Page 1 of 45

MARYLAND

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 45

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 6

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................20

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................20

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................22

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................23

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................23

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................28

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................33

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................34

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................34

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................35

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................40

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................41
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 45

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 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 45

Executive Summary

Summary Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CY 2018

• The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division. 

• The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, 

to identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience 

and, as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. 

• HSIP Staff is located in the Planning, Engineering and Highway Safety Office portions of MDOT. 

• HSIP is administered centrally via Statewide Competitive Application Process. 

• Local roads were not allocated HSIP funds in CY 2018. 

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

Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services are important partners with the Maryland State Highway 

Administration (SHA) in the HSIP process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and several regional planning 

organizations along with local governments, various police agencies and academic organizations also 

coordinate with the SHA. 

• Programs administered under the HSIP 

1. Median Barrier 

2. Horizontal Curve 

3. Skid Hazard 

4. Roadway Departure 

5. Left-turn crash 

6. Intersection Crash Data 

7. Low Cost Spot Improvement

8. Pedestrian Safety 

9. Rural State Highway 

10. Right Angle Crash 

11. Highway Sections 

s 

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

mileage. 

• The project identification methodology used in the HSIP program are crash frequency and relative severity 

index. 

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

are Safety, Congestion, Operations and Local Support. This will be revised in CY 2019. 

• Engineering studies and Road Safety Assessments are used to identify potential countermeasures. 

• The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies that are related to the HSIP. 

• Reporting period for HSIP funding is CY 2018. 

• All police crash reports used for the crash database are in electronic format as of January 1, 2015 

• The general listing of projects includes various traffic control, roadside, lighting, intersection geometry and 

pedestrian-bicyclist access projects. 

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of fatalities (FARS) have increased from 

442 in 2014 to 513 in 2018 (annual format) and that the number of serious injuries (MD) have increased from 

3,053 in 2014 to 3,224 in 2018 (annual format). Please note that all 2017 FARS totals are preliminary at the 

time of this report. 2018 FARS totals are not available with state totals being used instead at the time of the

report.

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of non-motorized fatalities (FARS) have 

increased from 106 in 2014 to 139 in 2018 (annual format) and that the number of non-motorized serious 

injuries (MD) have increased from 431 in 2014 to 554 in 2018 (annual format). Please see above note on 

2017-18 FARS totals. 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 45

• Overall five-year average crash trends for the individual functional classification and roadway ownership are 

shown in tables in the annual report. 

• Maryland maintains the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce 

fatalities by at least 50 percent in the next two decades. 

• “A wide range of stakeholder groups - including federal, state and local government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, regional authorities, and individual advocates - participated in the 

development of the SHSP (Maryland Strategic Plan). Each EA (Emphasis Area) Team - which includes 

regional and local agencies - held at least two facilitated discussions to identify, develop, and finalize strategies 

for the 2016-2020 SHSP. Each EA Team wrestled with difficult decisions regarding how to cover the essentials 

of transportation safety while remaining strategic and focused on the most vital needs” (2016-20 SHSP). 

• Older Driver and pedestrian (65+) Fatalities increased from 69 in 2011 to 80 in 2017 (FARS – annual 

numbers. 2017 FARS totals are preliminary at the time of this report). Severe Injuries decreased from 295 in 

2011 to 278 in 2017 (MD – annual numbers). 

• The State measures effectiveness of the HSIP by the change in fatalities and serious injuries 

• Overall yearly crash trends for the individual SHSP (Strategic Highway Safety Program) emphasis areas are 

shown in tables in the annual report. 

• All Maryland counties along with Baltimore City are now provided a three-year listing of pedestrian involved 

crashes which includes a summary of severe injury and fatal crashes on state highways along with a detailed 

listing for local roads. 

• Maryland’s current SHSP was approved by the Governor or designated State representative on 05/31/2017. 

• The years being covered by the current SHSP are 2016 to 2020. 

• Maryland anticipates completing its next SHSP update by 2020. 

• The status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts are shown in tables in 

the annual report. 

• MDOT SHA is implementing Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and 

LRS data for HPMS submission. With the Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manage intersection 

data, and data gaps, we will be able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026. 

• In conjunction with the ESRI R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline 

(OMOC) program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of 

data between jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate authority. This geometry 

will be the base of the R&H data model. This data share and cooperation between levels of jurisdictions will 

also allow us to identify and fill data gaps, with the appropriate, authoritative information. 

• The purpose/scope of the HSIP review in 2016 was to determine if Maryland HSIP Planning Process meets 

the requirements of 23 CFR 924.9 and identify areas for improvement and successful practices in Maryland 

HSIP Planning Process. 

• An action plan was developed in CY 2016 to bring Maryland’s HSIP planning process into compliance with 

the HSIP Final Rule.
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 45

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 purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division.

Emphasis on Maryland’s highways is placed on improving the safety of intersections, sections and ramps that 

are identified as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs) or through Road Safety Audits and on 

implementing proven blanket safety improvements on a systematic basis. Safety improvements include the 

installation of rumble strips and median barriers; upgrading signs, signals, and markings; improving 

geometrics; and highway and bridge widening, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

The processes used to identify locations, referred to in the HSIP as hazardous locations, which have abnormal 

accident experience. Those locations, referred to herein as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs), 

include intersections, spots and sections where the combination of accident frequencies and/or rates are 

significantly higher than those at similar locations. The identification of CSILs is based on all police reported 

collisions, i.e., those crashes reported by law enforcement agencies across Maryland to the Maryland State 

Police. Information from these reports is entered into a statewide accident database for analysis.

The State Highway Administration (SHA) typically identifies CSILs only on the state maintained highway 

system. Several local jurisdictions use the accident data, which SHA provides to all of the jurisdictions 

annually, to identify similar location on their road systems. 

The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, to 

identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience and, 

as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. Locations 

identified by the District Engineers as having a combined safety/capacity problem although not necessarily 

qualifying as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations, also can be included as candidate Fund 76 Program 

projects. The SHA Administrator makes the final project selection.

Maryland's Fund 76 Spot Improvement Program was developed under the guidelines set forth in 23 CFR 924, 

and was designed to address the most critical highway safety problems statewide through a systematic and 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 45

unbiased approach. The Fund 76 Program is under the direction of the SHA's Deputy Administrator/Chief 

Engineer for Operations, with program development and assistance from the Office of Traffic and Safety. 

Through the Fund 76 process, accident data for all State highways is reviewed annually, and all sections and 

intersections experiencing abnormally high accident rates are studied to determine what countermeasures are 

applicable. In addition, listings of accidents on local roads are sent to the local governments for their use.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Engineering

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. 

Local Roads are usually not given HSIP funds from the State

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Districts/Regions

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Maryland State Highway District Offices

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Within the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) the State Highway Administration (SHA) Office of 

Traffic and Safety and Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering along with the Motor Vehicle 

Administration (MVA) Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) provided leadership, support, and coordination 

for Maryland's highway safety projects in CY 2018. Part of SHA and MVA's responsibility is to work with other 

State agencies to address highway safety issues. This effort results in a multi agency approach which includes 

the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services and others that 

have roles in highway safety problems. The seven SHA District Offices also provide a network of field 

personnel willing to coordinate and provide technical assistance to local agencies.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-External partners including MPOs, local government, police agencies and academic 

organizations were included in the 2016-20 SHSP planning process
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 45

Describe coordination with external partners. 

As stated in the 2016-20 SHSP (Maryland Highway Strategic Plan), stakeholder groups which included HSIP 

external partners participated in the development of the SHSP to identify, develop, and finalize strategies for 

the 2016-2020 SHSP. Stakeholder groups have coordinated in the collection and maintaining of safety data for 

all public roads and processes for advancing the State's capabilities for safety data collection and analysis 

through the TRCC).

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

The current process for the planning and implementation is detailed in the Safety and Spot Improvement 

Program Fund 76. The evaluation process was documented in the HSIP evaluation reports before the new 

template was created. A new process/manual is in development and was an action plan item from the July 

2016 HSIP Process review.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Horizontal Curve

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Right Angle Crash

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Skid Hazard

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 Volume 

Other-Highway mileage Functional classification 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 45

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

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

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

A new Candidate Project Rating Form will be implemented in CY 2019.

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 45

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

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

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 45

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

program? 

No

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

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 45

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

program? 

No

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

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Opeartions:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 45

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

program? 

No

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

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

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 Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 45

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

program? 

No

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

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 45

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

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 45

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Highway mileage Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 45

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 Volume 

Other-Highway mileage Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 45

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 

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 

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

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 

Volume 

Other-Highway mileage 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 45

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 

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 

Other-Saftey:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 13

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

• Upgrade Guard Rails

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

This is expected to be addressed in the future.

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. 

The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies as part of the HSIP Planning Process. It will be 

used in future ratings of Candidate Projects.
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 45

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Calendar Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $19,060,000 $18,188,240 95.43%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$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%

Totals $19,060,000 $18,188,240 95.43%

2018 programmed total not available at report time. 2019 figure used instead.

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%

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

0%

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

0%
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 45

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

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

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

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

$17,000,000

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

the future. 

none at this time

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

All Police crash reports used for the crash database are in electronic format as of January 1 2015
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 45

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

1301175 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$2938705 $3218643 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther30,372 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

safety 

improvements

3301016 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$3510176 $3868544 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther27,502 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

safety 

improvements

1251067 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$1242050 $1378706 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther29,051 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

safety 

improvements

1301176 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$2027754 $2239266 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther24,522 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

safety 

improvements

2511077 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

$1344801 $1541864 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther28,320 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

safety 

improvements

000B196 Roadside Barrier- metal $1832616 $2036240 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

saftey 

improvements

000B233 Roadside Barrier- metal $1859000 $1870440 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

safety 

improvements

000B238 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new

$2102098 $2358166 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

safety 

improvements

6956382 Lighting Site lighting - 

interchange

$1331040 $1331040 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Highway 

Infrastructure

Corridor 

safety 

improvements
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 45

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 496 485 511 465 442 520 505 550 513

Serious Injuries 4,051 3,809 3,312 2,957 3,053 2,595 3,164 3,345 3,224

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.880 0.860 0.900 0.820 0.780 0.890 0.880 0.920 0.860

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.210 6.800 5.870 5.240 5.410 4.550 5.370 5.585 5.407

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

110 107 102 114 106 108 124 124 139

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

437 430 406 396 431 373 584 587 554
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 45

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 45

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 26 of 45

2017 Fatalities and Fatality Rates are preliminary FARS totals

2018 Fatalities and Fatality Rates are Maryland State Totals - FARS totals are unavailable at reporting time 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

State Fatality Totals used for selected questions in the HSIP as noted

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

ownership. 

Year 2017

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

15 33 0.69 1.51

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

26 120 1.29 5.96

Rural Minor Arterial 32 129 1.81 7.29

Rural Minor Collector 17 53 2.19 6.83

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 45

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 Major Collector 33 131 2.05 8.16

Rural Local Road or 

Street

24 104 1.4 6.07

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

42 164 0.27 1.04

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

32 106 0.47 1.55

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

99 722 0.92 6.71

Urban Minor Arterial 49 343 0.64 4.45

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 41 207 0.95 4.78

Urban Local Road or 

Street

12 173 0.37 5.39
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 45

Year 2018

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

384 1,851

County Highway 

Agency

89 789

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

24 238

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency 2 11

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

2018 Functional Classification totals not available as of report time

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:425.7

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

Page 29 of 45

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, 

maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall 

fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline 

of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average 

targets for fatalities and serious injuries, e.g., 2013–2017 actual crash data are used to determine 

targets for 2016–2020 (five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant 

declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or below current 

targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, 

and non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP 

and HSIP.

Number of Serious Injuries:3029.4

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, 

maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall 

fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline 

of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average 

targets for fatalities and serious injuries, e.g., 2013–2017 actual crash data are used to determine 

targets for 2016–2020 (five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant 

declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or below current 

targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, 

and non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP 

and HSIP.

Fatality Rate:0.750

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, 

maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall 

fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline 

of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average 

targets for fatalities and serious injuries, e.g., 2013–2017 actual crash data are used to determine 

targets for 2016–2020 (five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant 

declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or below current 

targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, 

and non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP 

and HSIP.

Serious Injury Rate:5.372

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

Page 30 of 45

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, 

maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall 

fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline 

of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average 

targets for fatalities and serious injuries, e.g., 2013–2017 actual crash data are used to determine 

targets for 2016–2020 (five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant 

declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or below current 

targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, 

and non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP 

and HSIP.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:465.8

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, 

maintaining the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall 

fatalities and serious injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline 

of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average 

targets for fatalities and serious injuries, e.g., 2013–2017 actual crash data are used to determine 

targets for 2016–2020 (five-year average). (However, it should be noted that due to significant 

declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the Maryland crash report 

definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or below current 

targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, 

and non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP 

and HSIP.

Serious Injury Rate 2016-20 Target is 5.372

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries Target is 465.8

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

safety performance targets. 

"Stakeholders. A wide range of stakeholder groups - including federal, state and local government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, regional authorities, and individual advocates - participated in the 

development of the SHSP (Maryland Strategic Plan). Each EA (Emphasis Area) Team - which includes 

regional and local agencies - held at least two facilitated discussions to identify, develop, and finalize strategies 

for the 2016-2020 SHSP. Each EA Team wrestled with difficult decisions regarding how to cover the essentials 

of transportation safety while remaining strategic and focused on the most vital needs.”[1] This list of 

stakeholder safety partner agencies is as follows: Baltimore Metropolitan Council Washington Regional Alcohol 

Program Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services System National Study Center State Highway 

Administration Maryland Highway Safety Office Motor Vehicle Administration Maryland Department of Health 

and Mental Hygiene National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Highway Administration Maryland 

Transportation Authority Police Maryland State Police Montgomery County Police Department Howard County 

Police Department Maryland Chiefs of Police Association Leidos consultants Sabra, Wang & Associates 

consultants[2] [1] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2016-20 PG 5 [2] Maryland Strategic Highway 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 45

Safety Plan 2016-20 Appendix A The process stakeholders from SHSP were consulted to establish safety 

performance targets

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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. 

1. Number of traffic fatalities (FARS)

Reduce the number of traffic-related fatalities on all roads in Maryland from 499.8 (2013-2017 average, FARS 

ARF) to 425.7 (2016–2020 average) or fewer by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2015-2019 fatalities target is 

438.2. The actual number of fatalities was 499.8 (2013-2017 average), which is higher than the target; 

therefore, Maryland is not progressing towards its target.

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT experienced a decrease. Maryland was 

not able to meet or progress toward its targets due to the three years of increases but hopes the 2018 

downward trend continues to move back toward its TZD 2030 targets.

2. Number of serious injuries in traffic crashes (State Data)

Reduce the number of traffic-related serious injuries on all roads in Maryland to 3,029.4 (2016–2020 average) 

or fewer by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2015-2019 serious injuries target is 3,153.1. The actual number of 

serious injuries was 3,022.2 (2013–2017 average), which is lower than the target; therefore, Maryland has met 

its target.

Maryland has experienced a downward trend in serious injuries for more than the past decade. The most 

recent years have fluctuated as VMT increases in Maryland and fatalities have increased. Some reasons for 

the fluctuations in serious injury trends can be attributed to changes in how law enforcement is trained and 

submitting injury severity information on the Maryland crash report (ACRS).

3. Annual rate of traffic-related fatalities/VMT (FARS)

Reduce the number of traffic-related fatality rate on all roads in Maryland from 0.860 (2013–2017 average, 

FARS ARF) to 0.750 (2016–2020 average) or lower by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2015-2019 fatality rate 

target is 0.775. The actual rate of fatalities was 0.860 (2013-2017 average), which is higher than the target; 

therefore, Maryland is not progressing towards its target.

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT experienced a decrease. Maryland was 

not able to meet or progress toward its targets due to the three years of increases but hopes the 2018 

downward trend continues to move back toward its TZD 2030 targets.

4. Annual rate of traffic-related serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (State Data)

Reduce the traffic-related serious injury rate on all roads in Maryland to 5.372 (2016–2020 average) or lower 

by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2015-2019 serious injury rate target is 5.591. The actual serious injury rate 

was 5.225 (2013–2017 average), which is lower than the target; therefore, Maryland has met its target.
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 45

Maryland has experienced a downward trend in serious injuries for more than the past decade. The most 

recent years have fluctuated as VMT increases in Maryland and fatalities have increased. Some reasons for 

the fluctuations in serious injury trends can be attributed to changes in how law enforcement is trained and 

submitting injury severity information on the Maryland crash report (ACRS).

5. Number of non-motorized fatalities plus serious injuries on all roads (FARS and State Data)

Reduce the number of traffic-related non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries on all roads in Maryland from 

578.2 (2013-2017 average) to 465.8 (2016–2020 average) or fewer by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2015-

2019 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries target is 479.5. The actual number of traffic-related nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries was 578.2 (2013–2017 average), which is higher than the target; 

therefore, Maryland is not progressing towards its target.

Mirroring national trends, Maryland has experienced increases in fatalities and serious injuries in its most 

vulnerable road users—non-motorists (pedestrians and bicyclists). While Maryland does not have an exposure 

measure to determine precisely an increase in road use by pedestrians and bicyclists, Maryland has increased 

pedestrian and bicyclist facilities year after year and is experiencing similar trends in changes in transportation 

mode use seen nationally.

* 

1a. Number of traffic fatalities (State Data)

Reduce the number of traffic-related fatalities on all roads in Maryland from 501.8 (2013–2017 average, State 

data) to 426.3 (2016–2020 average) or fewer by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2015-2019 fatalities target 

was 438.8. The actual number of fatalities was 501.8 (2013–2017 average, State data), which is higher than 

the target; therefore, Maryland did not meet its target.

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT experienced a decrease. Maryland was 

not able to meet or progress toward its targets due to the three years of increases but hopes the 2018 

downward trend continues to move back toward its TZD 2030 targets.

2a. Annual rate of traffic-related Fatalities/VMT (State Data)

Reduce the number of traffic-related fatality rate on all roads in Maryland from 0.868 (2013–2017 average, 

State data) to 0.756 (2016–2020 average) or lower by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2015-2019 fatality rate 

target was 0.778. The actual fatality rate was 0.868 (2013–2017 average, State data), which is higher than the 

target; therefore, Maryland did not meet its target.

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT experienced a decrease. Maryland was 

not able to meet or progress toward its targets due to the three years of increases but hopes the 2018 

downward trend continues to move back toward its TZD 2030 targets.
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 45

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

69 60 50 63 71 74 80

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

295 254 235 258 172 263 278
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 45

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Program Type

Wet Surface Crashes

Target Crash Type

Wet Road

2016 Fatalities - 78

2017 Fatalities - 82

2018 Fatalities - 93

2016 Serious Injuries - 411

2017 Serious Injuries - 461

2018 Serious Injuries – 552

The increase in Wet Surface Fatalities and Serious Injuries reflects the increase in traffic volumes during the 

2016-18 period

Program Type

Left Turn Crashes

Target Crash Type

Left Turn

2016 Fatalities - 29

2017 Fatalities - 33

2018 Fatalities - 30

2016 Serious Injuries - 235

2017 Serious Injuries - 269

2018 Serious Injuries – 260

While there is only a minor increase in Left Turn Fatalities, the increase in Serious Injuries reflects the increase 

in traffic volumes during the 2016-18 period

Program Type

Angle Crashes

Target Crash Type - Angle

2016 Fatalities - 71

2017 Fatalities - 76

2018 Fatalities - 77

2016 Serious Injuries - 610 

2017 Serious Injuries - 618

2018 Serious Injuries – 576

The increase in Angle Fatalities reflects the increase in traffic volumes during the 2016-18 period while the 

reduction in Serious Injuries shows a decrease even though the traffic volumes increased during this period.
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 45

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

All Maryland counties along with Baltimore City are now provided a three year listing of pedestrian involved 

crashes which includes a summary of severe injury and fatal crashes on state highways along with a detailed 

listing for local roads. In 2016 SHA established a HSM implementation team. Work continues on an updated 

process for project selection and evaluation for the HSIP program.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2018

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 All 130 466 0.22 0.78

Bicyclists All 6 59 0.01 0.1

Impaired Driving All 141 470 0.24 0.79

Aggressive Driving All 32 174 0.05 0.29

Occupant Protection All 114 478 0.19 0.8

Highway Infrastructure All 285 1,961 0.48 3.29

Distracted Driving All 189 1,600 0.32 2.68
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Pedestrians Bicyclists Impaired

Driving

Aggressive

Driving

Occupant

Protection

Highway

Infrastructure

Distracted

Driving

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 45

Question 44

Note 1

“An aggressive driving crash occurs when at least one driver in the crash was reported to be driving 

aggressively, defined by having one of the following values in both the primary and secondary Contributing 

Circumstance fields from the standard crash report form:

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Pedestrians Bicyclists Impaired

Driving

Aggressive

Driving

Occupant

Protection

Highway

Infrastructure

Distracted

Driving

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

3.5

Pedestrians Bicyclists Impaired

Driving

Aggressive

Driving

Occupant

Protection

Highway

Infrastructure

Distracted

Driving

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 45

Failed to yield right-of-way 

Failed to obey stop sign 

Failed to keep right of center 

Failed to stop for a school bus 

Too fast for conditions

Followed too closely 

Failed to obey other traffic control 

Exceeded speed limit 

Failed to obey traffic signal 

Improper lane change 

Improper passing 

Other improper action 

Disregarded other road markings 

Wrong way on a one way street 

Failure to obey traffic signs, signals, or officer 

Operated motor vehicle in erratic/reckless manner “

Note 2

“A distracted driving crash occurs when a driver shifts attention away from the driving task due to a number of 

things, including adjusting a radio, attending to a child, or using a cell phone (e.g., talking, texting, or other 

use).”

Note 3

“According to NHTSA’s Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS), drivers are considered to be alcoholimpaired when their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is 0.08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any 

fatality occurring in a crash involving a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher is considered to be an alcoholimpaired driving fatality. In Maryland, an impaired driving crash as indicated on the Maryland crash report is 

determined by the investigating officer based on the driver’s condition, BAC, and/or substance use detection. It 

will include any level of alcohol in the system and/or drug impairment. Therefore Maryland impaired driving 

targets are different than the targets based on FARS data.”

Note 4

“An unrestrained-occupant crash is defined as including a passenger vehicle (automobile, station wagon, van, 

SUV, or pickup truck) occupant: 

• Less than eight years of age recorded as not using a “Child/Youth Restraint,” 

• Eight years of age or older recorded as not using a “Lap and Shoulder Belt” or “Air Bag and Belt,” or 

• Whose restraint use was recorded as using “None” or “Air Bag Only.”

Note 5

“Intersection-related and run-off-the-road crashes are the prime indicators of roadway infrastructure 

opportunities for improvement. Work-zone crashes also are included in this emphasis area.

A Run-Off-the-Road Crash is defined as a crash where the first event was recorded as striking a fixed object or 

running off the road, or the location of the crash was reported as off-road or in the median.

Intersection Crashes are those crashes reported as occurring in an intersection or being intersection-related 

(i.e., in a traffic situation resulting from an intersection).

Work-Zone Crashes are those crashes reported as occurring in a work zone in the standard crash report. They 

can include construction, maintenance, and utility work zones.”

Note 6

“Pedestrian crashes are defined as crashes involving a person reported as a pedestrian on foot (using the 
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 45

‘pedestrian’ person type and ‘pedestrian on foot’ pedestrian type), including a motorist who has exited a 

vehicle. Bicyclist crashes are defined as crashes involving a person reported as a bicyclist or pedalcyclist 

(using the ‘bicyclist’ or ‘other pedalcyclist’ type).”

All notes are from the Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2016-20

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 45

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)

Maryland has 

chosen not to 

complete this 

optional 

section
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 45

Compliance Assessment

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

 05/31/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2016 To: 2020

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

 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

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 45

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 90 100 90

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 98 50

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)

85 85

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

50 50

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

25 25

AADT Year (80) 25 25

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

75 75

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 45

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 Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

100 100

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 99.33 70.00 70.00 100.00 100.00 94.44 87.78 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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.

• MDOT SHA has implemented Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and LRS data for HPMS submission. This year MDOT SHA used Roads and Highways for their HPMS submission. With the 

Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manager intersection data, and data gaps, we will be able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026.

• In conjunction with the Esri R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline (OMOC) program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of data between 

jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate authority. We have begun a pilot conflation process between MDOT SHA and two county jurisdictions to test process and develop the protocols that will be used for 

the integration of the remaining counties of Maryland. This geometry will be the base of the R&H data model. This data sharing and cooperation between the local and state jurisdictions will better allow us to identify and fill data gaps, with 

the appropriate, authoritative information.

• FHWA has authorized several pilots to investigate developing methodologies to more accurately calculate local AADTs for lower functionally classified roadways. MIRE FDEs require this type of data, while the local jurisdictions do not 

have the wherewithal nor need to completely capture and maintain this type of data. Therefore, the need to develop better proxies or models to better estimate these AADTs for local roads is an ongoing activity.

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

No

2020

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

2019
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 45

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 45

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.