California

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

 

Prepared by: CA

 
ii 

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 4

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 7

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 21

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 21

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 24

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 25

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 25

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 41

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................44

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 46

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 51

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 56

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 64
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or “MAP–21” (Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 

405) was signed in to law July 6, 2012, and continued the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) as a core program under title 23 United States Code section 148 to reduce 

fatalities and injuries on all public roadways. Title 23 United States Code section 148(h) requires 

each state to submit an annual report to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding 

its HSIP implementation and effectiveness and title 23 Code of Federal Regulations sections 

924.15(a)(1) and 924.15(a)(2) specify that the report be submitted no later than August 31 of 

each year.

This annual report describes the progress being made to implement projects and the status of 

program evaluations for the HSIP as described in Title 23 United States Code section 148, and 

for High-Risk Rural Roads (HR3) (23 U.S.C. § 148(g)). The Railway-Highway Crossings (23 

U.S.C. § 130(g) reports is submitted to FHWA directly by the California Public Utility 

Commission as a separate report.

Under the “MAP–21” (Pub. L. 112–141, July 6, 2012; 126 Stat. 405), the High-Risk Rural Roads 

program was merged into the HSIP for safety improvements on public rural roadways that meet 

the functional classification requirements of title 23 United States Code section 148(a)(1). In 

addition to the above, in accordance with title 23 United States Code section 164 repeat 

intoxicated transfer funds, approximately $25.4 million was obligated for alcohol impaired 

driving countermeasures. These funds will be used to further support the California Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan.

Caltrans’ Division of Traffic Operations provided information on the State Highway System 

(SHS) for this report, and Caltrans Division of Local Assistance for local roads and HR3 

Program. Caltrans implements the HSIP for State highways by programming and funding 

projects in the Collision Reduction Category, one of eight categories that make up the State 

Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The Collision Reduction Category is 

further divided into two programs: Safety Improvement, and Collision Severity Reduction. The 

Safety Improvement Program is among Caltrans’ top priorities in the SHOPP and as a result, all 

projects that meet the criteria for the Safety Improvement Program are funded. These criteria 

include a benefit-cost analysis. The projects evaluated in this report include all projects funded 

by the Collision Reduction Category, which includes both federal HSIP and State highway 

funds.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Caltrans uses the Transportation System Network database to identify locations with 

significantly high collision concentrations. The identified locations are systematically 

investigated to determine probable causes of the collisions in order to implement effective 

countermeasures to improve safety. Other locations identified for investigation and possible 

implementation of countermeasures are generated from three Monitoring Programs: Cross 

Median Collision, Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collision, and Wrong Way Collision. 

Nearly 2,357 traffic safety investigations were processed between 01-01-2013 and 12-31-

2013. In addition, 565 “Other Safety” investigations were processed. These safety related 

investigations, were not generated by TASAS but by citizens calls, letters, emails, etc. Finally, 

as of February, 2012, Caltrans has implemented a 5-year “California Roadway Departure Safety 

Implementation Plan” which identified over 7,000 locations for possible low cost 

countermeasures to systematically implement on many state highways in an effort to reduce 

roadway departure crashes.

For this year reporting period, the most recent ten-year data was available for 2002 to 

2011. During the 2011 calendar year, 1,059 fatal collisions, 46,656 injury collisions, and 85,062 

property-damage-only (PDO) collisions were reported on the SHS. Caltrans estimates that these 

collisions resulted in losses of approximately $9.034 billion.

The HSIP and other State programs have made highways safer through the implementation of 

highway safety projects. This fact is evident from the fatality rate trends. Between 2002 and 

2011, the fatality rate on all State highways has decreased 39 percent. For the same period, the 

fatality rate on freeways decreased 36 percent, and on non-freeways it decreased 38 

percent. During the same period, the annual travel increased by 1.9 percent on all 

highways. The annual travel on freeways increased 6.7 percent, and on non-freeways it 

decreased 5.9 percent. Freeway travel accounts for 82.8 percent of travel on the SHS even 

though freeway road miles account for only 28.9 percent of the SHS.

The reductions in fatality rates have been accomplished by implementing safety projects. Many 

other improvements such as tree trimming, restriping, or installing warning signs that were 

requested by Traffic Operations staff and performed by Maintenance staff in the districts also 

contributed to improved safety. During FY 2013/14, there were 25 Major and Minor A safety 

projects awarded at a cost of $38.1 million. All of these project types are consistent with one or 

more of the 17 challenge areas identified in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

The effectiveness of the State HSIP was measured by comparing collision data before and after 

safety improvements were implemented at project sites. These projects have been completed 

between 7/1/2009 and 6/30/2010. Three years of collision data before project implementation 

was compared with available collision data after project implementation. A total of 92 projects 

were considered in the evaluation. Analysis of collision data was based on 147 highway 

locations as some of the projects contained more than one highway location. The cost of 
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

implementing these projects was 149 million. The annual savings, in terms of reductions in 

collision frequency and severity, was estimated at $72.7 million. This translates to an average 

savings of $1.45 billion or a benefit-cost ratio of 9.8 to1, assuming a project life of 20 years.

Finally, a set of 4 performance measures including: number of fatalities, number of fatalities per 

100 Million Vehicle Mile of Travel (MVMT), number of persons injured, and number of persons 

injured per 100 MVMT for three road classifications (i.e., freeways, non-freeways, and all 

highways) were calculated. The performance measures were calculated for each of the past 6 

years (i.e., 2007 to 2011). Derivation of performance measures defined as the 5 year rolling 

averages was based on data from 2002 to 2011. The rolling averages show a decreasing trends 

indicating improvement in safety on all road classifications analyzed. Note that Caltrans 

currently does not compile collision data for severe injury as a separate category. However, data 

is available for injury category that is comprised of severe injury, visible injury, and complaint of 

pain. Therefore, the performance measures were developed for injury as a whole. 

MAP-21 is putting focus in certain areas; accordingly, older driver and pedestrian fatality and 

sever injury rates per capita. The 5 year moving average for fatal + injury from 2009 to 2011 are 

trending downward and therefore the implementation of the special rule as set by MAP 21 does 

not apply at this time. These numbers are from all roadways in the state, not just state highways.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

If District, how are the HSIP funds allocated?

Formula

Crash Data

Population

Other On the state highway system, all projects that meet established safety criteria are 

programmed. Caltrans’ Division of Local Assistance manages the local agency share of HSIP funds, 

prepares guidelines and solicits project from local agencies.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

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

Caltrans’ Division of Local Assistance (DLA) uses an HSIP application benefit-cost tool to 

provide a consistent, data-driven methodology for ranking local roadway (non-State owned and 

operated) project applications on a statewide basis. This tool was developed by the DLA in 

conjunction with the University of California, Berkeley, Safe Transportation Research and 

Education Center. The DLA HSIP also provides the Local Roadway Safety Manual for 

California Local Road Owners and directly incorporates UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury 

Mapping System website to assist applicants applying for local HSIP funds. These tools and 

resources encourage local agencies to: proactively analyze their roadway networks for the 

highest crash locations; and develop and submit applications with the greatest chance of reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries. 

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Headquarters Traffic Safety and Mobility program in partnership with 12 district offices 

plan safety projects on the state highway system. Caltrans’ Division of Local Assistance in conjunction 

with local agencies plan projects on local roads.

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

On the State Highway System, Traffic Safety and Mobility Program in Headquarters within the 

Division of Traffic Operations works with the 12 Caltrans’ district offices to develop Project 

Initiation Documents for Headquarters approval and proceeding with project programming. For 

local roads, Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) staff manages the local agency share of 

HSIP funds in conjunction with its local agency partners. The DLA prepares the HSIP 

guidelines and solicits project applications from local agencies.

 

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-see optional description

Caltrans has been working with close to 400 safety stakeholders from 170 public and private 

agencies and organizations to develop the SHSP. Although there is no direct involvement with 

external partners with respect to HSIP planning, all safety projects developed and implemented 

are consistent with one or more of the SHSP strategies. Caltrans’ Division of Local Assistance, 

in conjunction with its local agency partners, is involved in planning projects on local roads.

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

the last reporting period. 

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-None
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

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

would like to elaborate. 

Eligibility of HSIP funds under MAP-21 now includes more flexibility in the types of projects 

and States are no longer required to certify they have met various safety infrastructure needs in 

order to fund non-infrastructure projects. HSIP continues to focus on significantly reducing 

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. HSIP also continues to require a datadriven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads. However, MAP-21 

has made some significant changes in HSIP in the types of projects eligible. Eligibility of HSIP 

funds under MAP-21 now includes more flexibility in the types of projects and states are no 

longer required to certify they have met various safety infrastructure needs in order to fund noninfrastructure projects. An HSIP project is now any strategy, activity or infrastructure and noninfrastructure types of projects on a public road that is consistent with the data-driven state’s 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and must support the state’s safety performance targets.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Two- and ThreeLane Cross Centerline Collision 

Mon

Other: Other-Local Road 

Program

Other: Other-Wrong-Way 

Monitoring Program

 
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

8 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/1977

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using 

Probability of specific crash types

method of moments
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Other-Any project that meets the established median barrier criteria for project selection is 

programmed

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Any project that meets 100
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

accident and volume warrants for 

median barrier are programmed

 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/2004

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Fatal + Injury Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Fatal + Injury carshes 

on Wet pavement

Other Other 

Other-Fatal + Injury Carshes 

in dark lighting

Other-Fatal + Injury carshes 

resulting in overturned vehicle

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-7 criteria including F+I crashes per year per mile, F/(F+I), shoulder width, crashes, in dark, on 

wet pavement, and overturned Veh. were used

Other-Additionally, a systematic approach involving deploying a relatively high number of low-cost 

countermeasures at long segments of roadway selected based on crash history, roadway type, 

geometry, volume, etc was utilized

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Almost 25% of high collision concentrations prioritized based on 7 criteria are selected. This is 

combined with a list of longer highway segments identified based on collision history, roadway type, 

geometric characteristics and B/C using CMF

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 
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

top 25% of run-off-road 

concentration locations with 

higher scores +100% of identified 

long segments selected based on 

collision frequency, roadway 

type, geometric characteristics 

and traffic volume

100

 

Program: Other-Two- and Three-Lane Cross Centerline Collision Mon

Date of Program Methodology: 1/15/1985

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-All projects meeting established criteria programmed

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

crash frequency and rate 100

 

Program: Other-Local Road Program

Date of Program Methodology: 9/3/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Collision History (5 years minimum), Collision Reduction Factors, Life of Improvement, Project 

Costs

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

Yes

No
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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

Yes

No

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

HSIP Application Benefit-Cost Tool

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Program: Other-Wrong-Way Monitoring Program

Date of Program Methodology: 1/15/1985

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classificatio

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

n

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Any identified location that meets the established criteria is programed 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Any identified location that 

meets the established criteria is 

programmed for implementation

100
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

10

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation 

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-Median Barrier

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-Existing criteria for selection of run-off-road concentrations is complemented with 

systematic approach deploying high No. of cost effective countermeasures targeting long Rd. segments 

identified based on crash history, road type, geometry, volume.

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

would like to elaborate. 

1) Caltrans is currently undertaking a research project to develop safety performance functions for 

highways, intersections and ramps to be used in Safety Analyst system which is consistent with the 

methodology in Highway Safety Manual (Type-I & Type-II performance functions). The goal is to 

replace the existing TASAS system with a more advanced Safety Analyst tool in our safety program. 

2) A comprehensive set of Performance Functions for various road types, intersections and ramps are 

being developed that will impact our identification of locations with high collisions concentrations.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 177406000 100 % 80448100 100 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU)

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Other See Optional 5 0 % 5 0 %

Description

Totals 177406005 100% 80448105 100%

Please see attached file to question 17. We have been able to provide the obligated fund 

for various categories listed in the table, but unable to specify the programming fund for 

the various categories requested in question 17 except the HSIP (section 148) 

category. Since ORT does not allow us to specify the obligated fund while leaving the 

programming fund column as blank, we provided the data as complete as we can as an 

attachment to question 17.

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

$49,781,456.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$49,781,456.00

Caltrans’ Division of Local Assistance (DLA) manages the local agency share of HSIP funds, prepares 

guidelines and solicits project from local agencies. DLA was not able to provide the programmed fund 

value requested in this question. Since ORT does not allow us to check mark the question as complete, 

we assumed the same value ( $49,781,456) for programmed fund. 

Also, DLA provided the following summary information (extracted from one of the attached file to 

question 23, the file for local road program). Also see the optional description for question 17.

DLA Summary:

HSIP Dollars Approved (FTIP Approval Date: 7/1/13 to 6/30/14) =$148,652,300

HSIP Dollars Obligated (Construction Authorization Date: 7/1/13 to 6/30/14) =$49,781,456

% HSIP Dollars Obligated =33.5%

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects? 
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

$0.00

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

$0.00

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

period?

$25,369,973.00

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

period? 

$0.00

The $25369973 was the amount of fund from section 164 transferred into HSIP. Information regarding 

transfer of fund from HSIP to other program was not available from our Division of Budget or 

programming. We assumed zero transfer of fund from HSIP into other programs in order to complete 

the question (ORT functionality requirement).

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

overcome this in the future. 

None

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification 

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

See 

attached 

file 

Parking 

Parking - other Numbers

5 5 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector 

1 1 2 Data this is a 

dummy 

project. 

Please see 

the attached 

file 

There are two attached files to this question. One, provides the list of awarded projects on the state highway system during FY 2013-14, and the 

other provides the list of projects selected on local roads by Caltrans Division of Local Assistance.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of fatalities 0 0 0 0 0

Number of serious injuries 0 0 0 0 0

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0 0 0 0 0

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

0 0 0 0 0

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

26
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 0
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

FREEWAYS (SEE 

OPTIONAL 

DESCRIPTION)

4 4 4 4
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT) 

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

STATE FREEWAYS (SEE OPTIONAL DESCRIPTION) 1 1 1 1
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

The input values (last row) in the table are random (non-real). These random values are input in order to check the question complete 

to comply with the ORT functionality.

Actual performance measure for 3 road classifications and ownership information are provided in the EXCEL file attached to this 

question. Data for the default classifications and the data for years requested are not available. The most recent calendar data 

available to us was for 2011. The 5 year rolling averages for 2011 are calculated based on annual collision and travel data for 2007 to 

2011. Four performance measures for 3 road types (i.e., Freeways, Non-Freeways, and All-Highways) on the SHS, are summarized in 

the table that is attached to the question.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

The most recent annual collision data was available for 2011. Our 2012 data will be available 

after August 2014. Caltrans implements the HSIP for State highways by programming and 

funding projects in the Collision Reduction Category, one of eight categories that make up the 

State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The Collision Reduction Category 

is further divided into two programs: Safety Improvement, and Collision Severity Reduction. 

The Safety Improvement Program is among Caltrans’ top priorities in the SHOPP and as a result, 

all projects that meet the criteria for the Safety Improvement Program are funded. These criteria 

include a benefit-cost analysis. The projects evaluated in this report include all projects funded 

by the Collision Reduction Category, which includes both federal HSIP and State highway 

funds.

Caltrans uses the Transportation System Network database to identify locations with 

significantly high collision concentrations. The identified locations are systematically 

investigated to determine probable causes of the collisions in order to implement effective 

countermeasures to improve safety. Other locations identified for investigation and possible 

implementation of countermeasures are generated from three Monitoring Programs: Cross 

Median Collision, Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collision, and Wrong Way Collision. 

Nearly 2,357 traffic safety investigations were processed between 01-01-2013 and 12-31-

2013. In addition, 565 “Other Safety” investigations were processed. These safety related 

investigations, were not generated by TASAS but by citizens calls, letters, emails, etc. Finally, 

as of February, 2012, Caltrans has implemented a 5-year “California Roadway Departure Safety 

Implementation Plan” which identified over 7,000 locations for possible low cost 

countermeasures to systematically implement on many state highways in an effort to reduce 

roadway departure crashes. 

For this year reporting period, the most recent ten-year data was available for 2002 to 

2011. During the 2011 calendar year, 1,059 fatal collisions, 46,656 injury collisions, and 85,062 

property-damage-only (PDO) collisions were reported on the SHS. Caltrans estimates that these 

collisions resulted in losses of approximately $9.034 billion.

The HSIP and other State programs have made highways safer through the implementation of 

highway safety projects. This fact is evident from the fatality rate trends. Between 2002 and 

2011, the fatality rate on all State highways has decreased 39 percent. For the same period, the 

fatality rate on freeways decreased 36 percent, and on non-freeways it decreased 38 

percent. During the same period, the annual travel increased by 1.9 percent on all 

highways. The annual travel on freeways increased 6.7 percent, and on non-freeways it 

decreased 5.9 percent. Freeway travel accounts for 82.8 percent of travel on the SHS even 

though freeway road miles account for only 28.9 percent of the SHS.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

The reductions in fatality rates have been accomplished by implementing safety projects. Many 

other improvements such as tree trimming, restriping, or installing warning signs that were 

requested by Traffic Operations staff and performed by Maintenance staff in the districts also 

contributed to improved safety. During FY 2013/14, there were 25 Major and Minor A safety 

projects awarded at a cost of $38.1 million. All of these project types are consistent with one or 

more of the 17 challenge areas identified in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

The effectiveness of the State HSIP was measured by comparing collision data before and after 

safety improvements were implemented at project sites. These projects have been completed 

between 7/1/2009 and 6/30/2010. Three years of collision data before project implementation 

was compared with the available collision data after project implementation. A total of 92 

projects were considered in the evaluation. Analysis of collision data was based on 147 highway 

locations as some of the projects contained more than one highway location. The cost of 

implementing these projects was 149 million. The annual savings, in terms of reductions in 

collision frequency and severity, was estimated at $72.7 million. This translates to an average 

savings of $1.45 billion or a benefit-cost ratio of 9.8 to1, assuming a project life of 20 years.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0 0 0 0 0

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0 0 0 0 0

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

0 0 0 0 0

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

Data was retrieved from CHP SWITRS data source : http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/ . The 

number of people 65 years of age and older (per 1,000 total population) are shown in Table 

below. 

Calculate Fatal + Injury Rate for 2011 

Fatal + Injury crashes in years 2007 to 2011 for Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and 

older /Population in years 2007 to 2011 = Xi i = 2007 to 2011
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Fatal + Injury Rate for 2011: Sum(Xi )/5 i = 2007 to 2011

Calculate Fatal + Injury Rate for 2009 

Fatal + Injury Rate for 2009: Sum(Xi )/5 i = 2005 to 2009

Compare Rate from 2009 to Rate from 2011 

Is there is an increase in the calculated rates between the periods ending in 2009 and 2011 States 

should consider the rate to have increased and the Special Rule applies. 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Pop. 65 and older/1000 

(FHWA)

105 105 108 109 112 112 114 117

Fatality Rate 6.12 5.87 5.74 5.93 4.88 4.88 4.68 4.68

Injury Rate* 246.76 236.16 225.56 221.8 208.8 208.8 205.38 205.39

Fatality and Injury Rate* 252.89 242.03 231.3 213.88 213.69 213.69 210.05 210.08

*Includes all levels of injuries, not just serious injury

For 2011 : Sum (213.88+207.93+ 213.69+210.05+210.07)/5 = 211.13

For 2009 : Sum (242.03+231.30+ 213.88+207.93+ 213.69)/5= 221.76

Change in Rate = - 10.64
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program? 

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

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

1. The Division of Traffic Operations went through organizational changes, where traffic 

safety and mobility strategies were organized under a single coordinated management.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

2. Roadway Departure systematic approach has been added to the existing approach of 

identifying highway spot improvement to our run-off-road collisions.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

See attached file to this 

question

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

See the optional 

description

Speedrelated 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

The most recent data available in our DOT is for 2011. The default data year in this question extends to 2013. Also as noted previously, our 

injury level include all severity levels including severe, visible, and complaint of pain injuries. For these reasons, the performance measures for 

Caltrans SHSP emphasis areas are included as an attached file to this question.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2011

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Median Barrier Head on 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

The most recent data available in our DOT is for 2011. The default data year in this question extends to 2013. Also as noted 

previously, our injury levels include all severity injuries including severe, visible, and complaint of pain. The performance measures 

for the Sub-programs identified here with the exception of the sub-program "Local Roads" are provided in the attached file to this 

question.
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2011

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Other-Median 

Barrier 

head on 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

The most recent data available in our DOT is for 2011. The default data year in this question extends to 2013. Also as noted 

previously, our injury levels include severe, visible, and complaint of pain. The performance measures for Caltrans systemic program 

(Median Barrier) are included in the attached file to this question. 
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

None
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: Funds 

Programmed

14) Funding-Question 17 Attachment.xlsx

Progress in Implementing Projects: General Listing 

of Projects

12) New-CA LOCAL HSIP PROJ ORT 

(2014.07.09).xlsx

Progress in Implementing Projects: General Listing 

of Projects

5) Attach_Q23_Proj-State.xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Overview of General Safety Trends

4) Attachment-Question 25.xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

9 Attached-Q32-SHSP-Final.xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): Groups of 

similar project types

8) Attach-Q33-Final.xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): Systemic 

Treatments

10) Attach-Systemic-Q34-Final.xlsx
2014 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities. 

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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