North Dakota

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

  

   

Prepared by: ND

  
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............................................................................................................. 12

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 12

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 18

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 18

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 32

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) .......................................... 35

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 36

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 41

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 46

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................52

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................54
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

This year the NDDOT has completed the Local Road Safety Program (LRSP). This program provides local

agencies locations for possible safety projects based on a data‐driven process. This year was the first

year that we have received requests for projects that were generated from the LRSP. These projects

have been programmed into the safety program and will be built in the next few years.  

  

Also, the NDDOT is transitioning to an updated HSIP Implementation Plan based on the most recent

SHSP document (from September 2013). The plan emphasizes the systemic method for identifying at‐

risk locations and provides an outline for a “State Road Safety Plan” (SRSP).  Both the SRSP and LRSP

documents will be used to develop safety projects. The updated HSIP Plan also provides an improved

decision making process to select appropriate countermeasures and prioritize projects.  
2015 North Dakota     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 Solicitation process

The NDDOT sends out an annual solicitation letter to state and local agencies each year. These agencies

fill out an application form for potential projects based on the high crash listings and their own

knowledge of safety issues. These applications are evaluated by the NDDOT Programming Division.  This

has been the process for the last several years. However the NDDOT is transitioning to a more systemic

approach through the development of the “Local Road Safety Plan” (LRSP). This plan identifies potential

projects based on a risk assessment. Agencies have the option of developing safety projects directly

from the risk assessment instead of chasing “hot spot” locations.

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

The NDDOT addresses safety on local roads through the Local Road Safety Program (LRSP).  

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other‐Safety Division, Local Government

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners.  

Design

The Design Division is included in the distribution of the high crash listings. All road safety reviews

require at least one member of the Design Division.  Their participation and review of at‐risk locations

helps in the development of potential project countermeasures.

  

Planning

The Planning Division provides data for the development of the HSIP. Roadway features are collected

and maintained in the Planning Division include: traffic volume, truck volumes, traffic projections,

roadway features, roadway viewer (for state highways) and mapping. The Planning Division is also

included in the distribution of the high crash listings.

  

Safety Division

Crash data and statistics are provided by the Safety Division. This information is used to identify areas of

focus through the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The Safety Division also participates in road

safety reviews.

  

Local Government

Members of the Local Government Division provide project development through city, county and tribal

agencies.  The local government assists in the solicitation of safety projects. They also participate in road

safety reviews.
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other‐Cities, Counties, and Tribal Governments

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‐See Optional Description

A new “HSIP Implementation Plan” document has been written and is currently in the “draft” stage. The

major change that is included in this document is the addition of a “systemic” analysis which is used to

identify projects based on levels of risk. The draft document also refines the scheduling of the HSIP

development and provided improved processes for the selection of countermeasures.  

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

would like to elaborate.

  Schedule for HSIP requests:

 October 20th – send out HSIP solicitation letter and high crash location lists/maps
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

 December 20th – HSIP application forms (SFN 59959) are due to NDDOT (this is the cutoff date

for projects to be included in the following year’s draft HSIP listing)

 January through March – NDDOT analysis of HSIP requests

 April 1st – Draft HSIP project listing

 August 1st – verify the construction year for previously approved projects

 August 31st – Final HSIP project list due to FHWA, HSIP online reporting due

 October 15th – Send responses out on approvals (or non‐approvals) for the HSIP applications

  

  

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

Other:      

   

   

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 6/17/2014

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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‐Intersection skew,

intersections of curves,

intersection traffic control

device, presence of adjacent

development

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‐Systemic project identification, local agency or NDDOT district requests
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

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 1

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Other    
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

   

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 6/17/2014

    

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‐shoulder width, access

density

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
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

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 1
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 3

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

30   

   

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

improvements?

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  

   

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures?  

Engineering Study
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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‐No change

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

would like to elaborate.  

None
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

HSIP (Section 148) 13495711   68 % 10326337   62 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA‐LU) 1439158     7 % 1439158     9 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer	‐	

Section 154

      

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

4985957   25 % 4985957   30 %

Incentive Grants	‐		

Section 163

      

Incentive Grants

(Section 406)

Other Federal‐aid

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

      

State and Local Funds
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Totals 19920826 100% 16751452 100%

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

$116,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$116,000.00

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

0 %

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

0 %

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

period?

0 %
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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

period?

0 %

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

overcome this in the future.

None

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

General Listing of ProjectsList each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period.

Project Improvement Category Outp

ut

HSIPCost

TotalCost

FundingCategory

FunctionalClassification

AADT

Speed

RoadwyOwnerip

GF GUIDE SIGNDW REFLECTIVITY

#2

Roadway signs and traffic

control Sign sheeting ‐ 

upgrade or replacement

607000

668000

HSIP(Section 148)

MultipleFunctionalclasses

StateHighwaAgency

FARGO VARIOUSINTERSECTIONS

Pedestrians and bicyclistsPedestrian signal ‐ modifyexisting

27000 30000 HSIP

(Section 148)

JAMESTOWNBYPASS

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ modify

free‐flow turn lane

897000

997000

HSIP(Section 148)

Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

StateHighwaAgency

US 281 AND99TH ST NE

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

574000

638000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

1280

65 State

HighwaAgency

ND 18 AND CASSCOUNTY ROAD

10

Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

1066500

1185000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

1664

25 State

HighwaAgency
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

SIGNING	‐	WESTERNDISTRICTS

Intersection trafficcontrol Intersectionsigning ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1241000

1379000

HSIP(Section 148)

StateHighwaAgency

JUNCTION OF ND

1 AND ND 46

Advanced technology and

ITS Congestion detection

/ traffic monitoring

system

195000

216000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

65 State

HighwaAgency

US 83 AND ND23INTERSECTION

Advanced technology andITS Congestion detection/ traffic monitoringsystem

388000

431000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

7090

70 State

HighwaAgency

BLANCHARDEAST TO JCT ND200

Roadway Roadway ‐ 

other

6142000

6824000

HRRRSpecialRule

Rural

MajorCollector

539 65 State

HighwaAgency

BIA ROADS	‐	VARIOUSLOCATIONS

Roadside Roadsidegrading

46000 81000 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralLocalRoad orStreet

LocalPark,Forest ReservaonAgency

TURN LANES

ALONG US 52,NEAR DRAKE

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1890000

2100000

HSIP(Section 148)

Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ 

2290

55 State

HighwaAgency
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Other

CAVALIERCOUNTY ROADS

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ new

46000 51000 HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralMajorCollector

CountyHighwaAgency

DISTRICTWIDERETROREFLECTIVITY

Roadway signs and traffic

control Sign sheeting ‐ 

upgrade or replacement

618000

686000

HSIP(Section 148)

StateHighwaAgency

DISTRICTWIDERETROREFLECTIVITY

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Sign sheeting ‐ upgrade or replacement

1398000

1554000

HSIP(Section 148)

StateHighwaAgency
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 114.2 121.6 133.4 142.2 141.2

Number of serious injuries 369.2 376.4 409.2 453.2 490.4

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.43 1.472 1.524 1.552 1.466

Serious injury rate (per

HMVMT)

4.716 4.612 4.68 4.924 5.026

*Performance measure data is presented using a five‐year rolling average.
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

19
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

20
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2014

FunctionClassification

Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious inj

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATE

8.2 25.2 0.5 1.52

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHERFREEWAYS ANDEXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

46.2 124 1.89 5.01

RURAL MINORARTERIAL

20.4 38.2 2.45 4.59

RURAL MINOR

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJORCOLLECTOR

22.4 58.6 8.8 23.23

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR

STREET

27 46.8 1.44 2.29

URBAN PRINCIPAL 3.2 8.6 0.73 1.98
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

ARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATEURBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

FREEWAYS AND

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

5 58.6 0.64 7.66

URBAN MINOR

ARTERIAL

4.4 36.8 0.76 6.42

URBAN MINORCOLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR

COLLECTOR

0.8 21 0.31 8.4

URBAN LOCAL ROADOR STREET

3.2 22.6 0.79 5.56
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Year ‐ 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of

fatalities

Number of seriousinjuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

SH

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 85.2 268.8 1.22 3COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 30 86.2 1.49 4TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 11.6 83 1.77 1STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 6.6 4.2 0 0LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0.6 0.2 0 0RAILROAD 0 0 0 0STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT,

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

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

None

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

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per

capita)

0.04 0.046 0.072 0.084 0.08

Serious injury rate

(per capita)

0.036 0.074 0.112 0.13 0.152

Fatality and serious

injury rate (per capita)

0.076 0.12 0.184 0.216 0.234

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

  

   Fatalities Age 65+ Serious Inj Age 65+ Population 65+ Fatal+Injury Rate

2007  6 9 144,000   0.10

2008 11 8 146,000   0.13

2009 12 10 147,000   0.15

2010 5 27 145,000   0.22

2011 19 27 144,000   0.32

2012 15 22 144,000   0.26

2013 8 23 142,000   0.22

2014 10 36 N/A    

Example calculations:  
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Fatality plus injury rate for 2007 = (6+9)/144 = 0.10

2007 ‐ 2011 Average of fatalities and serious injuries = (0.10+0.13+0.15+0.22+0.32) / 5 = 0.18

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state?  

Yes
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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

the State SHSP.

Because of the increasing trend in severe crashes involving older drivers, the SHSP Steering Committee

discussed key strategies. From ND SHSP section 3.3.1:

<br />Regarding infrastructure approaches to reduce these severe crashes, the strategies focus on

improving signing, installing intersection lighting, and adding turn lanes; which are already priority

strategies in the Lane Departure and Intersection safety emphasis areas. Furthermore, the NDDOT is

already implementing these kinds of projects across the state. Policy and program strategies identified

as a priority to address issues with older drivers include the following:

<br />Review license renewal policies for older drivers identified as an excessive risk through screening

by motor vehicle personnel (such as restrict vs. rescind, age and interval schedule for license renewal,

etc.). Continue to evaluate policies and relevant data in the future.

<br />Develop informational resources and conduct outreach for older driver safety screening for family,

friends, physicians, and law enforcement to report at‐risk drivers:

<br />Establish a statewide "one‐stop" resource to guide the public on addressing driving skill

assessments, educational courses, licensing, and safe mobility choices.

<br />Provide educational and training opportunities to the general older driver population to assess

their driving capabilities and limitations, improve skills, and voluntarily limit their driving to safer driving

conditions.

<br />Establish a broad‐based coalition to plan for addressing older adults’ transportation needs and

strengthen transportation options.

<br />   

North Dakota intends to have further consideration for older drivers in the next update to the SHSP.

<br />

<br />

<br /><br />
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

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:  

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:  

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

None
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2014

HSIP‐related SHSPEmphasis Areas

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Lane Departure 61 233.6 0.63 2.42 0 Intersections 26.4 87.4 0.27 0.88 0 Data 0 0 0 0 0 
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Groups of similar project typesPresent the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year ‐ 2013

HSIP Sub‐program Types

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Roadway Departure 49.2 183.4 0.52 1.94 0 Intersection 19.6 54.2 0.2 0.56 0 
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Systemic TreatmentsPresent the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year ‐ 2014

Systemicimprovement

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Rumble Strips 61 233.6 0.63 2.42 0 
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

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

which you would like to elaborate.  

None
2015 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Project EvaluationProvide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional).

Location Functional

Class

ImprovementCategory

ImprovementType

Bef‐Fatal

Bef‐SeriousInjury

Bef‐AllInjuries

Bef‐PDO

Bef‐Total

Aft‐Fatal

Aft‐SeriousInjury

Aft‐All

Injuries

AP

n/a
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: General

Listing of Projects

HSIP_Update_2015.pdf

   
2015 North Dakota     Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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 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.  

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.