Page 1 of 62

OREGON
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 62

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 10

YesPlease describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts. ...................................................... 18

We are in the early stages of using the HSM to support HSIP efforts. Our ODOT Planning unit has 

incorporated several methodologies into their latest manual. We are using the cost-effectiveness analysis tool 

outlined in the HSM for project prioritization. ................................................................................................ 18

ODOT uses some analysis methods from the HSM, including expected numbers of crashes for bikes and 

pedestrians, proportions of crashes in investigations and critical crash rates in planning and project level 

analysis. ................................................................................................................................................................. 19

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 22

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

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 25

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 30

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 30

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 43

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 45

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 47

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 49

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 55

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 57
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 62

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 62

Executive Summary 

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is responsible for administering Oregon’s Highway Safety 

Improvement (HSIP) Program. All roads within the state of Oregon are eligible to receive HSIP funding under 

the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program.

The mission of the Highway Safety Program at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is to carry 

out highway safety improvement projects to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries. For purposes of programming Highway Safety funds in the Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP), all highway safety infrastructure improvement projects shall follow these guidelines.

The majority of the funding for the ODOT Highway Safety Program comes from the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP), which is a core federal-aid program under the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act that went into effect in December, 2015. The primary goal of the HSIP is to achieve 

a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-state owned 

roads and tribal roads. The HSIP also requires a data-driven and strategic approach to improving highway safety 

on all public roads that focuses on performance. The FAST Act, which replaced the Moving Ahead for Progress 

in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), largely maintained the program structure of the HSIP with slight increases in 

funding and a change that disallows HSIP funds to be transferred to and used for educational and enforcement 

type activities. The HSIP funds are primarily intended for infrastructure improvement projects. Noninfrastructure highway safety improvements such as education and enforcement programs are administered by 

the ODOT Transportation Safety Division (TSD), and are typically funded with separate funding from the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), or 

state funds. 

Following the HSIP requirements, ODOT has developed a new safety program, known as the All Roads 

Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program, which addresses safety on all public roads including non-state 

roadways. ODOT worked with the representatives from the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and the Association 

of Oregon Counties (AOC) to document principles for a jurisdictionally blind safety program for Oregon to 

address safety on all public roads of the state, which eventually led to the development of the ARTS Program.

The ARTS Program is intended to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. About half of the fatal 

and serious injury crashes in the state occur on non-state roadways. By working collaboratively with local road 

jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPOs, and tribes) ODOT can expect to increase awareness of safety on all roads, 

promote best practices for infrastructure safety, complement behavioral safety efforts, and focus limited 

resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the State of Oregon. The program is a data-driven 

program to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction and is blind to jurisdiction. 

Under the inaugural round of the ARTS Program, safety projects have been selected that will be delivered 

between 2017 and 2021. The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) has allocated approximately $31 to 

$37 million dollars per year to the ODOT Highway Safety Program for these five years (for a total of $166 

million dollars) for infrastructure improvements. The majority of this funding will come from the federal 

HSIP. Currently, we are updating our outdated Roadway Departure plan on Oregon roadways. In the Fall of 

2017, ODOT will start the second round of the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program. 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 62

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The objective of the ARTS Program is to select the best safety projects using a jurisdictionally blind and 

data-driven approach to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries on all roads 

in the state. A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to 

identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway projects incorporate 

design features or elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating guardrail or improving 

intersection channelization, signing, and pavement markings. But appropriate use of HSIP funds is only 

for locations or corridors where a known problem exists as indicated by location-specific data on 

fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is determined that the specific project can with confidence 

produce a measurable and significant reduction in such fatalities or serious injuries. To achieve the 

maximum benefit, the focus of the ARTS Program is on cost-effective use of the funds allocated for safety 

improvements addressing fatal and serious injury crashes.

The general program guidelines are as follows:

All projects shall address specific safety problems that contribute to fatal and serious injury crashes.

All projects shall use only countermeasures from the ODOT-approved countermeasure list.

Only the most recent available five years of ODOT-reported crashes shall be used for crash analysis.

Projects shall be prioritized based on ODOT-approved prioritization method such as Benefit-Cost Ratio.

ODOT Regions will be responsible for developing and delivering projects.

The ARTS Program has two components - a hotspot component and a systemic component, as shown in 

Figure 2-1. The hotspot approach is the traditional approach used in safety analysis, in which ‘hotspot’ 

locations are identified based on crash history and appropriate countermeasures are implemented to 

reduce crashes. Hotspot projects typically focus on a particular location (for example, an intersection or a 

short segment of a roadway) that may have multiple causes to address. For the ARTS Program, a hotspot 

location is defined as a location that has at least one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years. 

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost countermeasures that can be widely implemented and 

then applies the countermeasures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The HSIP places a 

significant emphasis on the systemic approach, which has been proven to successfully reduce the occurrences of 

fatal and serious injury crashes. The systemic component of the ARTS Program has been further divided into 

three emphasis areas - roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle. Based on 2009 through 2013 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 62

data, these three emphasis areas accounted for approximately 85% of the fatal and serious injury crashes in the 

state.

The systemic approach originally used Section 164 penalty funds allocated to the Safety Program, but under the 

ARTS Program the systemic approach has been moved into the mainstream safety program equal with the 

hotspot approach. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Traffic-Roadway Engineering Section

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

The Oregon DOT Highway Safety Engineer and Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator are located in our 

headquarters office in Salem. There are 5 Region Traffic offices across Oregon. Each Region Traffic office has 

several employees that work with Region staff to help develop appropriate safety projects using one of our 

safety plans (Roadway Departure, Intersection, Bike/ped plans) or using our Safety Priority Index System 

(SPIS) to help identify high crash locations. 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

The available money is separated into two categories — systemic and hot 

spots. Systemic project are proven, low-cost measures that have successfully 

reduced the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes and that can be 

widely implemented, like rumble strips on the shoulder of the road. Hot spots 

are identified by a higher than normal crash occurrence. These are often 

higher cost projects and are targeted to a specific segment of roadway or 

intersection.

ODOT collected input from the local governments in each region of the state.

Funding is divided to each region based on the number of fatalities and serious 

injury crashes. Potential projects within each region are prioritized by their 

benefit cost.

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

Local and tribal roads are addressed through the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) 

Program a safety program that addresses safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. By working 

collaboratively with local road jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPO’s and tribes) can ODOT hopes 

to increase awareness of safety on all roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, 

compliment behavioral safety efforts and focus limited resources to reduce fatal and serious 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 62

injury crashes in the state of Oregon. This program uses a data-driven approach that is blind 

to jurisdiction to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction and emphasize elements of the 

SHSP. 

The objective of the ARTS Program is to select the best safety projects using a jurisdictionally blind and data-driven 

approach to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries on all roads in the state. A datadriven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to identify the best possible locations 

to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway projects incorporate design features or elements that relate to 

highway safety, such as updating guardrail or improving intersection channelization, signing, and pavement 

markings. But appropriate use of HSIP funds is only for locations or corridors where a known problem exists as 

indicated by location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is determined that the specific 

project can with confidence produce a measurable and significant reduction in such fatalities or serious injuries. To 

achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the ARTS Program is on cost-effective use of the funds allocated for 

safety improvements addressing fatal and serious injury crashes. 

The general program guidelines are as follows: 

All projects shall address specific safety problems that contribute to fatal and serious injury crashes. 

All projects shall use only countermeasures from the ODOT-approved countermeasure list. 

Only the most recent available five years of ODOT-reported crashes shall be used for crash analysis. 

Projects shall be prioritized based on ODOT-approved prioritization method such as Benefit-Cost Ratio. 

 ODOT Regions will be responsible for developing and delivering projects. 

The ARTS Program has two components - a hotspot component and a systemic component, as shown in Figure 2-1. 

The hotspot approach is the traditional approach used in safety analysis, in which ‘hotspot’ locations are identified 

based on crash history and appropriate countermeasures are implemented to reduce crashes. Hotspot projects 

typically focus on a particular location (for example, an intersection or a short segment of a roadway) that may 

have multiple causes to address. For the ARTS Program, a hotspot location is defined as a location that has at least 

one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost countermeasures that can be widely implemented and then 

applies the countermeasures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The HSIP places a significant 

emphasis on the systemic approach, which has been proven to successfully reduce the occurrences of fatal and 

serious injury crashes. The systemic component of the ARTS Program has been further divided into three emphasis 

areas - roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle. Based on 2009 through 2013 data, these three 

emphasis areas accounted for approximately 85% of the fatal and serious injury crashes in the state. 

The systemic approach originally used Section 164 penalty funds allocated to the Safety Program, but under the 

ARTS Program the systemic approach has been moved into the mainstream safety program equal with the hotspot 

approach.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 62

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Other-Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC)

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

ODOT established a Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC) on 

February 18, 2005 which meet quarterly. This committee provides a leadership 

forum to strategize, coordinate and direct the engineering-related highway 

safety activities and is comprised of individuals with a mix of expertise within 

the Department. Members of the committee represent the Transportation 

Safety Division, Region and Headquarters Traffic, Region Technical Centers, 

Region Planner, District Maintenance and Roadway Section. The Traffic 

Operations and Leadership Team (TOLT) was also established several years 

ago which provides statewide policy and procedure leadership for traffic 

engineering related issues.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

ODOT established a Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC) on February 18, 2005 which meet 

quarterly. 

The Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC) provides operational decisions for the Safety Management 

System within ODOT and provides advice and recommendations to Highway Leadership Team as well as other 

leadership teams within ODOT regarding funding issues or major safety policy matters. 

The HSEC will be comprised of individuals with a mix of expertise within the Department. Members of the 

committee represent the Transportation Safety Division, Region and Headquarters Traffic, Region Technical 

Centers, Transportation Development (Planning), Maintenance, Federal Highway, Transportation Safety, 

Association of Oregon Counties and Roadway Section.

The Highway Safety Engineering Committee provides a leadership forum to enhance, strategize, coordinate, 

and direct the engineering/infrastructure related highway safety activities for the Department including the 

ARTS/HSIP program. 

The Traffic Operations and Leadership Team (TOLT) was also established several years ago which provides 

statewide policy and procedure leadership for traffic engineering related issues. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 62

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

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

Our 5 Region Traffic offices work closely with external partners in determining appropriate 

safety projects to fund in Oregon to reduce fatal and serious injuries crashes. 

 

 

 

Describe coordination with external partners.

Our 5 Region Traffic offices work closely with external partners in determining appropriate safety projects to 

fund in Oregon to reduce fatal and serious injuries crashes. We are currently getting ready to start our round 2 

All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program this fall.

Some External Partners are involved in HSEC, but all are involved in the planning through the SHSP process as 

stakeholders in the strategic planning document that defines Oregon’s traffic safety trends and challenges. The 

SHSP also identifies Oregon’s policies and strategies to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

Describe other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate. 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 62

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/odot_safety_program_guide.pdf

Oregon DOT is currently updating our Roadway Departure plan for the state. We also have a contract with 

Portland State University to develop a plan regarding wrong way driving and recommendation on our 

interstate ramps. 

Although not as commonly used as benefit-cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis is another tool that is 

used by ODOT for project prioritization. Rather than comparing the economic value of the crash 

reductions to the project cost, cost-effectiveness analysis compares the change in crash frequency due to 

the implementation of a countermeasure to the project cost. For Oregon’s pedestrian/bicycle projects 

under the ARTS Program, Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) is used to prioritize projects. 

CEI estimates the cost to reduce one crash. The lower the CEI value of a project, the higher it will 

rank in the prioritized list.

Here is a link to the ARTS program for more information 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx .

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

odot_safety_program_guide[1].pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Bicycle Safety

Roadway Departure

Pedestrian Safety

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

ODOT's common highway safety goal on Oregon roadways is to select appropriate safety projects that will 

reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. In our HSIP ARTS program, most all of these program topic areas can 

get HSIP safety funding depending on the applicant justifying an acceptable benefit/cost analysis to reduce fatal 

and serious injury crashes. We do have a small fund called our Quick Fix funding program to address low cost 

safety spot improvement for our highway system only. 

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 62

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Other-Cost Effectiveness for Bike/Peds

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Cost Effectiveness : 100 

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

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hotspot” locations and then identify measures to implement by diagnosing 

the “hotspot”. ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hotspot projects (prioritized based on benefit cost 

ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate countermeasures. This doesn’t allow us to select 

hot spot.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements the measures 

where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 62

occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The process for Systemic projects was an application-based process. Local 

Agencies and ODOT Regions submitted applications for systemic projects in three focus areas- roadway departure, 

intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects were prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and 

intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). Here is a link to the bicycle/pedestrian 

plan. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/Bicycle_Pedestrian_Safety.aspx 

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-Crash Severity

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 62

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 100 

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

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hotspot” locations and then identify measures to implement by diagnosing 

the “hotspot”. ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hotspot projects (prioritized based on benefit cost 

ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate countermeasures. This doesn’t allow us to select 

hot spot.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements the measures 

where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the 

occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The process for Systemic projects was an application-based process. Local 

Agencies and ODOT Regions submitted applications for systemic projects in three focus areas- roadway departure, 

intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects were prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and 

intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). Here is a link to our intersection plan 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/intersections.aspx .

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Other-Crash Severity

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 62

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Cost Effectiveness : 100 

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

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hotspot” locations and then identify measures to implement by diagnosing 

the “hotspot”. ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hotspot projects (prioritized based on benefit cost 

ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate countermeasures. This doesn’t allow us to select 

hot spot.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements the measures 

where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the 

occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The process for Systemic projects was an application-based process. Local 

Agencies and ODOT Regions submitted applications for systemic projects in three focus areas- roadway departure, 

intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects were prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and 

intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). Here is a link to our pedestrian/bicycle 

plan http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/Bicycle_Pedestrian_Safety.aspx .

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 62

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Population 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-Crash Severity

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 100 

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

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hotspot” locations and then identify measures to implement by diagnosing 

the “hotspot”. ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hotspot projects (prioritized based on benefit cost 

ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate countermeasures. This doesn’t allow us to select 

hot spot.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements the measures 

where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the 

occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The process for Systemic projects was an application-based process. Local 

Agencies and ODOT Regions submitted applications for systemic projects in three focus areas- roadway departure, 

intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects were prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 62

intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). Here is a link to our roadway departure 

plan. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/pages/roadway_departure.aspx 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments 

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

Program Components

The ARTS Program has two components – a hotspot component and a systemic component. The 

hotspot approach is the traditional approach used in safety analysis, in which ‘hotspot’ locations are 

identified based on crash history and appropriate countermeasures are implemented to reduce 

crashes. Hotspot projects typically focus on a particular location (for example, an intersection or a 

short segment of a roadway) that may have multiple causes to address. For the ARTS Program, a 

hotspot location is defined as a location that has at least one fatal or serious injury crash within 

the last five years.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost countermeasures that 

can be widely implemented and then applies the countermeasures where there 

is evidence that they would be most useful. The HSIP places a significant 

emphasis on the systemic approach, which has been proven to successfully 

reduce the occurrences of fatal and serious injury crashes. The systemic 

component of the ARTS Program has been further divided into three emphasis 

areas – roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle. Based on 

2009 through 2013 data, these three emphasis areas accounted for 

approximately 85% of the fatal and serious injury crashes in the state.

The ARTS Program funds will be allocated to the five ODOT Regions based on 

the proportion of the fatal and serious injury crashes occurred within the last 

five years in each Region. For a given Region, total funding should be divided 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 62

equally between the hotspot and systemic components. Again, for the 

systemic component, it is recommended that Regions split the available 

funding between the emphasis areas identified in the TSAP (currently those 

are roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle) based on the 

proportion of the fatal and serious injury crashes occurred between these 

three areas within the last five years. For the

first round of the ARTS Program, based on the crash data from 2009 to 2013, 

the statewide proportions of fatal and serious injury crashes between roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle crashes were 50%, 36%, and 

14%, respectively.

ODOT has approximately $166 million of funding for the five years between 

2017 and 2021. Here is a link to ODOT's CRF list 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFICROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx#Crash_Reduction_Factors

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

Stakeholder input 

Other-Region Traffic Investigator's investigate the top 5% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) each year and 

identify potential cost effective countermeasures.

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

Once locations have been identified for potential safety improvements through networking 

screening and diagnoses, the next step is to identify potential countermeasures that can be 

implemented to improve safety. A countermeasure can be defined as a roadway strategy intended to 

decrease crash frequency and/or severity at a given site.

ODOT has compiled a list of countermeasures, known as the ODOT Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) 

List, which have been proven to reduce crashes. A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is the percentage 

crash reduction that might be expected after implementing a given countermeasure(s) at a specific 

site. These countermeasures were primarily chosen from the Highway Safety Manual, the Crash 

Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse, and the FHWA Desktop Reference for Crash 

Reduction Factors. All the countermeasures were listed as either ‘hotspot’ or ‘systemic’ 

countermeasures. Any countermeasures listed in the ODOT CRF List can be used for hotspot 

projects. However, for systemic projects only countermeasures that are listed as ‘systemic’ shall be 

used. The ODOT CRF List is updated periodically as new countermeasures or better studies on 

existing countermeasures become available. Suggestions for including new countermeasure(s) to 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 62

the ODOT CRF List can be submitted to ODOT TRS Staff using the CRF Request Form provided 

on the ARTS website.

Some CRFs may be applicable to all crash types and/or all severities. Some CRFs may be 

applicable to a particular crash type and/or severity. Correct crash types and severities should be 

used in the benefit-cost analysis. Refer to the ODOT Highway Safety Investigation Manual for 

more information on the CRF http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFICROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx#Crash_Reduction_Factors .

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

ODOT's All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program includes several ITS technologies as 

potential countermeasures, especially curve and intersection warning systems and variable speeds 

Oregon is in the formative stages of developing connected vehicle technologies 

. 

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

We are in the early stages of using the HSM to support HSIP efforts. Our 

ODOT Planning unit has incorporated several methodologies into their latest 

manual. We are using the cost-effectiveness analysis tool outlined in the HSM 

for project prioritization. 

Rather than comparing the economic value of the crash reductions to 

the project cost, cost-effectiveness analysis compares the change in 

crash frequency due to the implementation of a countermeasure to the 

project cost. For the pedestrian/bicycle projects under the ARTS 

Program, Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) is used to prioritize projects. 

CEI estimates the cost to reduce one crash. The lower the CEI value of 

a project, the higher it will rank in the prioritized list. 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 62

ODOT uses some analysis methods from the HSM, including expected numbers of crashes for bikes and 

pedestrians, proportions of crashes in investigations and critical crash rates in planning and project level analysis.

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

period?

Yes

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

Yes, since the last HSIP report we have implemented the ARTS program. 

The ARTS program primarily uses federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The principles and purpose of 

ARTS and HSIP are:

The program goal is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.

The program must include all public roads.

The program is data driven and blind to jurisdiction.

The process will be overseen by Oregon DOT Regions.

Both traditional “hot spot” methodology and systemic methodology is used.

The objective of ARTS and HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries. A data-driven approach uses 

crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. 

Many highway projects incorporate design features or elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating guardrail or 

improvements to intersection channelization, signing and pavement markings. But appropriate use of HSIP funds is only for locations or 

corridors where a known problem exists as indicated by location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is 

determined that the specific project can, with confidence, produce a measurable and significant reduction in such fatalities or serious 

injuries. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the ARTS program is on cost effective use of the funds allocated for safety 

improvements addressing fatal and serious injury crashes.

All Projects shall:

Address a specific Safety problem contributing to fatalities and serious injuries

Use proven countermeasures that correct or substantially improve the fatal and serious injury problem

Use ODOT crash data to establish the Benefit/Cost ratio (so projects can be compared fairly)

Use ODOT Benefit Cost method (or Cost effectiveness for Bicycle/Pedestrian)

Be prioritized or categorized based on the Benefit/Cost Ratio for developing the 150% list

Use only proven countermeasures from the approved ODOT Crash Reduction Factor list (a written process is developed for considering new 

measures)

Projects must include written support from the Road Jurisdiction if the project is proposed by another agency

Benefit Costs will be based on the most recent available three to five years of crash data

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hot spot” locations, and then identify measures to implement by diagnosing the “hot 

spot”.

Hot Spot Projects shall:
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 62

Address a location with a crash history of at least one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements the measures where 

there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of 

fatal and serious injury crashes. The sites may be selected from ODOT’s list of priority corridors for Roadway Departure, Intersections 

or Pedestrian/Bicycle crashes.

Systemic Projects shall:

Use only approved “Systemic” countermeasures as listed in the Crash Reduction factors list

Not require the acquisition of significant amounts of right of way (more than 10% of project costs), preferably no right of way

For the Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis, use Highway Safety Manual methods to estimate predicted crashes for pedestrians and bicycles and Cost 

Effectiveness to prioritize projects selection.

Systemic Projects should:

Have a history of fatal or serious injury crashes or a risk of high severity crashes and preferably are selected from priority corridors within Systemic 

plans.

The Safety funds are split to each region based on the amount of fatalities and serious injuries occurring in the region on all public 

roads. Regions will be required to spend a minimum of 50% of their funding on Systemic projects.

Systemic funding is intended to be used for Roadway Departure, Intersections and Pedestrian/Bicycle type projects. At the statewide 

level the split in F&A between Roadway Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike is about 40%/40%/20% respectively. Regions will be 

given the flexibility to determine the appropriate splits between systemic types of projects for their regions. It is suggested:

That at least one project per year be developed for each type, if possible.

Region splits of systemic funds for each systemic type be roughly equivalent to the proportion of F&A 

occurring in the region

Funding is eligible to be used for approved countermeasures as long as those countermeasures provide an improvement to reducing 

fatal and serious injury and are prioritized through the ARTS data driven process. Safety funds may be used to include or replace 

elements that are necessary to satisfactorily complete the project, such as replacing non-compliant ADA ramps, replacing pavement 

striping that is removed or right of way, but those elements must be included in the cost of the project and part of the prioritization 

process. Other elements (not applicable to the safety project) may be combined with the project (i.e., culvert), but must be funded by 

other sources, not safety funds.

Both Hot Spot and Systemic processes will be an application based process. Oregon jurisdictions will be invited to submit projects for 

Hot Spot and Systemic funding, using a large list of proven countermeasures. ODOT will distribute data on Hot Spots and Systemic 

Plans to help determine potential locations for improvement.

For Hot Spots projectsagencies will be given the opportunity to submit projects with justification that it meets the program 

purpose. The number of submittals should be limited because of limited funds, but ODOT will ask for submittals amounting to 300 to 

500% of the funding available to ensure sufficient worthwhile projects. Regions will categorize projects based on the project’s ability to 

reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and the benefit cost of the project, and finalize a draft 150% list for field scoping.

For Systemic projectsthe submittals will be for three systemic categories of funding, roadway departure, intersections and 

pedestrian/bicycle, attempting to solicit submittals amounting to about 300 - 500% of available funding. ODOT Regions will check all 

applications for program purpose and correctness, working with the submitting agencies when necessary in order to develop a 

potential list of projects. The intent is that the ODOT Regions will analyze and refine the list of submitted projects in order to prioritize 

the project list based on program purpose of reducing fatal and serious injuries and benefit cost, in order to finalize a draft 150% list 

for field scoping.

Once the refined 150% lists are ready, all projects (both hot spot and systemic) will go through a multi-discipline assessment to verify 

the solution. A multi-disciplinary team, including the owner of the facility, will ensure the best countermeasure is chosen to mitigate 

fatal and serious injury crashes. The project will also be scoped to verify the costs and any possible barrier to implementation. A 

finalized list of prioritized projects can then be produced with the best solution and the best cost.

Once the list is prioritized and a final 100% list is produced ODOT Region’s will work with Jurisdictions to determine the delivery 

methods, delivering agency and timelines (applicable funding year). For projects involving local agencies, the ODOT Regions will work 

with Jurisdictions to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement. The delivering agency will be accountable for timely and fiscally 

responsible delivery.
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 62

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

No
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 62

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $23,600,000 $23,600,000 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $9,600,000 $9,600,000 100%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $33,200,000 $33,200,000 100%

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

ODOT has approximately $166 million of funding for the five years between 2017 and 2021. Approximate 

funding splits between the ODOT Regions for the first round of the ARTS Program.

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

40% 

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

40% 

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

Page 23 of 62

The objective of the ARTS Program is to select the best safety projects using a 

jurisdictionally blind and data-driven approach to significantly reduce the 

occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries on all roads in the state. A datadriven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported 

methods to identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest 

benefits.

Benefit-cost analysis, which compares the economic benefits of the crash 

reductions to the project cost, is the traditional analysis tool that is used to 

determine financial viability of a project and to prioritize projects. The ODOT 

Benefit-Cost Workbook shall be used to calculate benefit-cost ratio for the 

ARTS Program. ODOT requires that five years of the most recent crash data 

available be used for the analysis and that the project has a benefit-cost ratio 

of 1.0 or greater. Projects with higher benefit-cost ratios will rank higher in the 

prioritized list.

ODOT has approximately $166 million of funding for the five years between 

2017 and 2021. Approximate funding splits between the ODOT Regions for the 

first round of the ARTS Program are as shown, Region 1 = 33%, Region 2 = 

34%, Region 3 = 15%, Region 4 = 11%, Region 5 = 7%. 

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

1% 

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

1% 

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

Oregon DOT uses current HSIP funding towards infrastructure safety projects. None of the current HSIP funds 

are used for non-infrastructure safety projects. In the past, some of the funds were used for roadway departure 

enforcement. Currently, Oregon is planning on using some other eligible federal funds for roadway departure 

enforcement.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$1 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$1 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 62

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

No funding was transferred in to or out of the HSIP program from other core program areas during the reporting 

period under 23 U.S.C. 126. 

Note: The only reason I selected $1 above is because the HSIP Online tool would not accept a 0% or $0. 

 

 

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

Oregon DOT does a great job obligating the HSIP funds to appropriate safety project but the challenge is 

getting the safety project programmed and built in an appropriate time frame. We are working on writing IGA's 

with local agencies to ensure the HSIP funds get spent in a timely fashion. 

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

Yes

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on which the State 

would like to elaborate. 

I believe our biggest challenge in HSIP implementation is programming and constructing these projects in a 

timely fashion, especially local safety projects.
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 62

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

2016 REGION 1 

LOCAL ROADS 

SIGNAL 

UPGRADES 

(HSIP) SCHOLLS 

SIGNAL SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS 

& UPGRADES 

MULTNOMAH

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

4 Intersections HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

REGION 4 HSIP 

TRANSITION 

RURAL VARIOUS 

SIGN UPGRADES, 

RUMBLE STRIPS, 

DELINEATORS & 

STRIPPING 

VARIOUS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

REGION 1 RURAL 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

(HSIP)-INSTALL 

DELINEATORS, 

SIGNING AND 

RUMBLE STRIPS 

ON RURAL 

COUNTY ROADS.

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR 38: US 101-

DEAN CREEK 

PAVING & PED 

IMPROVEMENTS 

UMPQUA 

GRIND/INLAY & 

PEDESTRIAN 

IMPROVEMENTS 

DOUGLAS

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

OR99 @ CREEL 

ROGUE VALLEY 

REDUCE TO 3-

LANES, 

CONSOLIDATE 

ACCESSES, ADD 

BIKE & PED 

JACKSON

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

3 Lanes HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists

2016 REGION 1 

LOCAL ROADS 

SIGNAL 

UPGRADES 

(HSIP) SCHOLLS 

SIGNAL SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS 

& UPGRADES 

MULTNOMAH

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 62

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

OR213 AT S 

UNION MILLS RD 

CASCADE SOUTH 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

CLACKAMS

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR207: 11TH @ 

ORCHARD AVE 

SIGNAL 

(HERMISTON) 

HERMISTION 

INSTALL SIGNAL 

UMATILLA

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

REGION 5 CURVE 

WARNING SIGNS 

2016

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

REGION 5 LOCAL 

JURISDICTION 

SIGN UPGRADES 

2016

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

$17,161.27 $17,161.27 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR126: EUGENE 

TO FLORENCE 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT 

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

I-84 AND I-205 

BARRIER 

INSTALLATION

Roadside Barrier - other $128,821.67 $128,821.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

OR213 AT S 

UNION MILLS RD 

CASCADE SOUTH 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

CLACKAMS

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

REGION 5 LOCAL 

JURISDICTION 

SIGN UPGRADES 

2016

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

NW CORNELIUS 

PASS RD US30 - 

NW KAISER RD 

LOCAL SAFETY 

AND LIGHTING 

IMPROVEMENTS 

MULTNOMAH

Lighting Site lighting - intersection $174,745 $174,745 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

REGION 2 

DYNAMIC 

WARNING SIGNS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

2 Signs $17,974.82 $17,974.82 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

REGION 1 RURAL 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

(HSIP)-INSTALL 

DELINEATORS, 

SIGNING AND 

RUMBLE STRIPS 

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 62

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

ON RURAL 

COUNTY ROADS.

US20 OR126 JCT -

DESCHUTES 

RIVER BRIDGE

Alignment Alignment - other $453,474.36 $453,474.36 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US26 (POWELL 

BLVD): SE 122ND 

AVE - SE 136TH 

AVE

Roadside Roadside - other $4300000 $4773000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

OR8: N 10TH 

AVE(CORNELIUS)- 

SW 110TH 

AVE(BEAVERTON

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists

OR126: EUGENE 

TO FLORENCE 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT 

Roadside Roadside - other $1110000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR154 @ 

STRINGTOWN 

ROAD

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR213 AT S 

UNION MILLS RD 

CASCADE SOUTH 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

CLACKAMS

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR207: 11TH @ 

ORCHARD AVE 

SIGNAL 

(HERMISTON) 

HERMISTION 

INSTALL SIGNAL 

UMATILLA

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR207: 11TH 

@ELM & 

ORCHARD 

SIGNALS 

(HERMISTON)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

$2,028,409.56 $2,832,644.97 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OR140: GREEN 

SPRINGS INTCH-K 

FALLS/MALIN 

HWY SOUTH 

KLAMATH FALLS 

STRUCTURAL 

OVERLAY, 

UPGRADE SIGNS, 

OTHER SAFETY 

FEATU KLAMATH

Roadway Roadway - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

REGION 5 CURVE 

WARNING SIGNS 

2016

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 62

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SAFETY 

FEATURES FOR 

LOCAL ROADS 

AND STREETS 

2017

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR140: BRETT 

WAY EXTENSION 

(K FALLS)

Roadway Roadway - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

REGION 4 CURVE 

WARNING SIGNS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

REGION 5 LOCAL 

JURISDICTION 

SIGN UPGRADES 

2016

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

I-5 CABLE 

BARRIERSOUTHERN 

OREGON 

Roadside Barrier - other $7,238,868.3 $9,597,678.3 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US97: REDMOND -

BEND

Roadway Roadway - other $569,430 $569,430 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR86: BAKERCOPPERFIELD 

HWY GUARDRAIL 

PHASE III

Roadside Barrier - other $624,365.24 $624,365.24 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

GRANTS PASS 

SIGNAL & 

PEDESTRIAN 

UPGRADES

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

$305,250 $305,250 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

US26: NW 

MOUNTAINDALE 

RD - NW 

GLENCOE RD 

SUNSET 

PAVEMENT 

PRESERVATION 

WASHINGTON

Roadway Roadway - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

OR126: 

FLORENCEEUGENE 

SHOULDER 

WIDENING

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

$222,000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists

OR99E: 

ENHANCED 

PEDESTRIAN 

CROSSWALKS 

(WOODBURN)

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

OR154 @ 

STRINGTOWN 

ROAD

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 62

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

2016 REGION 1 

CURVE WARNING 

SIGNS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

REGION 2 

CENTERLINE 

RUMBLE STRIPS 

(UNIT 3)

Roadway Rumble strips - center HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

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

Page 30 of 62

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 416 377 317 331 337 313 357 446 498

Serious Injuries 1,913 1,231 1,382 1,541 1,618 1,416 1,496 1,777 0

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.240 1.110 0.940 0.990 1.020 0.930 1.030 1.240 0.000

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.720 3.620 4.090 4.620 4.880 4.200 4.320 4.940 0.000

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

62 45 69 62 70 55 64 82 0

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

177 149 139 184 185 165 177 186 0

Property Damage Only 

(PDO) 

23,406 21,887 22,922 24,853 25,036 26,228 26,716 26,025 0
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 62

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 32 of 62

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 33 of 62

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

Please note that the 2016 crash data for Oregon has not been coded into our Crash Analysis and Reporting 

System (CARS) database yet. We anticipate that it will be available for next years 2018 HSIP annual report. 

Number of non-motorized fatalities means the total number of fatalities (as defined in this section) with the FARS 

person attribute codes: Pedestrian, (6) Bicyclist, (7) Other Cyclist, and (8) Person on Personal Conveyance 

Serious injuries means: 

(1) From April 14, 2016 to April 15, 2019, injuries classified as “A” on the KABCO scale through use of the 

conversion tables developed by NHTSA; and 

(2) After April 15, 2019, “suspected serious injury (A)” as defined in the MMUCC. 

Describe fatality data source.

Other

If Other Please describe

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Crash Data Base System in comparison with FARS data 

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

Primarily, we use the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) crash data base system because the data is 

available sooner than the FARS data. We compare our ODOT fatality crash data with FARS when possible. 

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 34 of 62

Year 2015

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

20.4 47.8 0.52 1.22

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

76.6 222.8 1.81 5.26

Rural Minor Arterial 43 132.8 2.25 6.88

Rural Minor Collector 12.4 45.6 0.5 1.26

Rural Major Collector 56.6 177 2.98 9.22

Rural Local Road or Street 21.8 73 1.26 4.26

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

9.6 58.8 0.19 1.22

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

2.4 20.8 0.18 1.56

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

56.4 354 1.11 7

Urban Minor Arterial 31 240.2 0.78 6.08

Urban Minor Collector 0.4 2 0.15 0.74

Urban Major Collector 18.8 129.8 0.78 5.32

Urban Local Road or Street 7 65.6 0.33 3.06
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 62

Year 2015

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 1 1 1 1

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Suburban Minor Collector 1 1 1 1
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 62 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 62

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 62

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Indian Tribe

Nation

Suburban Minor

Collector

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 62

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Indian Tribe

Nation

Suburban Minor

Collector

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 62

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

State Highway Agency Suburban Minor Collector

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 62

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

State Highway Agency Suburban Minor Collector

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

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

Please note that the 2016 crash data for Oregon has not been coded into our Crash Analysis and Reporting 

System (CARS) database yet. We anticipate that it will be available for next years 2018 HSIP annual report. 

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 350.0 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. Decrease traffic fatalities from 372 to 350 by December 31, 2018. 
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 62

Number of Serious Injuries 1461.0 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. Decrease serious traffic injuries from 1,562 to 1,461 by December 31, 2018. 

Fatality Rate 0.890 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. Reduce the fatality rate from 1.07 to 0.89, through December 31, 2018. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.300 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. The serious injury rate for our 2018 target is 4.33 people per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 229.0 

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

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan update and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working 

group. The non-motorized fatalities plus serious injuries for our 2018 target is 229 

people. 

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

For more information regarding how ODOT's performance measures were set, please refer to page 100-105 of 

the Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan 

2016 http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/TSAP/TSAP_2016_web.pdf . 

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

targets. 

The annual HSIP performance targets were developed during the last Strategic Highway Safety Plan update 

and were agreed upon by a multidisciplinary working group including the SHSO (and including a representative 

of an MPO). Afterwards ODOT held meetings with the MPOs from around the state and explained the process 

and the outcome.
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 62

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

48 46 50 48 56 58 68

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

113 140 162 169 134 167 197

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 62

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

For more information regarding older driver/pedestrian involved fatalities and serious injuries, please refer to 

pages 88-90 in the Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan 2016, 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/TSAP/TSAP_2016_web.pdf .
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 62

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

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

level evaluations.

Historically Oregon’s fatalities and serious injuries have trended downwards, Since 2013 however there have 

been annual increases, this increase has been common across the country. Project level evaluations has shown 

that the projects implemented under HSIP funding have improved the locations where invested. A recent 

comparison of Roadway Departure has also shown that the last few years of investments in this key area has 

lessened the percentage of total roadway departure crashes, indicating Oregon’s investments in systemic 

roadway departure has been moving the numbers. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

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

With the implementation of the ARTS program, there is an increased awareness of safety and a data-driven 

process for developing safety projects across all jurisdictions in Oregon. 

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

Yes

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

The ARTS program primarily uses federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The principles and purpose of 

ARTS and HSIP are:

• The program goal is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.

• The program must include all public roads.

• The program is data driven and blind to jurisdiction.
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 62

• The process will be overseen by Oregon DOT Regions.

• Both traditional “hot spot” methodology and systemic methodology is used.

The objective of ARTS and HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries. A data-driven approach uses 

crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods to identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. 

Many highway projects incorporate design features or elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating guardrail or 

improvements to intersection channelization, signing and pavement markings. But appropriate use of HSIP funds is only for locations or 

corridors where a known problem exists as indicated by location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is 

determined that the specific project can, with confidence, produce a measurable and significant reduction in such fatalities or serious 

injuries. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the ARTS program is on cost effective use of the funds allocated for safety 

improvements addressing fatal and serious injury crashes.

All Projects shall:

• Address a specific Safety problem contributing to fatalities and serious injuries

• Use proven countermeasures that correct or substantially improve the fatal and serious injury problem

• Use ODOT crash data to establish the Benefit/Cost ratio (so projects can be compared fairly)

• Use ODOT Benefit Cost method (or Cost effectiveness for Bicycle/Pedestrian)

• Be prioritized or categorized based on the Benefit/Cost Ratio for developing the 150% list

• Use only proven countermeasures from the approved ODOT Crash Reduction Factor list (a written process is developed for 

considering new measures)

• Projects must include written support from the Road Jurisdiction if the project is proposed by another agency

• Benefit Costs will be based on the most recent available three to five years of crash data

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hot spot” locations, and then identify measures to implement by diagnosing the “hot 

spot”.

Hot Spot Projects shall:

• Address a location with a crash history of at least one fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, then implements the measures where 

there is evidence that they would be most useful. The systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of 

fatal and serious injury crashes. The sites may be selected from ODOT’s list of priority corridors for Roadway Departure, Intersections 

or Pedestrian/Bicycle crashes.

Systemic Projects shall:

• Use only approved “Systemic” countermeasures as listed in the Crash Reduction factors list

• Not require the acquisition of significant amounts of right of way (more than 10% of project costs), preferably no right of way

• For the Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis, use Highway Safety Manual methods to estimate predicted crashes for pedestrians 

and bicycles and Cost Effectiveness to prioritize projects selection.

Systemic Projects should:

• Have a history of fatal or serious injury crashes or a risk of high severity crashes and preferably are selected from priority 

corridors within Systemic plans.

The Safety funds are split to each region based on the amount of fatalities and serious injuries occurring in the region on all public 

roads. Regions will be required to spend a minimum of 50% of their funding on Systemic projects.

Systemic funding is intended to be used for Roadway Departure, Intersections and Pedestrian/Bicycle type projects. At the statewide 

level the split in F&A between Roadway Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike is about 40%/40%/20% respectively. Regions will be 

given the flexibility to determine the appropriate splits between systemic types of projects for their regions. It is suggested:

• That at least one project per year be developed for each type, if possible.
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 62

• Region splits of systemic funds for each systemic type be roughly equivalent to the proportion 

of F&A occurring in the region

Funding is eligible to be used for approved countermeasures as long as those countermeasures provide an improvement to reducing 

fatal and serious injury and are prioritized through the ARTS data driven process. Safety funds may be used to include or replace 

elements that are necessary to satisfactorily complete the project, such as replacing non-compliant ADA ramps, replacing pavement 

striping that is removed or right of way, but those elements must be included in the cost of the project and part of the prioritization 

process. Other elements (not applicable to the safety project) may be combined with the project (i.e., culvert), but must be funded by 

other sources, not safety funds.

Both Hot Spot and Systemic processes will be an application based process. Oregon jurisdictions will be invited to submit projects for 

Hot Spot and Systemic funding, using a large list of proven countermeasures. ODOT will distribute data on Hot Spots and Systemic 

Plans to help determine potential locations for improvement.

For Hot Spots projects agencies will be given the opportunity to submit projects with justification that it meets the program 

purpose. The number of submittals should be limited because of limited funds, but ODOT will ask for submittals amounting to 300 to 

500% of the funding available to ensure sufficient worthwhile projects. Regions will categorize projects based on the project’s ability to 

reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and the benefit cost of the project, and finalize a draft 150% list for field scoping.

For Systemic projects the submittals will be for three systemic categories of funding, roadway departure, intersections and 

pedestrian/bicycle, attempting to solicit submittals amounting to about 300 - 500% of available funding. ODOT Regions will check all 

applications for program purpose and correctness, working with the submitting agencies when necessary in order to develop a 

potential list of projects. The intent is that the ODOT Regions will analyze and refine the list of submitted projects in order to prioritize 

the project list based on program purpose of reducing fatal and serious injuries and benefit cost, in order to finalize a draft 150% list 

for field scoping.

Once the refined 150% lists are ready, all projects (both hot spot and systemic) will go through a multi-discipline assessment to verify 

the solution. A multi-disciplinary team, including the owner of the facility, will ensure the best countermeasure is chosen to mitigate 

fatal and serious injury crashes. The project will also be scoped to verify the costs and any possible barrier to implementation. A 

finalized list of prioritized projects can then be produced with the best solution and the best cost.

Once the list is prioritized and a final 100% list is produced ODOT Region’s will work with Jurisdictions to determine the delivery 

methods, delivering agency and timelines (applicable funding year). For projects involving local agencies, the ODOT Regions will work 

with Jurisdictions to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement. The delivering agency will be accountable for timely and fiscally 

responsible delivery.

 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2015

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 0 0

Intersections All 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 56.6 62.2 0.09 0.19
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 62

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Work Zones All 0
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 62

0

50

100

150

200

250

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 62

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

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 62

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Shoulder Rumble Strips 

Description: Evaluating the use of shoulder rumble 

strips on Oregon roadways. 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 20 

Number of Installations: 20 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 2 

Methodology: Before/after using comparison group 

Results: CRF for fatal and injury 

ROR crashes of 25%

CRF for all crash of 16% 

Currently installing mumble strips 

Results: (Summer 2017) for future evaluation. 

 

 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: Centerline Rumble Strips 

Description: Evaluated centerline rumble strips on 

Oregon roadways. 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 20 

Number of Installations: 20 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 2 

Methodology: Before/after using comparison group 

CRF for fatal and injury ROR crashes 

of 20% 

Results: CRF for all crash of 16% 

CRF for fatal and injury head-on and 

Sideswipe crashes 22%
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 62

CRF for all head-on and Sideswipe 

crashes 40% 

File Name: Hyperlink
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 62

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

OR6 @ Wilson 

River Loop Rd. 

Sec. (Hwy#37, MP 

1 - 3)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

7.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 13.00 2.00 24.00 7.00

US26: SE 111th 

Ave - SE 176th 

Ave. 

Sec.(Hwy#26, MP 

8.85 - 9.96)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway - other 75.00 53.00 4.00 2.00 101.00 58.00 180.00 113.00

US 30 Bypass: NE 

122nd - MP 13.54 

Sec. (Hwy#123, 

MP 12 - 13.54)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

30.00 34.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 43.00 7.00 78.00 43.00

SW Leahy Rd.: 

90th-88th & W. 

Stark: 89th-88th 

(SRTS) in 

Washington 

County

Urban Local Road 

or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

North Powder 

Elem. School (N. 

Powder) Union 

County

Urban Local Road 

or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

OR99W @ Beef 

Bend RD. 

(Hwy#91, MP 

10.8-11)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway - other 25.00 14.00 1.00 19.00 11.00 44.00 26.00

US30: Lower 

Columbia River 

Hwy. @ Cornelius 

Pass Rd. Sec 

(Hwy#92, MP 

13.15-13.31)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

8.00 7.00 8.00 6.00 16.00 13.00

FFO-US26: Mill 

Creek-Warm 

Springs Grade 

Sec. (Hwy#53, 

MP92.75-97.1)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00

US26 @ OR217 

Curve Warning 

System #1 - SCP 

(Hwy#144, MP 0-

7.52)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

458.00 298.00 2.00 13.00 8.00 421.00 281.00 894.00 587.00

FFO-US97: OR58 

Jct.-Chemult 

Passing Lanes 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway - other 18.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 4.00 29.00 16.00
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 62

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Sec. (Hwy#4, MP 

194.65-200.03)

Rosicky-6thWashington 

Sidewalks (Malin) 

Klamath Couty

Urban Local Road 

or Street

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk

US26 (SW Kelly 

Ave): SW 1st AveRoss Island 

Bridge Sec. 

(Hwy#26, MP 0-

0.31)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

54.00 27.00 1.00 58.00 23.00 112.00 51.00

Chenowith Creek 

Rd. & Cherry 

Heights Rd. (The 

Dalles) Wasco 

County

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - other

I-84/OR-11: 

Rumble Strips 

2013 (Hwy#8, MP 

0.5 - 26.3 & 

Hwy#6, MP 260.3 

- 269.6)

Various Highways Roadway Rumble strips -

center

52.00 37.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 51.00 39.00 109.00 82.00

Region 2 Curve 

Warning Signs 

Upgrades (Various 

Locations)

Various Highways Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

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

These HSIP safety projects were completed in SFY 2014 (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014). The evaluation is a simple 3 years before and 3 years after project completion comparison of crash data. Due to the crash coding delays some of the 

after data may only include 2 + or - years. 

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

No
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 62

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/01/2016 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2021 

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

 2021 

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Route Number (8) 0 0

Route/Street Name (9) 0 0

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

0 0 0 0

Surface Type (23) 0 0 0 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

0 0 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 0 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Median Type (54) 0 0
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 62

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 0 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

0 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

0 0 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

0 0 0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 0 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 59 of 62

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

Mire Non Local Paved Roads - Segment Non Local Paved Roads - Intersection Non Local Paved Roads - Ramps Local Paved Roads Unpaved Roads 

Fundamental Data Elements State Non-State State Non-State State Non-State State Non-State State Non-State

 70% 15% 70% 5% 60% 20% 90% 5% 90% 5% 

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

Oregon DOT performed a phase 1 pilot to estimate the work necessary to collect intersection data on state highways, the finding of the pilot are being used to plan a phase pilot to collect signalized intersection data in the most populous 

region of the state. While there are about 500 signalized intersections on state highways in this region, the quantity and density will be very useful to hone the attributes collected and the methods used for optimum efficiency. In addition, 

Region 1 was identified for collection of signalized intersection data so HSM methods could be used to identify signalized intersections which, are often over capacity and already identified as crash hot spots, for potential safety 

improvements. 

The objectives of this pilot is to collect the FDE for signalized intersection only, utilize HSM methods of network screening for potential safety improvements and finalize the methodology before implementation in other regions of the 

state. Tentatively we have a planned schedule of collection of the data elements. 

Winter 2017 Prepare to implement Phases 3-7

Spring 2018 Begin Phase 3, FDE data collection for signalized intersections in Regions 2, 3, 4 and 5

Fall 2020 Estimated completion of Phase 3 collection of FDE 

Spring 2021 Begin Phase 4, FDE data collection for signalized interchange-only intersections state-wide

Winter 2021 Estimated completion of Phase 4 collection of FDE

Spring 2022 Begin Phase 5, FDE data collection for signalized intersections on local roads

Winter 2023 Estimated completion of Phase 5 collection of FDE
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 60 of 62

Spring 2024 Begin Phase 6, FDE data collection for state-owned highway segments between signalized intersections state-wide

Winter 2024 Estimated completion of Phase 6 collection of FDE

Spring 2025 Begin Phase 7, FDE data collection for local road segments between signalized intersections state-wide

Winter 2026 Estimated completion of Phase 7 collection of FDE 

Spring 2027 Data maintenance cycle begins

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Incapacitated (A) Yes N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitated (A) Yes Incapacitated – any injury that prevents the 

party form walking, driving, or normally 

continuing the activities he or she was 

capable of performing before the injury 

occurred. Example include; broken or 

distorted limbs , skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries , unconscious at or 

when taken from the crash scene, unable 

to leave crash scene without assistance 

Yes Incapacitated – any injury that prevents the 

party form walking, driving, or normally 

continuing the activities he or she was 

capable of performing before the injury 

occurred. Example include; broken or 

distorted limbs , skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries , unconscious at or 

when taken from the crash scene, unable 

to leave crash scene without assistance 

Yes

Crash Database Code 2 - Incapacitating (Serious/Major) Yes N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Code 2 - Incapacitating (Serious/Major) Yes Code 2 is used for participants who suffer 

incapacitating injuries. An incapacitating 

(severe or major) injury is a non-fatal injury 

which "prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities the person was capable of 

performing before the injury occurred". (see 

to ANSI D16.1-2007, definition 2.3.4) 

Examples of incapacitating injuries include 

broken bones, severe bleeding, 

unconsciousness, etc.

Yes Code 2 is used for participants who suffer 

incapacitating injuries. An incapacitating 

(severe or major) injury is a non-fatal injury 

which "prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities the person was capable of 

performing before the injury occurred". (see 

to ANSI D16.1-2007, definition 2.3.4) 

Examples of incapacitating injuries include 

broken bones, severe bleeding, 

unconsciousness, etc.

Yes

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

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

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

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

Oregon DOT collected comments and surveyed participants of the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program in order to determine effectiveness of the program and to determine potential program changes. Several of the comments 

will be incorporated into the next round of the ARTS program. ODOT plans to complete its next HSIP program assessment in 2019.
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 61 of 62

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

odot_safety_program_guide[1].pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 62 of 62

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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