Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

1

Executive Summary 

Summary Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CY 2012

• HSIP is administered centrally

• Local roads are not allocated HSIP funds

• The Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) along with the Maryland Transportation Authority 

(MDTA) and the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services are important internal 

partners with the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) in the HSIP process. Several 

regional planning organizations also coordinate with the SHA as external partners.

• Programs administered under the HSIP

o Median Barrier

o Horizontal Curve

o Skid Hazard

o Roadway Departure

o Left-turn crash

o Intersection Crash Data

o Low Cost Spot Improvements

o Pedestrian Safety

o Rural State Highway

o Right Angle Crash

o Highway Sections

• The data types used in the HSIP program methodology are vehicle crashes and traffic volume

• The project identification methodology used in the HSIP program are Crash frequency and 

Relative severity index

• The HSIP projects are advanced for implementation by an SHA selection committee. The criteria 

considered are Safety, Congestion, Operations and Local Support

• The proportion of HSIP program Funds used in CY 2012 for funding systemic improvements is 

34%

• The types of systemic improvements include

o Cable median barriers

o Rumble strips

o Traffic control device rehabilitation

o Pavement installation and improvement 

• Engineering studies are used to identify potential countermeasures

• The HSIP funding for CY 2012

o Programmed - $4,388,623.49

 Non-infrastructure portion - $3,071,402

o Obligated - $12,618,395 
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

2

 Non-infrastructure portion - $1,316,221.51

• More site specific information is expected to be available in CY 2013 for individual HSIP related 

projects

• The General listing of projects includes various traffic control, roadside, intersection geometry 

and non-infrastructure projects

• The Overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of fatalities have decreased 

from 623 in 2008 to 527 in 2012 (rolling average format) and that the number of serious injuries 

have decreased from 6,077 in 2008 to 3,895 in 2012 (rolling average format)

• The Roadway ownership indicates that in 2012 the top four road systems experienced the 

following number of fatalities:

o MD State Highways – 220

o County Roads – 130

o Interstate Highways – 63

o US Highways – 56

• Older Driver (65+) Fatal and Severe Injury per capita rate has decreased from 2005-9 (3.4) as 

compared with 2007-2011 (3.0)

• The effectiveness of the HSIP program will be indicated by the crash data trends. More site 

specific data is expected to become available in subsequent HSIP reports

• The significant programmatic change in the HSIP program is the inclusion of more noninfrastructure projects such as the Roadway Safety Audit and the Strategic Highway Safety 

Program (non-construction portions) along with various MHSO public safety outreach efforts. 

• Overall yearly crash trends for the individual SHSP areas along with the HSIP Sub-Program areas 

are shown in charts in the annual report
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

3

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

XCentral

☐District

☐Other: 0T

If District, how are the HSIP funds allocated? 

☐Formula

☐Crash data

☐Other: 0T

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

Local Roads are not given HSIP funds from the State

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

Check all that apply.

☐Design

☐Planning

☐Maintenance 

☐Operations

XGovernor’s Highway Safety Office (Maryland Highway Safety Office)

XOther: Office of Traffic and Safety (SHA), Maryland Highway Safety Office (MVA)

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners.

The Traffic Development and Support Division (TDSD) along with the Maryland Highway Safety Office 

(MHSO) (Note: MHSO moved from SHA in 2012 and is now part of MVA) and other Office of Traffic and 

Safety (OOTS) divisions provided leadership, support, and coordination for Maryland's highway safety 

projects in CY 2012. Part of TDSD and MHSO’s responsibility is to work with other State agencies to 

address highway safety issues. This effort results in a multi agency approach which includes the Motor 

Vehicle Administration, the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Maryland Institute for Emergency 

Medical Services and others having roles in highway safety problems. The seven SHA District Offices 

also provide a network of field personnel willing to coordinate and provide technical assistance to local 

agencies. There is a continuing relationship between OOTS and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) along with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration.
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

4

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

Check all that apply.

XMetropolitan Planning Organizations

☐Governor’s Highway Safety Office

☐Local Government Association

☐Other: Click here to enter text.

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

last reporting period.

☐Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

☐Other: 0T

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

would like to elaborate.

0T

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

XMedian Barrier XIntersection ☐Safe Corridor

XHorizontal Curve ☐Bicycle Safety XRural State Highway

XSkid Hazard XCrash Data ☐Red Light Running

XRoadway Departure XLow-Cost Spot Improvements ☐Sign Replacement and 

Improvement

☐Local Safety XPedestrian Safety XRight Angle Crash

XLeft-turn Crash ☐Shoulder Improvement XSegments

☐Other:

0T

For each program checked above, enter the following information:

Program: Median Barrier (2010), Horizontal Curve(2010), Skid Hazard (2012), Roadway 

Departure (2010), Left-Turn Crash (2010), Intersection (2010), Crash Data (2010), Low Cost Spot 

Improvements (2010), Pedestrian Safety (2012), Rural State Highway (2010), Right Angle Crash (2010), 

Segments (2010)

Date of Program Methodology: See Above
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

5

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway

XAll crashes ☐Traffic ☐Median width

☐Fatal crashes only XVolume ☐Horizontal curvature

☐Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

☐Population ☐Functional classification

☐Other:

0T

☐Lane miles ☐Roadside features

☐Other:

0T

☐Other:

0T

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

XCrash frequency

☐Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

☐Equivalent property damage only (EPDO crash frequency)

XRelative severity index

☐Crash rate

☐Critical rate

☐Level of service of safety (LOSS)

☐Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

☐Excess expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

☐Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

☐Probability of specific crash types

☐Excess proportions of specific crash types

☐Other: 0T

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

No

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

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

0T

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

☐Competitive application process

XSelection committee

☐Other: 0T
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

6

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).

XRelative Weight in Scoring

Safety: 60%

Congestion / Operations: 30%

Support / Opportunity: 10%

☐Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 0T

Available funding 0T

Incremental B/C 0T

Ranking based on net benefit 0T

Cost effectiveness 0T

Other 0T

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

34% for CY 2012

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

systemic improvements? Please check all that apply.

XCable median barriers XUpgrade guard rails

XRumble strips ☐Clear zone improvements

XTraffic control device rehabilitation ☐Safety edge

☐Pavement/shoulder widening ☐Install/improve lighting

☐Install/Improve Signing XAdd/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal

XInstall/improve pavement 

marking/delineation

☐Other: 

0T

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

XEngineering Study

☐Road Safety Assessment 

☐Other: 0T

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
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

7

☐Other: 0T

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

would like to elaborate. 

0T

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

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

HSIP Project Funding

Reporting Period 01/01/2012 to 12/31/2012

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 57,696.51 325,000.00

HSIP (SAFETEA-LU) 3,408,246.75 9,944,377.00

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 91,872.23 400,000.00

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer - Section 154 

Penalty Transfer – Section 164 0 656,000

Incentive Grants - Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 406) 179,253 393,058

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP) 651,555 900,000

State and Local Funds

Total 4,388,623.49 12,618,395

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

None

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects? 

None

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

$3,071,402 – CY 2012

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

$1,316,221.51 – CY 2012

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

period?
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

8

None

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

period? 

None

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

this in the future.

None at this time

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

More site specific information is expected to be available in CY 2013 for individual HSIP related projects
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

9

General Listing of Projects

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

Project

Improvement 

Category 

(see 

Attachment 4)

Outp

ut 

(i.e. 

#, 

miles

)

HSIP Cost* Total Cost Funding 

Category^

Functional 

Classification**,

^

AADT** Speed**

Roadway 

Ownership^

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis Area^ Strategy

Intersection 

Traffic Control

(preliminary 

engineering)

Modify control 

– two way stop 

to roundabout

n/a 91,872.23 400,000

HSIP –

High Risk 

Rural 

Road 

Program

Rural minor 

arterial

7,152

(2012 

mainline)

50 MPH

(mainline)

MD State 

Highway

Cecil Co

Highway 

Infrastructure

Safety 

improvement 

at High Crash 

Location

Non _ 

infrastructure

Road safety 

audits n/a 57,696.51 325,000 HSIP n/a n/a n/a MD State Highway

Pedestrian 

Crashes

Develop 

model 

processes to 

identify and 

prioritize high 

incident 

locations and 

system wide 

pedestrian 

safety issues

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Modify existing 

crosswalk

(ADA)

n/a 124,206.50 188,329

HSIP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

n/a n/a n/a

MD State 

Highway

District 3

Pedestrian 

Crashes

Develop and 

evaluate 

model 

approaches 

to 

engineering 

built 

environments 

that 

accommodat

e safe 

pedestrian 

travel

Roadside Barrier - other n/a 5081 50,336

HSIP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

n/a n/a n/a

MD State 

Highway

District 7

Highway 

Infrastructure

Analyze data

to identify 

system wide 

improvement

s to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructure 

crashes

Non _ 

infrastructure

Transportation 

safety planning n/a 427,717 797,334

HSIP 

(SAFETEA

-LU

n/a n/a n/a MD State 

Highway

Highway 

Infrastructure

Develop 

model 

processes to 

identify and 

prioritize high 

incident 

locations and 

system wide 

pedestrian 

safety issues

Roadside Barrier - other n/a 621,319.37 1,206,920

HSIP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

n/a n/a n/a

MD State 

Highway

District 1

Highway 

Infrastructure

Analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvement

s to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructure 

crashes

Roadway

Roadway –

other 

(pavement 

markings)

n/a 570,773.24 5,089,271

HSIP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

n/a n/a n/a

MD State 

Highway

District 6

Highway 

Infrastructure

Analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvement

s to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructure 

crashes

Roadside Barrier - other n/a 181,162.25 853,481

HSIP 

(SAFETEA

-LU)

n/a n/a n/a

MD State 

Highway

District 5

Highway 

Infrastructure

Analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvement

s to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructure 

crashes

Intersection 

Geometry

Auxiliary Lanes

miscellaneous n/a 1,477,987.39 1,758,666

HSIP 

(SAFETEA

-LU

Urban minor 

arterial

20,410

(2012 

mainline)

40 MPH

(mainline)

MD State 

Highway

Baltimore

Co

Highway 

Infrastructure

Safety 

improvement 

at High Crash 

Location
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

10

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 623 604 581 548 527

Number of serious injuries 6077 5407 4780 4304 3895

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.11 1.04 1.03 0.97 0.94

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 10.82 9.6 8.5 7.68 6.96

*States should use a 5-year rolling average to present the performance measures

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

Function 

Classification

[Year]

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

11

Roadway 

Ownership

[2010-2012]

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

County Rd

2010 113 9510 0.20 16.92

2011 109 9767 0.19 17.43

2012 130 9327 0.23 16.54

Government Rd

2010 1 35 0.002 0.06

2011 1 55 0.002 0.10

2012 2 38 0.004 0.07

Interstate Hwy

2010 47 3312 0.08 5.89

2011 60 3510 0.11 6.26

2012 63 3174 0.11 5.63

MD State Hwy

2010 205 14350 0.36 25.53

2011 227 14007 0.40 24.99

2012 220 14625 0.39 25.94

Municipal Rd

2010 41 7387 0.07 13.14

2011 9 7422 0.02 13.24

2012 4 7936 0.01 14.07

Other Public Rd

2010 1 128 0.002 0.23

2011 1 94 0.002 0.17

2012 1 160 0.002 0.28

Ramp

2010 0 37 0 0.07

2011 0 22 0 0.04

2012 0 22 0 0.04

Service Rd

2010 0 42 0 0.07

2011 0 17 0 0.03

2012 0 15 0 0.03

US Hwy

2010 78 4050 0.14 7.21

2011 54 3858 0.10 6.88

2012 56 3750 0.10 6.65

Unknown Rd

2010 10 1582 0.02 2.81

2011 27 2002 0.05 3.57

2012 35 1670 0.06 2.96
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

12

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

0T

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

[Year] [Year] [Year] [Year]

Fatality rate (per capita) See calculations

Serious injury rate (per capita) See calculations

Fatality and serious injury rate 

(per capita)

See 

Calculations

Show your calculations.

2005 to 2009 Driver and Pedestrian Fatal and Severe Injury 65 and older

Year Accidents Pop Figure Rate Years Total Rate

2005 477 112 4.26 1

2006 417 115 3.63 1

2007 382 118 3.24 1

2008 366 121 3.02 1

2009 365 121 3.02 1

17.16 5 3.4

2007 to 2011 Driver and Pedestrian Fatal and Severe Injury 65 and older

Year Accidents Pop Figure Rate Years Total Rate

2007 382 118 3.24 1

2008 366 121 3.02 1

2009 365 121 3.02 1

2010 330 123 2.68 1

2011 360 126 2.86 1

14.82 5 3.0

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state?

No
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

13

If yes, describe the approach to include respective strategies to address the increase in those 

rates in the State SHSP.

0T

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? Select all that apply.

☐B/C ratio

☐Policy change

XOther: The effectiveness of the HSIP program will be indicated by the crash data trends. More site 

specific data is expected to become available in subsequent HSIP reports

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

apply.

☐Shift focus to fatalities and serious injuries

☐Organizational changes

☐More systemic programs included in HSIP

XOther: More non-infrastructure projects included in HSIP

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

The significant programmatic change in the HSIP program is the inclusion of more non-infrastructure 

projects such as the Roadway safety Audit and the Strategic Highway Safety Program (non-construction 

portions) along with various MHSO public safety outreach efforts.
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

14

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

measures.

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis Areas

Number 

of 

fatalities

Number of

injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

Distracted Driving

2008 290 31778 0.52 56.60

2009 252 30152 0.45 54.20

2010 249 28875 0.44 51.37

2011 231 29112 0.41 51.94

2012 246 28518 0.44 50.57

Impaired Driving

2008 145 4291 0.26 7.64

2009 162 4525 0.29 8.13

2010 177 4087 0.31 7.27

2011 181 4031 0.32 7.19

2012 173 4022 0.31 7.13

Aggressive Driving

2008 63 4203 0.11 7.49

2009 54 4050 0.10 7.28

2010 47 3792 0.08 6.75

2011 44 3900 0.08 6.96

2012 55 3612 0.10 6.41

Occupant Protection

2008 n/a n/a n/a n/a

2009 n/a n/a n/a n/a

2010 47 3792 0.08 6.75

2011 44 3900 0.08 6.96

2012 55 3612 0.10 6.41

Highway Infrastructure

2008 424 30130 0.76 53.66

2009 367 26154 0.66 47.01

2010 345 27044 0.61 48.12

2011 313 27410 0.56 48.90

2012 321 26803 0.57 47.53

Pedestrian Crashes

2008 115 2469 0.20 4.40

2009 111 2340 0.20 4.21

2010 101 2339 0.18 4.16

2011 105 2173 0.19 3.88

2012 96 2425 0.17 4.30

Groups of similar project types
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

15

Present the overall effectiveness of HSIP subprograms.

HSIP Sub-program Types Number of fatal

accidents

Number of

serious injury 

accidents

Fatal acc rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury acc 

rate (per HMVMT)

Skid Hazard

2010 – wet surface 55 486 0.10 0.86

2011 – wet surface 63 566 0.11 1.01

2012 – wet surface 67 410 0.12 0.73

Left Turn Crash

2010 – left turn 22 268 0.04 0.48

2011 – left turn 19 241 0.03 0.43

2012 – left turn 26 209 0.05 0.37

Intersection Crash

2010 – int related 109 1189 0.19 2.12

2011 – int related 105 1106 0.19 1.97

2012 – int related 87 945 0.15 1.68

Pedestrian Safety

2010 - pedestrian 85 333 0.15 0.59

2011 - pedestrian 97 324 0.17 0.58

2012 - pedestrian 88 305 0.16 0.54

Right Angle Crash

2010 - angle 64 510 0.11 0.91

2011 - angle 52 475 0.09 0.85

2012 - angle 51 376 0.09 0.67

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

HSIP Sub-program Types

Number of fatal 

accidents*

Number of

serious injury 

accidents*

Fatality acc rate

(per HMVMT)*

Serious injury acc 

rate (per HMVMT)*

Median Barrier

2010 - opp direction 37 182 0.07 0.32

2011 – opp direction 50 164 0.09 0.29

2012 – opp direction 55 135 0.10 0.24

Horizontal Curve

2010 – run off road 24 135 0.04 0.24

2011 – run off road 34 147 0.06 0.26

2012 – run off road 44 113 0.08 0.20

Roadway Departure

2010 – run off road 24 135 0.04 0.24

2011 – run off road 34 147 0.06 0.26

2012 – run off road 44 113 0.08 0.20

*For the target crash type. 

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

you would like to elaborate.
Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

CY 2012 Annual Report

16

Note 1: “Functional classification and ownership” information was not available at report time

Note 2: All injuries were used instead of severe injuries for the “Roadway Ownership” tables used in lieu 

of unavailable (at report time) severe injury totals.

Note 3: Fatal accident and severe injury accident totals were used in lieu of unavailable (at report time) 

fatality and severe injury totals for “HSIP Sub Program” and “Systemic Treatment” worksheets

Note 4: All injuries were used instead of severe injuries for the “SHSP Emphasis Areas” tables in order to 

maintain consistency with the MD SHSP injuries goals.

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

[Insert project evaluation table]