Page 1 of 47

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 47

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 8

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 8

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................24

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................24

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................27

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................27

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................32

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................37

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................38

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................38

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................38

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................42

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................43
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 47

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.”
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 47

Executive Summary 

This Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 annual report to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) describes the District

of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT)'s strategic use of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

Act (FAST Act) funding of the District’s Highway Safety Improvement Programs (HSIP) for FY 2019, up to July

2019.

The FAST Act requires the development of a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the Railway-Highway

Crossings Program (RHGCP). Due to its urban nature the District of Columbia transportation system does not 

contain any rural roads. All roadways within the District are functionally classified as urban roads. In the Distric

of Columbia the majority of railway crossings are grade separated from the highway and the relatively few at 

grade railway crossings no longer feature active railroad traffic. The District has often requested that funds that

are allocated for the RHGCP be made available for HSIP in the District of Columbia.

t 

To obligate Safety funds, among other requirements, the District must have in effect a State highway safety 

improvement program under which the District develops, implements, and updates a Strategic Highway Safety

Plan (SHSP). The SHSP identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities as described 

under the program. (23 U.S.C. §148(c)(1)(A)). The SHSP was update in 2014 and revised in 2017. Since 

SHSP follows a five-year cycle, the District is currently in the process of drafting a new SHSP. 

The District is also required to produce a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems

evaluate the HSIP plan on a regular basis, and submit an annual transparency report – this document.

; 

The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that 

focuses on performance. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) continues to operate the Traffic 

Safety Data Center at Howard University, which was established to support DDOT and Metropolitan Police 

Department (MPD) in developing and sustaining an effective process for providing timely, accurate, complete, 

uniform and accessible traffic and related transportation data. The Traffic Data Center at Howard University 

prepares the annual crash report for the District of Columbia, which helps to satisfy federal requirements on 

reporting traffic crashes, provide a resource for identifying safety trends, aid in the development of 

countermeasures, and evaluating the results of highway safety programs, projects, and policies. In addition, 

DDOT has completed the upgrade of TARAS (Traffic Accident Record and Analysis System). The system will 

undergo a second update in the coming fiscal year as the District continues to improve this crash data analysis

tool that helps DDOT Staff and other stakeholders to access and transfer MPD's crash data. Developed 

specifically for the District, TARAS automatically accesses and processes MPD's crash data and extracts all 

the pertinent variables fields, while providing the visualization needs.

The HSIP program and its projects stretches across several administration and divisions in DDOT. However, 

the core program is administered by the Transportation Operations and Safety Division (TOSD) in the 

Operations Administration (OA) and supported by the Traffic Engineering and Signals Division (TESD) for 

construction related projects. The following projects were obligated with HSIP funding in FY19:

• Construction of Fiber Communication Network on Freeways 

• Traffic Safety Construction 

• Traffic Safety Data Center at Howard University 

• Traffic Safety Engineering Support Services 

• Constructability and Work Zone Safety Review 

• Crash Database 

• Southern Ave. from Barnaby Rd. SE to UMC Campus 

• Guiderail and Attenuators Repair and Replacement 

• Thermoplastic Pavement Markings 

The District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) is continually making efforts to ensure the 

application of safety analyses, knowledge and methodologies are used to maximize the effectiveness of HSIP 
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 47

funds. The District of Columbia SHSP seeks to reduce traffic fatalities by 20 percent from 26 (average of 5 

years 2008 to 2012, FARS data) to 21 by 2025. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) safety 

efforts and targets are linked directly to the District’s SHSP and their 2018 outcomes signifies significant strides 

in achieving the SHSP goals. 

In 2016, the HSIP target setting process established five performance measures as the five-year rolling 

averages to include:

1. Number of Fatalities, 26.0

2. Rate of Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), 0.7

3. Number of Serious Injuries, 384

4. Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT, 10.28

5. Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries, 12 and 131.8, respectively

The five-year rolling average target for the Number of Fatalities was set at 26.0 for calendar year 2018. At the 

time of this report, the official fatality numbers for 2018 were not yet published in the FARS; however, the 

District expects that the Number of Fatalities in the FARS for 2018 will not be greater than 33, after each crash 

is reviewed and properly classified using the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents. Using 

the conservative approach, the “actual” five-year rolling average (2014-2018) is 27.4. This is less than two (2) 

fatalities higher, or seven (7) percent over the estimated target.

The actual traffic fatalities are higher than the 5-year average for the two most recent years (2017 and 2018). It 

should be noted, however, that while annual traffic fatalities have been increasing in the last five years, the rate 

of increase has slowed over this time. The rate of annual increase for last three years, 2016, 2017, and 2018, 

is 17, 14, and 6 percent, respectively.

The five-year rolling average for the Rate of Fatalities was set at 0.7 fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles 

traveled (HMVMT). At the time of this report, the official fatality numbers for 2018 were not yet published in the 

FARS; however, the District expects that the Number of Fatalities in the FARS for 2018 will not be greater than 

33, after each crash is reviewed and properly classified using the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle 

Traffic Accidents. Using the published vehicle miles traveled, and a conservatively high fatality tally, the 

“actual” five-year rolling average (2014-2018) is expected to be 0.76 fatalities per HMVMT. This represents an 

8 percent difference in actual and projected rates. 

The 2018 targets for the Number of Serious Injuries and the Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 HMVMT were 384 

and 10.28, respectively. Both of these targets were met. The actual Number of Serious Injuries was 354, or 8 

percent lesser than the projection, and the actual Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 HMVMT was 9.77, or 5 

percent lesser than the target. It should be noted that these results could have been impacted by an 

adjustment in serious injury numbers and the projected vehicle miles traveled over the last two years. 

The 2018 targets for the Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries per 

100HMVMT were 12.0 and 131.8, respectively. The actual Number of Non-motorized Fatalities was 12.4, or 3 

percent over the target, while the actual Non-motorized Serious Injuries per 100 HMVMT was 138.6, which is 5 

percent higher than the target.

In general, two (2) of the five (5) performance measure targets were met and three (3) came within 8 percent 

or less of achieving the target. These percentages are relatively small, and when the magnitude of the 

differences are considered relative to the sample size of say, fatalities, then it becomes clear that this 

difference might be within the standard deviation, yearly fluctuations, or even the differences between 

successive five-year averages of the data normalized to account for year anomalies. The mean and standard 

deviation of the five-year averages for fatalities, from 2010 to 2017, is approximately 25.48 (approximately the 

2018 target) with the standard deviation of 4.7 fatalities. At 27.4, the actual outcome for 2018 is within the 

margin of the deviations over the years.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 47

The differences in the actual outcomes and targets could also be attributed to the changing transportation 

landscape of the District. Public transit ridership has fluctuated throughout these years from highs close to 40 

(39.6) percent share of commuting residents in as recent as 2011, to a low of 33 (32.7) percent in 2017, partly 

due to the work being done to Metrorail. The District’s walk share has remained relatively flat, while biking has 

steadily increased in share from about 1 percent of commuting trips in 2000 to 5 percent in 2017. Importantly, 

in 2000, almost 50 (49.4) percent of District residents commuted to work by car (drive alone and car pool). In 

2017 just under 40 (39.8) percent commute to work by car. Last year 2018 saw a further reduction in vehicle 

miles traveled when compared to 2017, albeit marginal. While this reduction is less than 0.5 percent, and 

doesn’t necessary represent a trend, given that the previous three years saw small increases, it’s a slight 

directional shift that supports, at least anecdotally, the observations that transportation is evolving in the 

District, and there is possibly of a shift to more diverse modes, particularly micromobility.

Currently, about 420,000 scooter rides are completed in the District every month—that’s around 14,000 every 

day. A Washington Post-Schar School survey suggests that one in six residents of the District say they rode an 

electric scooter to get from one place to another in the past year, and anecdotal evidence suggests that people 

are using e-scooters and e-bikes to make short trips that otherwise would be made by car, including ridehailing services such as Uber and Lyft. 

When considering all these mix of modes, exposure can potentially increase by at least 10 to 15 percent per 

year, although vehicle miles traveled may see lesser increases or even declines. it will require the District and 

other cities to take a closer a look at various performance measures and safety efforts that address the 

exposures and challenges associated with the advent of micromobility. 

In September, 2018 a 20-year old scooter rider became one of the first e-scooter fatalities nationwide when 

was struck and killed by a motor vehicle in the District. Since 2010 persons using non-motorized modes of 

travel (including, pedestrians and bicyclist) have collectively accounted for close to 50 percent of the District’s 

traffic fatalities. 

It is clear that the District challenges around safety is complicated, and countermeasures to improve road 

safety, especially for our most vulnerable road users, must come from activities that reduce:

• Exposure 

• Risk of the crash 

• Risk of injury 

Understanding these challenges, over the past year the District has paid closer attention to addressing safety 

through a systemic approach. The systemic approach is meant to be a data-driven safety analysis (DDSA) that 

is complementary and supplemental to the standard site analysis approach and provides an expanded 

comprehensive and proactive approach to road safety efforts. The analyses provide scientifically sound, datadriven strategies to identifying high-risk roadway features and executing the most beneficial projects with 

limited resources to achieve fewer fatal and serious injury crashes

Using a systemic analysis approach, the District has identified introduced a number of countermeasures and 

safety initiatives, including elimination of dual turn conflicts, left turn hardening, and the targeted prohibition of 

right turn on red. Early this year the District the process of identifying intersection with dual turn lanes that pose 

“multiple threat” risks, particularly to pedestrians. A total of 36 intersections were identified for treatment with 6 

completed thus far. Additionally, the District identified 101 intersections that would be achieve the most safety 

benefits associated with restricting right turns on red. Additionally, the District completed 45 left turn hardening 

treatment to reduce left turn speeds and enforce safe turning behaviors. The treatment is planned for another 

40 intersections over the coming months.

Finally, in an effort to advance the goals of the SHSP and HSIP, the DDOT is in the process of developing an 

SOP that will help to streamline HSIP projects and activities. The SOP, which will include a tool to support the 

HSIP project selection process will:
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 47

• Guide DDOT internal stakeholders on what qualifies as a project for HSIP funding. 

• Establish key requirements and supporting documents needed to satisfy the requirement for the use of 

HSIP funding. 

• Collect/gather details for each requested use of HSIP funds and generate a prioritization mechanism 

(for example a relative score) for selection of projects. This will consider how the project: 

o Addresses one or more priorities (Emphasis Areas) in the District’s SHSP 

o Address an identified safety problem 

o Contributes to a reduction of fatalities and serious injuries. 

• Help to establish prioritization mechanism for the selection of projects. 
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 47

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 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 

established the HSIP as a core Federal-aid program under 23 U.S.C. 148. The specific purpose of the HSIP is 

to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. 

Each year the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) utilizes HSIP funds to identify, study, and improve 

locations, including intersections and roadway segments, where there is a high concentration, or risk, of 

crashes that results in deaths or injuries. The HSIP in DC is centrally-managed at DDOT, with HSIP-related 

safety projects spread across various administration and divisions. 

HSIP staff fulfills transportation safety planning requirements by producing listings of high severe crash 

intersections and highway sections. These locations are mainly identified in the annual crash reports, which 

involves a thorough network screening for the engineering emphasis areas (such fatalities and serious injuries) 

in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). This network screening process considers all roadway 

classifications and is critical for identifying safety problems and trends, as well as for determining the level of 

success in achieving highway safety goals of the District. Locations are also identified through various citizens 

and road user requests. 

Priority SHSP emphasis area maps, tables and matrices are generated to rank intersection-related crash 

locations and routes (High-Hazardous Locations). Several methods are used to identify high hazardous 

locations based on the traffic crash data, exposure and location characteristics. The methods used include 

crash frequency, crash rate, crash severity, and crash trend (delta change).The District also utilizes a 

composite crash index, which is a weighted combination of the crash rate, severity and frequency of traffic 

crashes at a specific location. The District uses this data driven approach with local knowledge to identify and 

initiate engineering studies of the locations with abnormal crash experience.

Once candidate locations have been identified, programmed, and funds have been allocated, HSIP staff in 

different administrations monitor the projects from scoping through design, and construction. For example, 

intersection-related projects are often identified through a core HSIP funded program in the Transportation 

Operations and Safety Division (TOSD), Operation Administration. The TOSD would conduct the engineering 

studies to identify appropriate countermeasures. The project would then be handed off to Traffic Engineering 

and Safety Division (TESD) under the Project Delivery Administration, and this division would see it through 

implementation.

In an effort to advance the goals of the SHSP and HSIP, the DDOT is in the process of developing an SOP 

that will help to streamline HSIP projects and activities. The SOP, which will include a tool to support the HSIP 

project selection process will: 
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 47

• Guide DDOT internal stakeholders on what qualifies as a project for HSIP funding. 

• Establish key requirements and supporting documents needed to satisfy the requirement for the use of 

HSIP funding

• Collect/gather details for each requested use of HSIP funds and generate a prioritization mechanism 

(for example a relative score) for selection of projects. This will consider how the project:

o Addresses one or more priorities (Emphasis Areas) in the District’s SHSP

o Address an identified safety problem

o Contributes to a reduction of fatalities and serious injuries.

• Help to establish prioritization mechanism for the selection of projects.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-HSIP staff are primarily located in the Transportation Operations and Safety Division (TOSD)

HSIP staff are primarily located in the Transportation Operations and Safety Division (TOSD) in the Operations 

Administration. 

HSIP staff is located in several administration and divisions in DDOT. However, the core program is 

administered by the Transportation Operations and Safety Division (TOSD) in the Operations Administration 

(OA) and supported by the Traffic Engineering and Signals Division (TESD) for some project-related 

construction activity.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

The District of Columbia does not have a local or Tribal roads program. All roads are considered for HSIP and 

Safety Improvement projects.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-See additional comments

The HSIP requires coordination among many groups and multi-disciplinary teams within the District 

Department of Transportation. They include, the transportation Operations and Safety Division (TOSD) and 

Asset Management Division in the Operations Administration (OA), Planning and Sustainability

Division (PSD), Traffic Engineering and Signals Division (TESD), an the Infrastructure Project Management 

Division (IPMD) in the Project Delivery Administration, and the Vision Zero Division in the Office of the Director.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 47

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

The HSIP efforts requires coordination among many groups within DDOT and this is primarily achieved 

through internal meetings. The Agency holds weekly “SafetyStat” meetings where numerous safety projects 

and issues are discussed and organized, and updates provided by various groups from different divisions on 

their efforts on projects. In addition to these meetings, ward-based project meetings are also held on a weekly 

basis to provide updates on design and construction-related projects. Finally, a weekly TranStat meeting is 

held that includes discussion on performance metric, understanding the needs of the Safety program (including 

but not limited to HSIP), and which is consistent with many of the performance measures included as our HSIP 

targets.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

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

External partners are involved in various planning- and operations-related issues via scheduled meetings to 

discuss goals, milestones and safety targets. The meetings are arranged by Transportation Safety Manager of 

the Transportation Operations Administration at DDOT. They include Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA), 

Metropolitan Washington Council Of Governments (MWCOG)/ National Capital Region Transportation 

Planning Board

Describe coordination with external partners. 

External partners are involved in various planning- and operations-related issues via scheduled meetings to 

discuss goals, milestones and safety targets. The meetings are arranged by Transportation Safety Manager of 

the Transportation Operations Administration at DDOT. 

Although the Governor's Highway Safety Office is listed here as an external partner, the District's Highway 

Safety Office is located within the District Department of Transportation, so coordination around HSIP efforts is 

seamless. 

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

The District is in the process of developing a SOP and tool to support the HSIP project selection process that 

will, 1) Guide DDOT internal stakeholders on what qualifies as a project for HSIP funding; 2) Establish key 

requirements and supporting documents needed to satisfy the requirement for the use of HSIP funding, and 3) 

Help to establish prioritization mechanism for the selection of projects. In addition, the District will include 

details on the use of HSM procedures in the development of benefit-to-cost (BC) analyses, via crash 

modification factors, to support the evaluation of projects and mitigations.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 47

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Bicycle Safety

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Red Light Running Prevention

• Right Angle Crash

• Safe Corridor

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Skid Hazard

• Other-Sight distance analysis

While the entirety of the selected programs are not administered under the HSIP, many projects are planned, 

designed and implemented to address safety deficiencies in various projects within these programs through 

the HSIP.

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

Yes
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 47

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Separate funds are allocated to implement bike safety projects

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Total Number of Collisions:1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-DDOT Safety Team utilizes the annual reports on Crash statistics and Commercial 

Motor Vehicles (CMV) in performing safety reviews and analyses for traffic operations and 

crash data at intersections, corridors and construction work zones
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 47

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

Other-Number of injuries :3

Other-Number of injury collisions:2

Other-Total number of collisions:1

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/31/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Pedestrian-vehicle crashes 

Traffic 

Volume 

Other-Pedestrian activity and interaction 

with vehicles 

Other-general intersection geometry 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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 
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 47

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 net benefit:50

Cost Effectiveness:50

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-These projects are advanced by "Decision Lens" program utilized by all DDOT 

Managers

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

Other-Total Number of Collisions:1
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 47

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Projects for Design are automatically implemented through Construction. These projects 

are advanced by "Decision Lens" and internal review of annual Crash statistics report and 

Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) report

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

Other-Total Number of Collisions:1
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 47

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

program? 

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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). 

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 47

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-These projects are advanced by "Decision Lens" program utilized by all DDOT 

Managers

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

Other-Total Number of Collisions:1

Program: Red Light Running Prevention

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 47

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Projects for Design are automatically implemented through Construction. These projects 

are advanced by "Decision Lens" and internal review of annual Crash statistics report and 

Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) report

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

Other-Total Number of Collisions:1

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-These projects are advanced by "Decision Lens" program utilized by all the DDOT 

Managers

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 47

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

Other-Total Number of Collisions:1

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Projects for Design are automatically implemented through Construction. These projects 

are advanced by "Decision Lens" and internal review of annual Crash statistics report and 

Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) report

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

Other-Total number of collisions:1
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 47

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-These projects are advanced by "Decision Lens" and internal review of annual Crash 

statistics report and Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) report

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

Other-Total Number of Collisions:1
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 47

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Skid improvement projects are implemented by "Decision Lens" software program used 

by all DDOT Managers

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

Other-Total Number of Collisions:1
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 47

Program: Other-Sight distance analysis

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-These projects are utilized by "Decision Lens" program utilized by all DDOT Managers

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

Other-Total number of collisions:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 25

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Install/Improve Signing

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 47

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

• Other-Design Review, Capital Project Review, Sight Distance Analysis, Roadway Geometry, Accident 

Analysis

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

The District has been implementing ITS projects and improving its ITS infrastructure through the use of HSIP 

funds. These projects include live cctv cameras, dynamic message boards, and other ITS infrastructure 

improvements. HSIP funds have not been specifically targeted toward other 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. 

DDOT has formalized the HSM benefit cost methodology as the preferred analysis for the FY 2018 studies. As 

DDOT HSIP studies aim to identify low-cost, high-impact safety improvements with an short installation 

timeframe, the benefit cost methodology allows for simple cost comparison for a series of identified 

improvements.

The predictive method was reviewed for five intersections under the FY 2017 HSIP Intersection analysis 

project. Based on these studies, and considering the level of effort behind the analysis, it was determined that 

the benefit cost methodology better supports the intended goals of DDOT HSIP studies. Alternatives which 

require geometric or significant construction support are advanced to other DDOT divisions for conceptual 

design.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 47

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $10,858,188 $10,858,188 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$114,340 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Available De'Obd from 

SAFETEA-LU HRRR 

$0 $54,000 0%

Totals $10,972,528 $10,912,188 99.45%

The HRRR Funding shown in this table is actually old SAFETEA-LU HRRR program funding that was deobligated from a completed project and programmed for a new project

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

safety projects?

0%

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

0%

The District of Columbia does not have a local (non-state owned and operated) or tribal roads program. All 

roads are considered for HSIP and

Safety Improvement projects.

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

10%
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 47

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

10%

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

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

the future. 

Obligation staff works with various administrations and divisions to ensure that obligations are done in a timely 

manner. The agency now holds regular obligation meetings with various internal stakeholders to improve upon 

the obligation process and provide help to engineers and manager where needed. The District is in the process 

of preparing a SOP for the HSIP that would help to determine eligibility of projects and streamline funding and 

obligations. The SOP will be implemented in the next fiscal year.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 47

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Construction of 

Fiber 

Communication 

Network on 

Freeways

Advanced 

technology and

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Traffic Safety

Construction

Intersection 

geometry

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Traffic Safety

Data Center at

Howard 

University

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Traffic Safety

Engineering 

Support 

Services

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Constructability 

and Work Zone 

Safety Review

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Crash 

Database

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Southern Ave.

from Barnaby

Rd. SE to UMC

Campus

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Guiderail and

Attenuators 

Repair and

Replacement 

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Thermoplastic 

Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 47

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 24 27 15 20 23 23 27 31 33

Serious Injuries 303 305 336 305 311 340 400 373 361

Fatality rate (per

HMVMT)

0.670 0.760 0.420 0.570 0.650 0.650 0.750 0.840 0.890

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.460 8.560 9.410 8.690 8.790 9.610 11.110 10.110 9.740

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

15 9 7 10 10 14 10 13 16

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

116 126 140 114 141 119 141 146 146
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 47

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 47

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 47

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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 (RPA) - 

Interstate

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or 

Street

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 47

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)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

1.2 19.6 0.26 4.19

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

1.8 3.2 0.48 0.85

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

8.2 102.8 0.79 9.99

Urban Minor Arterial 10.2 110.8 1.44 15.63

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 2.4 40 0.89 14.96

Urban Local Road or 

Street

5.4 78.4 0.7 10.15
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 47

Year 2016

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

21.4 338 0.59 9.36

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or 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

The 2017 data was updated based on data which became available throughout the year.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:40.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 47

The District of Columbia Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Update 2014 (revised 2017) seeks to 

reduce traffic fatalities by 20 percent from 26 (average of 5 years 2008 to 2012, FARS data) to 21 by 

2025. Between 2005 and 2017 the District fatality trend followed the national trend, downward from 

48 in 2005 to 15 (lowest) in 2012. The five-year rolling average has been close to the SHSP target for 

years 2014 through 2016 after a series of relatively low actual fatality numbers in 2012, 2013, and 

2014. Over the latest 5 years (2014 to 2018) the District has averaged 28 (27.4) traffic fatalities, with 

the actual traffic fatalities under the 5-year average for three (2014, 2015, and 2016) of the five years, 

but is higher than the 5-year average for the two most recent years (2017 and 2018). While annual 

traffic fatalities have been increasing in the last five years, it is important to note that the rate of 

increase has slowed over this time. The rate of increase for last three years, 2016, 2017, and 2018, is 

17, 14, and 6 percent, respectively. The annual fatality trend and the 5-year rolling average trend 

projects 45 (44.6) and 36 (35.1) traffic related fatalities respectively in 2020. The District believes that, 

with the heightened focus on reducing fatalities and serious injuries, the average of both projections is 

attainable. Projected 2020 estimate = 40 (39.9) traffic-related fatalities.

Number of Serious Injuries:414.0

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

A Serious Injury is defined according to the latest edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash 

Criteria. Currently the trend of crash occurrences and resulting serious injuries is increasing due to 

the many issues. One issue in particular relates to the newly adopted crash reporting system that 

captures injury data based on the MMUCC 4th Edition. There is a high probability (based on 

experiences from other States) that serious injury numbers resulting from a crash will increase as 

officers are fully trained to identify suspected serious injuries at crash sites, leading to more accurate 

and consistent coding in the field. Serious injuries have gone from a low of 311 to a high of 388 over 

the last 5 years. The projections of both annual and 5-year rolling average trend significantly upward 

to 434 and 393, respectively, in 2020. The District believes that, with the heightened focus on 

reducing fatalities and serious injuries, the average of both projections is attainable. Projected 

estimate 2020 = 414 (average of both trends)

Fatality Rate:1.070

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

The Fatality Rate is defined as the number of traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT). Preliminary numbers indicate an increase in VMT from 3,621,959,278 in 2016 to 

3,711,065,230 in 2017, a 2.5 percent increase. With the increases in population, worker trips, tourist 

visitations, VMT, non-motorized trips, and other trip making activities in the District, exposure is 

expected to increase by at least 10 to 15 percent per year. However, with the ongoing and planned 

road safety activities in engineering, enforcement, education and emergency services, the District 

believes that using an average of both the high and low projections of 1.07 persons is achievable in 

2020.

Serious Injury Rate:10.470

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

The District of Columbia SHSP seeks to reduce the serious injuries by 20% between 2013 and 2025. 

Serious injury rate is the number of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The 
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 47

trend of crash occurrences and resulting serious injuries is increasing due to the many issues. One 

issue in particular relates to the newly adopted crash reporting system that captures injury data based 

on the MMUCC 4th Edition. Prior to 2016, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) database 

defined injury data as “disabling and non-disabling.” In 2016, the MPD changed the injury severity 

level coding in its crash form to correspond with the MMUCC, as per Federal regulation under MAP21[1]. . There is a high probability (based on experiences from other States) that serious injury 

numbers resulting from a crash will increase as officers are fully trained to identify suspected serious 

injuries at crash sites, leading to more accurate and consistent coding in the field. Preliminary 

numbers indicate an increase in VMT from 3,621,959,278 in 2016 to 3,711,065,230 in 2017, a 2.5 

percent increase. In addition, the increases in population, worker trips, tourist visitations, VMT, nonmotorized trips, and other trip making activities in the District, exposure is expected to increase by at 

least 10 to 15 percent per year. However, with the ongoing and planned road safety activities in 

engineering, enforcement, education and emergency services, the District believes that a rate of 

10.47 serious injury rate is achievable in 2020.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:181.0

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

Pedestrians and bicyclists are among the District’s most vulnerable roadway users and when involved 

in a crash with a motor vehicle, they suffer more serious injuries than vehicle occupants. Improving 

pedestrian and bicycle safety is major challenge as they compete with other modes of transportation 

for limited space. The number of bike and pedestrian trips, e.g., Bikeshare trips, has increased by 6 

percent from 3.3 M trips in 2016 to 3.5 M trips in 2018. Additionally, preliminary numbers indicate a 

2.5 percent increase in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) from 3,621,959,278 in 2016 to 3,711,065,230 

in 2017.There is increased likelihood of exposure and conflicts as the District meets it transportation 

demand goals. The District is committed to improving the safety of these modes as reflected in the 

State Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The challenge is to accelerate implementation of the pedestrian 

safety strategies to reverse this trend and reduce the impact of crashes on these vulnerable users. 

Efforts such as the systemic treatments to reduce left turning speeds at intersections with relatively 

high potential for pedestrian conflict will help to reduce non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. 

The District believes that a total of 181 fatalities and serious injury (23 non-motorized fatalities and 

158 non-motorized) projections are achievable in 2020.

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

safety performance targets. 

As done in previous years, The District Department of Transportation teams (including stakeholders associated 

with the Highway Safety Improvement Program, Highway Safety Plan, State Highway Safety Plan, Vision 

Zero), Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), and Federal Highways Administration 

(FHWA) coordinates through email, conference calls, and in-person meetings to establish specific targets 

based on the variety of data sources mentioned in this report to address the District traffic safety problems. 

The Team established the methodology and targets for Fatalities, Serious Injuries and Fatality rate per 100 

million vehicle-miles travelled; these are identical for the HSP and HSIP. The methodologies were used to 

establish targets for Serious Injury Rate and Non-motorized fatality and serious injuries.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 47

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a District-wide coordinated safety plan that provides a 

comprehensive framework to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. The Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) safety efforts and targets are linked directly to the District’s SHSP. 

Safety Performance Management (Safety PM) is part of the overall Transportation Performance Management 

(TPM) program, which is defined as a strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and 

policy decision to achieve national performance goals. The Safety PM Final Rule supports the HSIP, as it 

establishes safety performance measure requirements for the purpose of carrying out the HSIP and to assess 

fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

The Safety PM Final Rule establishes five performance measures as the five-year rolling averages to include:

1. Number of Fatalities

2. Rate of Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

3. Number of Serious Injuries

4. Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT

5. Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries

The five-year rolling average target for the Number of Fatalities was set at 26.0 for calendar year 2018. At the 

time of this report, the official fatality numbers for 2018 were not yet published in the FARS; however, the 

District expects that the Number of Fatalities in the FARS for 2018 will not be greater than 33, after each crash 

is reviewed and properly classified using the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents. Using 

the conservative approach, the “actual” five-year rolling average (2014-2018) is 27.4. This is less than two (2) 

fatalities higher, or seven (7) percent over the estimated target.

The actual traffic fatalities are higher than the 5-year average for the two most recent years (2017 and 2018). It 

should be noted, however, that while annual traffic fatalities have been increasing in the last five years, the rate 

of increase has slowed over this time. The rate of annual increase for last three years, 2016, 2017, and 2018, 

is 17, 14, and 6 percent, respectively.

The five-year rolling average for the Rate of Fatalities was set at 0.7 fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles 

traveled (HMVMT). At the time of this report, the official fatality numbers for 2018 were not yet published in the 

FARS; however, the District expects that the Number of Fatalities in the FARS for 2018 will not be greater than 

33, after each crash is reviewed and properly classified using the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle 

Traffic Accidents. Using the published vehicle miles traveled, and a conservatively high fatality tally, the 

“actual” five-year rolling average (2014-2018) is expected to be 0.76 fatalities per HMVMT. This represents an 

8 percent difference in actual and projected rates. 

The 2018 targets for the Number of Serious Injuries and the Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 HMVMT were 384 

and 10.28, respectively. Both of these targets were met. The actual Number of Serious Injuries was 354, or 8 

percent lesser than the projection, and the actual Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 HMVMT was 9.77, or 5 

percent lesser than the target. It should be noted that these results could have been impacted by an 

adjustment in serious injury numbers and the projected vehicle miles traveled over the last two years. 

The 2018 targets for the Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries per 

100HMVMT were 12.0 and 131.8, respectively. The actual Number of Non-motorized Fatalities was 12.4, or 3 

percent over the target, while the actual Non-motorized Serious Injuries per 100 HMVMT was 138.6, which is 5 

percent higher than the target.

In general, two (2) of the five (5) performance measure targets were met and three (3) came within 8 percent 
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 47

or less of achieving the target. These percentages are relatively small and when these differences are 

considered relative to the sample size of say, fatalities, then it becomes clear that this difference might be 

within the standard deviation, yearly fluctuations, or even the differences between successive five-year 

averages of the data that normalizes the data to account for year anomalies. The mean and standard deviation 

of the five-year averages for fatalities, from 2010 to 2017, is approximately 25.48 (approximately the 2018 

target) with the standard deviation of 4.7 fatalities. At 27.4, the actual outcome for 2018 is within the margin of 

the deviations over the years.

The differences in the actual outcomes and targets could also be attributed to the changing transportation 

landscape of the District. Public transit ridership has fluctuated throughout these years from highs close to 40 

(39.6) percent share of commuting residents in as recent as 2011, to a low of 33 (32.7) percent in 2017, partly 

due to the work being done to Metrorail. The District’s walk share has remained relatively flat, while biking has 

steadily increased in share from about 1 percent of commuting trips in 2000 to 5 percent in 2017. Importantly, 

in 2000, almost 50 (49.4) percent of District residents commuted to work by car (drive alone and car pool). In 

2017 just under 40 (39.8) percent commute to work by car. Last year 2018 saw a further reduction in vehicle 

miles traveled when compared to 2017, albeit marginal. While this reduction is less than 0.5 percent, and 

doesn’t necessary represent a trend, given that the previous three years saw small increases, it’s a slight 

directional shift that supports, at least anecdotally, the observations that transportation is evolving in the 

District, and there is possibly of a shift to more diverse modes, particularly micromobility. 

In September 2017, The District took on a bold experiment: the initiation of a demonstration period in which

the DC government would permit private companies to operate dockless bicycle and electric scooter-sharing 

services on our public streets. From September 2017 through June 2018, the dockless demonstration resulted 

in over 625,000 dockless trips by riders with approximately 233,700 unique user accounts among the seven 

companies. Currently, about 420,000 scooter rides are completed in the District every month—that’s around 

14,000 every day. A Washington Post-Schar School survey suggests that one in six residents of the District 

say they rode an electric scooter to get from one place to another in the past year, and anecdotal evidence 

suggests that people are using e-scooters and e-bikes to make short trips that otherwise would be made by 

car, including ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft.

When considering all these mix of modes, exposure can potentially increase by at least 10 to 15 percent per 

year, although vehicle miles traveled may see lesser increases or even declines. it will require the District and 

other cities to take a closer a look at various performance measures and safety efforts that address the 

exposures and challenges associated with the advent of micromobility. In September, 2018 a 20-year old 

scooter rider became one of the first e-scooter fatalities nationwide when was struck and killed by a motor 

vehicle in the District. 

It is clear that countermeasures to improve road safety must come from activities that reduce:

• Exposure

• Risk of the crash

• Risk of injury
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 47

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

4 1 6 2 5 1 5

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

19 18 17 10 21 26 17

The serious injury data for 2015 through 2017 is updated
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 47

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

The District of Columbia challenges around traffic safety is complicated, but DDOT is continually making efforts 

to improve safety on the roads through the application of safety analysis, knowledge and methodologies, and 

the effective and efficient use of HSIP funds. The District of Columbia Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update 

2014 (revised 2017) seeks to reduce traffic fatalities by 20 percent from 26 (average of 5 years 2008 to 2012, 

FARS data) to 21 by 2025. 

The District has made significant strides in achieving these goals. The five-year rolling average has been close 

to this target for years 2014 through 2016 after low actual fatality numbers in 2012, 2013, and 2014 (2013 was 

lowest). Since 2013, the Districts fatalities per year has increased at an average of 2.8 fatalities per year. It 

should be noted, however, that while annual traffic fatalities have been increasing in the last five years, the rate 

of increase has slowed over this time. The rate of annual increase for last three years, 2016, 2017, and 2018, 

is 17, 14, and 6 percent, respectively. 

Although automobile trips have decline over the long term, consideration has to be given to the numerous 

alternate modes and the possibility of exposure increasing by at least 10 to 15 percent per year as the trips 

made by these modes increase. To this end, the gradual slowing of the rate of increase in fatalities is an 

indicator of the effectiveness of the program. It is not easy to calculate the lives that may have been saved 

through the projects under the program, but there is a possibility that without the HSIP program traffic fatalities 

could have been higher.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Organizational change

• Policy change

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 47

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)

Pedestrians 10.6 91 0.29 2.51

Bicyclists 1.6 45.6 0.04 1.26

Older Drivers 0.4 7.8 0.01 0.23

Motorcyclists 4.8 33.4 0.13 0.92
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 47

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 47

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 47

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 OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

N/A
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 47

Compliance Assessment

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

 09/30/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2014 To: 2019

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

 2020

A major update of the SHSP is ongoing and due out in early 2020.

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 47

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 47

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 81.82 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

There were no significant changes to the MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts over the past year.

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. 

The District has mostly met the requirement to have complete access to MIRE Fundamental Data Elements. Only the Unique Interchange Identifier (178) needs to be added and this is expected to be completed in the coming year.

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

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2020
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 47

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 47

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 noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.