160-01-72 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

0 Miles $616975.58 $685528.42 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 CTH Intersections

2160-15-70 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

0.35 Miles $1017030.17 $1130033.52 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 CTH Intersections

2595-08-70 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

0 Miles $579584.12 $643982.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 NON Intersections

2718-03-71 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

0.65 Miles $544242 $604713.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 LOC Intersections

2984-04-97 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

0 Miles $174703.99 $194115.54 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 VAR Intersections

3110-07-00 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

0.075 Miles $36000 $40000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Lane Departure

3756-01-70 Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

9.124 Miles $207611.78 $230679.76 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

4682-01-00 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.634 Miles $180450 $200500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 CTH Intersections

5809-00-60 Roadside Barrier - cable 11.12 Miles $494621.24 $549579.15 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

5992-09-76 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

0.02 Miles $296556 $329506.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 LOC Intersections

6240-26-71 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.314 Miles $1530000 $1700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Intersections

6999-07-88 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

0.055 Miles $397201 $441334.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 LOC Intersections

6999-18-82 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

1.246 Miles $436524.3 $485027 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 LOC Intersections

7200-00-90 Roadside Barrier - cable 4.972 Miles $594915.98 $661017.76 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Roadway 

Departure

7550-03-73 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

0.24 Miles $412745.28 $458605.87 HSIP (23 U.S.C.

148)

0 STH Intersections
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 43

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

7575-08-72 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

0.261 Miles $750376 $833751.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Intersections

7894-03-71 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

8.447 Miles $365448 $406053.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 CTH Lane Departure

7905-01-72 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

0.031 Miles $91589.11 $101765.68 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

8680-00-71 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1.36 Miles $1530000 $1700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 USH Intersections

8865-00-72 Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0.57 Miles $1134987.91 $1261097.68 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Roadway 

Departure

8865-00-73 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

modify left-turn 

lane offset

0.11 Miles $214377.88 $238197.64 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 STH Intersections

0955-00-01 Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

0 Miles $202500 $225000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 VAR Data

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 43

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 0 0 0 0 615 543 506 566 607

Serious Injuries 0 0 0 0 3,582 3,309 2,986 2,999 3,039

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.040 0.910 0.840 0.910 0.980

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.060 5.560 4.970 4.830 4.880

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

0 0 0 0 388 351 337 365 366

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 43

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 43

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 43

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

For the "Annual Performance Measure Data", the number of non-motorized fatalities and number of nonmotorized serious injuries have been reported together under title of "Number of non-motorized 

fatalities". WisDOT did not separate data of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries when developing the 

performance measures.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2016

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 -

Interstate

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 43

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 -

Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or Street

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street

Rural City Street 8.6 82.2

Rural County Trunk 

Highway

107.8 538.8

Rural Interstate Highway 26 118.8

Rural State Trunk Highway 197.2 918.8

Rural Town Road 65.4 341.8

Urban City Street 95 723.2

Urban Interstate Highway 9.6 67.4

Urban State Trunk 

Highway

48.2 391.4
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 43

Year 2013

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 0 0

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

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
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 43

0

50

100

150

200

250

Rural City

Street

Rural

County

Trunk

Highway

Rural

Interstate

Highway

Rural State

Trunk

Highway

Rural Town

Road

Urban City

Street

Urban

Interstate

Highway

Urban State

Trunk

Highway

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 43

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Rural City

Street

Rural

County

Trunk

Highway

Rural

Interstate

Highway

Rural State

Trunk

Highway

Rural Town

Road

Urban City

Street

Urban

Interstate

Highway

Urban State

Trunk

Highway

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 43

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 43

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

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 556.1 

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

The 2% reduction in traffic fatalities is supported by the stated goals and actions steps 

of the SHSP. 

Number of Serious Injuries 3023.9 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 43

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

The 5% reduction in number of serious injuries is supported by the stated goals and 

action steps of the SHSP. 

Fatality Rate 0.917 

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

The 2% reduction in the rate of fatalities is supported by the stated goals and action 

steps of the SHSP. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.997 

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

The 5% reduction in rate of serious injuries is supported by the stated goals and action 

steps of the SHSP. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 343.3 

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

The 5% reduction in non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries is supported by the 

stated goals and action steps of the SHSP. 

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

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

targets. 

The HSIP is fully coordinated and integrated with the work of other organizations, associations, 

and stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement, academia, local governments, MPOs) that play a role in 

reducing fatalities and serious injuries. One of the basic foundations of the HSIP is the direct 

linkage between the data-driven priorities established in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

and the identification, development and implementation of HSIP projects. Local and regional 

governments alike which contribute towards achieving the goals and objectives of the SHSP help 

guide program decisions and project selections. More specifically, where there are a high 

percentage of crashes that occur off the State system, WisDOT works with local jurisdictions to 

help them develop and implement HSIP projects that address priority safety issues on locallyowned roadways. This is either done by locals doing work as local forced accounts or they are let 

by WisDOT. Stakeholders will continue to contribute to and support the goals established in the 

SHSP. This in turn encourages safety projects that meet established safety performance targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 43

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

65 72 85 75 78 64 99

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

246 238 252 263 245 231 198

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 43

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 43

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

While a simple change in fatal and serious injury crashes is overall indicator of the effectiveness of the safety 

culture in the state, it's influenced by many other factors outside the scope of normal HSIP projects. For this 

reason we rely on a "before and after" Empirical Bayes Analysis of HSIP project to determine their 

performance.

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

level evaluations.

An annual program effectiveness evaluation has not been completed at this time.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

HSIP Obligations

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 43

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)

No. of 

Crashes

No of NonFatal 

Injuries

Other 3

Intersections All 161 20,740 45,268 20,740

Pedestrians All 45 1,199 1,255 211

Bicyclists All 10 900 987 92

Motorcyclists All 85 2,024 2,270 532

Work Zones All 10 791 2,153 49

Reduce Speed-related 

Crashes

All 185 7,822 19,139 817

Prevent/Mitigate Roadway 

Departure Crashes

All 178 6,410 19,461 815

create Safer Work Zones All 10 791 2,153 49

Reduce Alcohol/Drugimpaired DrivingAll 181 2,813 5,047 485

Improve Driver 

Alertness/Reduce Driver 

Distraction

All 100 10,366 23,023 10,366

Improve Occupant 

Protection

All 162 475

Improve Safe Travel in Bad 

Weather

All 107 10,252 32,266 650

Reduce Cross Median 

Crashes

Head on 74 1,380 1,547 252
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 43

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 43

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

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 43

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 43

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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

xxxx

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

Project evaluation analysis not complete, expected in FY 2018

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe any other aspects of HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate.

The Transportation Safety Engineers Work Group (TSEWG) is a committee, comprised mainly of regional WisDOT traffic safety engineers as well as an FHWA safety engineer, that meets approximately every two months to discuss the 

overall HSIP effectiveness and other safety-related issues. In addition, they are primarily responsible for forwarding/developing and evaluating eligible HSIP projects. These work group members frequently conduct project and program 

evaluations and share insights with other TSEWG members.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 43

Compliance Assessment

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

 09/01/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2014 To: 2016

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

 2018

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

A revised SHSP was developed in 2017. We anticipate it will be finalized and published prior to 2018. The goals and activities discussed relate to the 2017-2019 timeframe.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 7
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 43

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 65 100 1

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

80 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

80 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

80 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

80 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

80 0

AADT for Each

Intersecting Road (79)

80 0

AADT Year (80) 80 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

80 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 43

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

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):

88.89 81.78 80.00 0.00 90.91 90.91 88.89 77.89 80.00 80.00

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

** 7% of the median type on non-state owned roads are collected. 91% of these roads collected median types are verified. Median existence and type is a self-reporting data attribute.

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.

Wisconsin already collects most of the MIRE FDEs. The department plans to begin a project in early 2018 to evaluate gaps in the collection of MIRE FDEs. The outcome of this analysis will be incorporated into a more encompassing effort to assess 

corporate data needs (e.g. ARNOLD). The expectation is to have an implementation plan for addressing FDE gaps by 2020.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury Yes An injury other than fatal which results in 

one or more of the following: 

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood, 

broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), 

crush injuries, 

suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations, 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of body), 

unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene, or paralysis.

Yes An injury other than fatal which results in 

one or more of the following: 

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood, 

broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), 

crush injuries, 

suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations, 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of body), 

unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene, or paralysis.

Yes

Crash Database Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected Serious Injury Yes An injury other than fatal which results in 

one or more of the following: 

Yes An injury other than fatal which results in 

one or more of the following: 

Yes
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 43

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or

resulting in significant loss of blood, 

broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), 

crush injuries, 

suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations, 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of body), 

unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene, or paralysis.

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood, 

broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), 

crush injuries, 

suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations, 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of body), 

unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene, or paralysis.

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

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

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2018

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 43

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP_Guidelines.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 43

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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