Kansas

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: KS
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................22

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 22

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................56

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................81
iv
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

In Kansas we continue to spend our HSIP dollars in a variety of independently managed subprograms, including intersections, signing, pavement markings, lighting, rail, HRRR, and general 

safety improvements. The rail program is reported with the RGCHP report. This is the first year 

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

develop program manuals specific to each sub-program in a manner consistent with the 

requirements of this report. These manuals will include performance measures, which continue 

to be a work in progress.
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

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

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

projects are exclusive to the State Highway System, although projects may impact intersecting 

non-state roads. Intersections, HRRR, and rail projects may include local roads, that is, public 

roads not a part of the State Highway System. The rail program is addressed in the Rail-Highway 

Grade Crossing Program report.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

Bridge Office responsible for traffic signals and lighting, as well as field information from our 

Area Offices, and road safety audits performed by our Traffic Engineering Unit. Signing subprogram: This blanket replacement program was programmed to cover the entire state 

highway system in ten years. It took longer than that, but we have completed the first cycle and 

are beginning a second cycle. Our Area Offices complete a sign inventory for each project. The 

Area Offices typically install the new signs and posts, which are purchased using HSIP 

funds. Although, many of the early projects in the second cycle will be let to a contractor 

because they are on urban interstate routes. Pavement Marking sub-program: Our pavement 

marking technician works closely with our district maintenance engineers to identify 

recommended routes. Works also with Traffic Engineering Unit to identify locations in need of 

improved markings for safety. Intersections sub-program: Projects are typically identified based 

on recommendations from cities. When the intersection is located on the State Highway 

System, our District and Area Offices are made part of the discussion as well. HRRR subprogram: District Offices act as a liaison between the Bureau of Local Projects and the local 

public authority. General Safety Improvements sub-program: Projects are selected and scoped 

in partnership with District and Area Offices. All sub-programs: The Geometric and Accident 

Data Unit in our Bureau of Transportation Planning manage and report on roadway and crash 

data as needed.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Local Roads Support Team (SHSP)

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-created a new General Safety Improvement Sub-program

Other: Other-MAP-21 has facilitated systemic approaches in the HRRR sub-program

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

would like to elaborate.

A total of $23,796,843 in safety funds (HSIP and Rail) was apportioned for FFY 2013, 

distributed to each sub-program as follows:

Lighting: $500,000 HSIP

Pavement Marking: $2,000,000 HSIP ($1,000,000 transferred to Signing)

Signing: $1,500,000 HSIP ($1,000,000 transferred from Pavement Marking)

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $10,896,814 ($5,896,814 Rail & $5,000,000 HSIP)
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Intersection Safety: $0

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

General Safety Improvements: $5,900,029 HSIP

The following dollars were obligated for SFY 2013 in each program:

Lighting: $2,451,717.83 HSIP

Pavement Marking: $4,937,505.39 HSIP

Signing: $6,286,442.35 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $14,396,300.34 ($12,487,674.37 Rail; 

$1,544,304.87 STP; $364,321.10 HSIP)

Intersection Safety: $6,782,957.21 HSIP

High Risk Rural Roads: $1,137,581.66 ($835,081.68 old HRRR; $302,499.98 HSIP)

General Safety Improvements: $1,362,624.46 HSIP

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

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

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

our RHGCP. See RHGCP report for more information.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Other: Other-Pavement 

Marking

Other: Other-Lighting Other: Other-General Safety 

Improvements

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1980

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

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

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 3

Available funding 4

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

EPDO and crash rate 1

Project viability 2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

Other-Sign inventory

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Other-Pre-programmed blanket replacement program

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

Yes

No
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Per established cyclical 

program

1

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/11/2011

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 1

Geographical distribution 3
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Program: Other-Pavement Marking

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-If we considered only 

traffic volumes, only high volume 

districts (1 and 5) would get 

funded, thus population is taken 

into account. At the district level, 

we then consider higher volume 

routes first and take into account 

retro-readings.

Other-Retro-reflectivity. 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Wet weather crash studies generated projects in specific locations statewide.

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Pavement Marking Specialist works closely with district maintenance engineers to select 

projects.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Other-Lighting

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Road type: 

Interchanges

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Locations are brought to our attention

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Lighting Unit

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Other-General Safety Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 2/10/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 1

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

32

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-Practical RSAs

Other: Other-Use of past Transparency Reports

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

would like to elaborate. 

Intersections sub-program:
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and are administered by KDOT.

Lighting sub-program:

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

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

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

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

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

lighting.

Pavement Marking sub-program: 

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

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

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

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

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

by the BTS&T based upon a roadway's traffic volumes, past performance of marking material, geometry, 

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

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

Signing sub-program:

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

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

This program schedules sign replacements based upon highway routemileage statewide and the total 

mileage of all the routes in each District for that year. This program excludes signs on any other state 

projects that include sign replacement for that highway route in the same year. This program also 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

excludes any signs that were replaced within seven years of the scheduled date of the replacement 

project. This is the sixth year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve permanent signing. The projects in 

this program are typically not let to contract via the normal letting procedure. Instead, materials are 

purchased thru the purchase request process and signs and posts are installed by KDOT maintenance 

forces. However, with the beginning of a second cycle many of the projects are on urban interstates. 

Consequently, two-thirds of the SFY13 program was let to contract.

HRRR sub-program:

This program was established under SAFETEA-LU as a set-aside. It was eliminated under MAP-21 

although states are required to address locally-owned roads if crash rates increase. Regardless, KDOT 

continues to fund HRRR as a sub-program to the HSIP program.

General Safety Improvement sub-program:

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). As a pilot KDOT has developed a program that will direct 

up to $6,000,000 of HSIP funds to projects that will be selected using a new system that combines 

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

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

tangent sections that are identified with tools developed for the Transparency Report. Moreover the hope 

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

been addressed through traditional KDOT funding programs.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

HSIP (Section 148) 17900029 100 % 22488067 96 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 835082 4 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds

Totals 17900029 100% 23323149 100%

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

45 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$5,896,500.00
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

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

0 %

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

225,000 %

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

period?

$0.00

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Intersections sub-program:

We often review project locations and must decline them because the number of crashes aren't large 

enough which leads to a benefit-to-cost ratio below 1. Because of the success of this program, we are 

beginning to struggle to find candidate Iocations. We hope to overcome this by opening the submittal 

timeframe to year round. In addition, we hope to be able to use network screening tools such as Safety 

Analyst to identify more locations. A secondary issue is change-over on city staffs and the economy-cities 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

are often unable to afford the local match and cost of unfunded work phases such as right-of-way and 

utilities.

Signing sub-program:

The FY13 program has fallen behind due to an increase in the number of signs on overhead 

structures. Overhead signs require additional design time to produce sign layouts that don’t 

require significant structure modifications. The lack of staff to gather inventories and prepare 

plans has contributed to the delay. During the previous 10 year program the three digit 

interstate routes were all pooled together in the say replacement year. This has contributed to 

the delay due to the increased number of sign associated with these routes. In the future, 

interstate routes will be distributed evenly over the program life.

General Safety Improvement sub-program:

Trying to obligate $6mil in FY13 was a mistake. As of April 19, 2013 $6.8 million was planned and 

$4.4million was programmed. However, it will take thru FY15 to obligate all the money since many of 

these projects are beginning from scratch. The long-range goal is a $6mil program, beginning with $2mil 

in FY15, $4mil in FY16, and $6mil in FY17.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Nothing to note at this time.
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

General Listing of Projects

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

Projec

t

Improvemen

t Category 

Output HSIP Cost Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AADT Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

KA3204-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

5 Miles 145202 145202 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3205-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

17 Miles 460101 460101 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3284-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

27 Miles 416765 416765 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA- Roadway 4 Miles 424772 424772 HSIP Urban 0 0 State Roadway Pavement 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

3283-

01

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

(Section 

148)

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Highway 

Agency

Departure Markings

KA3290-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

3 Miles 116487 116487 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3298-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

16 Miles 341081 341081 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3297-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

11 Miles 589760 589760 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3340-Roadway 

delineation 

8 Miles 372342 372342 HSIP 

(Section 

Rural Minor 0 0 State 

Highway 

Roadway Pavement 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

01 Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

148) Arterial Agency Departure Markings

KA3339-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

14 Miles 208932 208932 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3318-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

3 Miles 212268 212268 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3337-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

1 Miles 28513 28513 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3336-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

6 Miles 207112 207112 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

markings -

remarking

Other

KA3332-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

8 Miles 192104 192104 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3338-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

11 Miles 712185 712185 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3412-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

9 Miles 622399 622399 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3468-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

10 Miles 438399 438399 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

remarking

KA3416-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

11 Miles 462759 462759 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA3535-

01

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

9 Miles 103000 103000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

K5925-

13

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

22 Miles 1134900 113490

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing

K5926-

13

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Roadway 

signs 

56 Miles 790000 790000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

K5927-

13

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

201 

Miles

516000 516000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing

K5928-

13

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

90 Miles 1520000 152000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing

K5929-

13

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

298 

Miles

710000 710000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

K6254-

13

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

137 

Miles

335000 335000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing

KA3293-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Sign sheeting 

- upgrade or 

replacement

16 Miles 450000 450000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing

KA3294-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Sign sheeting 

- upgrade or 

replacement

7 Miles 200000 200000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing

KA3295-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Sign sheeting 

- upgrade or 

replacement

21 Miles 266000 266000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

KA3296-

01

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control 

Sign sheeting 

- upgrade or 

replacement

232 

Miles

640000 640000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Signing

KA2138-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

400495 401296 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

KA2139-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

2 

Number

s

197410 197696 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

KA2140-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

239865 240310 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

KA2141-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

109116 110642 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

KA2825-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

286838 287188 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Interstate

KA2826-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

325500 329686 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

KA2827-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

391766 392355 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

KA2829-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

398014 398210 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

KA2830-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

152000 152000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

KA2831-

01

Lighting Site 

lighting -

interchange

1 

Number

s

135330 135330 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Roadway 

lighting

U0039-

01

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

1 

Number

s

800000 920487 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban Local 

Road or 

Street

2103

3

40 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Intersection

s

Upgrade 

signals and 

improve 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

left-turn lane Agency geometry

KA2402-

01

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 

Number

s

900000 217132

6

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4100 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

New signals 

and improve 

geometry

KA2607-

01

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

2 

Number

s

662099.1

9

848589 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4410 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

New signal 

and improve 

geometry

N0545-

01

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

right-turn 

lane

1 

Number

s

444600 494000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2700

0

45 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Upgrade 

signals and 

improve 

geometry

N0546-

01

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn lane

1 

Number

s

350000 654000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2800

0

45 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Upgrade 

signals and 

improve 

geometry

U0063-

01

Intersection 

traffic control 

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

1 

Number

s

175000 245221 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2516

6

30 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Intersection

s

Upgrade 

signals
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

additional 

signal heads

Agency

U0064-

01

Access 

management 

Raised island 

- install new

1 

Number

s

900000 122277

4

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2225

0

30 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Access 

managemen

t

U0015-

01

Roadway 

Roadway 

widening -

add lane(s) 

along 

segment

1 Miles 1200000 510268

9

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Improve 

geometry

U2271-

01

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 

Number

s

525000 769907 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5365 30 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Upgrade 

signals and 

improve 

geometry

C0313-

01

Roadside 

Drainage 

improvement

s

33 Miles 36000 40000 HRRRP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Remove 

fixed objects

C0325-

01

Roadside 

Removal of 

roadside 

objects 

(trees, poles, 

0 6390 7100 HRRRP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Remove 

fixed objects
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

etc.)

C0370-

01

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

7 Miles 175000 217000 HRRRP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

shoulders

C4496-

01

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0.5 

Miles

500000 723757 HRRRP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Improve 

geometry

C0314-

01

Roadside 

Barrier -

other

0.5 

Miles

302500 336111 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Remove 

fixed objects

KA3275-

01

Noninfrastructure 

Data/traffic 

records

0 225000 250000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 Intersection

s & 

Roadway 

Departure

Inventories

KA2950-

01

Shoulder 

treatments 

Shoulder 

treatments -

other

2 Miles 77000 418115 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

shoulders
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

KA2951-

01

Shoulder 

treatments 

Shoulder 

treatments -

other

16 Miles 523000 280718

6

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

shoulders
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 431 416 417 401 398

Number of serious injuries 1800 1763 1731 1700 1655

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.45 1.42 1.39 1.34 1.33

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 6.04 6.02 5.79 5.69 5.54

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

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

Year - 2012

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

20 92 0.54 2.46

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0.01 0.02

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

74 209 2.12 5.98

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

47 140 1.56 4.63

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

9 27 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

60 188 4.95 15.59

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

59 176 2.64 7.94

URBAN PRINCIPAL 20 140 0.63 4.3
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

18 67 1.33 5.02

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

30 238 0.94 7.41

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

25 177 1.1 7.76

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

8 60 0.28 1.99

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

18 131 1.05 7.8

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

Year - 2012

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

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

204 764 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 194 891 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 0 0 0
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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

Overall, based on five-year averages, fatalities are down eight percent from 2008 to 2012. On 

the State Highway System fatalities are down 18 percent. However, on locally-owned roads 

fatalities are UP six percent. The trend on locally-owned roads is discouraging and indicates 

more attention should be focused on the 93 percent of our public roads owned by cities, 

counties, and townships.

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

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 31 30 31 29 31

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

97 95 90 92 92

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

2.63 2.58 2.63 2.6 2.66

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

The question is not allowing entry of more than one new performance measure. The 

five-year average for serious injuries dating back to 2008 are: 262, 255, 262, 264, 265.

The numbers represent those killed or seriously injured in a crash when at least one of 

the drivers was 65 years or older; they do not represent the number of older drivers or 

older passengers killed or injured, nor do they indicate the older driver was at fault.

The "fatality rate" and "serious injury rate" are calculated based on the number of 

fatalities/serious injuries divided by the state population multiplied by one-million; that is, 

fatalities/serious injuries per 1,000,000 million people. The 2000 census was used for 

2008-2009; the 2010 census was used for 2010-2012.

The "fatality and serious injury rate" is calculated based on the instructions in the interim 

guidance and used to determine if the special rule applies. (Please note: Kansas is 

addressing older drivers in the SHSP regardless of the special rule.)
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-General Safety Improvement Program
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

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

MAP-21 eliminated the HRRR set-aside and gave states the option to include local roads in the 

HSIP program. Kansas elected to continue a HRRR sub-program as part of the HSIP program 

(regardless of the outcome of the local road special rule.)

The General Safety Improvement Program was created to involve our field personnel more in 

matters pertaining to safety project selection.
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

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

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

Involving Teen 

Drivers (14-19)

56 346 0.19 1.15 0 0 0

Sustaining 

proficiency in older 

drivers

Involving Older 

Drivers (65+)

89 265 0.3 0.88 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

Aggressive 8 19 0.03 0.06 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

Impaired (drug or 

alcohol)

139 318 0.46 1.06 0 0 0

Keeping drivers alert Asleep or fatigued 14 62 0.05 0.21 0 0 0

Increasing driver 

safety awareness

Inattention or 

distraction

97 454 0.32 1.51 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

Unbelted (Motor 

vehicle occupants)

178 429 0.59 1.43 0 0 0
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

Involving 

pedestrian

20 66 0.07 0.22 0 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

Involving bicycle 4 27 0.01 0.09 0 0 0

Improving 

motorcycle safety 

and increasing 

motorcycle 

awareness

Involving 

Motorcycle/Moped

46 231 0.15 0.77 0 0 0

Making truck travel 

safer

Involving LCV 66 148 0.22 0.49 0 0 0

Reducing vehicletrain crashes

Collision with Train 5 2 0.02 0.01 0 0 0

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

Roadway 

Departure

243 781 0.81 2.6 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

highway 

intersections

Intersection or 

Intersectionrelated

89 510 0.3 1.7 0 0 0

Designing safer work 

zones

Work Zones (on 

road C, M, U)

6 47 0.02 0.16 0 0 0
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Groups of similar project types
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Intersection Intersection 

or 

Intersectionrelated

89 510 0.3 1.7 0 0 0
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

Systemic Treatments
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

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

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

for each eligible sub-program, and be driven by our nearly complete revised SHSP which will 

include reallocation of HSIP funding as a key strategy for the emphasis areas intersections and 

roadway departure. As an example, three of these programs (lighting, pavement marking, and 

signing) can be measured by wet-weather and/or nighttime crashes. Data can be shown to 

demonstrate a positive trend in each of these areas.
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

None NA
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2013 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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