Ohio

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: OH
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................2

Program Administration ...........................................................................................................................2

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................9

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................43

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 43

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 56

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ........................................100

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.....................................................................................................................................................127
iv
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

One of the greatest challenges facing Ohio is reducing the number of fatalities and 

injuries and the costs associated with traffic crashes statewide.

In 2012, there were 287,035 crashes in Ohio – 1,122 people were killed and 106,268 

people were injured. In addition to the emotional impact, the economic cost to Ohio is 

about $15 billion per year in lost wages, increased health care and other related costs.

The vast majority of these crashes are caused by driver error. To reduce crashes and 

injuries, and save lives, the Ohio Department of Transportation is working with the 

Department of Public Safety, the public and local, state and federal agencies to: identify 

and improve high-crash and severe-crash locations through engineering; enforce traffic 

laws; and promote safe driving behavior through public education.

Despite these numbers, Ohio has made significant improvements in highway safety 

over the past several years. Since 2003, Ohio fatalities have decreased 12%; serious 

injuries decreased 15%; all injuries decreased 25%; and all crashes decreased 27%.

To reduce crashes and injuries, and save lives, the Ohio Department of Transportation 

routinely works with local, state and federal safety advocates to:

• Identify and improve high-crash, severe-crash locations through engineering 

(improving roads)

• Enforce traffic laws

• Promote safe driving behavior through public education

Many fatalities are preventable. Hundreds of lives could be saved each year if all 

motorists used a seatbelt, drove sober and traveled at appropriate speeds.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

Local road safety improvements are a focus of both Ohio’s SHSP and HSIP. Through our close 

collaboration with the Local Technical Assistance Program, County Engineers Association and 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, we have been expanding training, technical assistance, 

and funding opportunities available to our local partners. 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

This collaboration begins with local involvement in developing and implementing Ohio’s SHSP. 

Our plan focuses on the safety of all public roads and all road users, including cars, trucks, 

trains, motorcycles, pedestrians and bikes.

Ohio has formed a statewide steering committee with local government representation and 

involvement. This committee meets quarterly to 1) review crash trends and 2) discuss key 

strategies being implemented across agencies and jurisdictions to reduce fatalities and serious 

injuries on all Ohio roads. These agencies are then tasked with sharing information and 

resources with other safety organizations throughout Ohio.

Emphasis Areas

Ohio has identified four emphasis areas in the plan based on crash data: 

1. Improve the quality, accuracy, timeliness and availability of crash data.

2. Reduce the occurrence and severity of run-off-road, intersection and head-on collisions.

3. Address high-risk drivers and behaviors such as young drivers, impaired driving, low seat belt 

use, distracted driving and excessive speed.

4. Target motorcycle and bicycle riders, pedestrians and commercial vehicles, which are more 

likely to be involved in serious crashes.

5. Reduce the high number of rear-end collisions caused by congestion and work zones.

These emphasis areas were chosen because they represent the greatest causes of serious 

injuries and deaths on Ohio roads. A complete listing of target areas and strategies are 

elaborated in the Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation section of this report, 

prior to the project listings.

Local governments can qualify for funding and technical assistance to address emphasis areas 

through HSIP programs administered by ODOT and the County Engineers Association.

ODOT uses the SHSP as a basis for developing its HSIP. ODOT has one of the largest programs in 

the country, dedicating about $102 million annually for engineering improvements at highcrash and severe-crash locations across the state. We also dedicate a portion of the funding for 

low-cost, systematic safety improvements that prevent roadway departure and intersection 

crashes identified in the SHSP. A small portion of this funding is also used to conduct work zone 

enforcement efforts and other small enforcement and education efforts.

This funding can be used by ODOT District Offices or local governments to improve safety on 

any public roadway. While the majority of HSIP investments focus on engineering 

improvements, ODOT uses a portion of the funding to supplement education 

(everymove.ohio.gov) and enforcement programs that encourage safer driving. 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

To qualify for funding, local governments identify and study high-crash or severe-crash 

locations within their own jurisdiction. To determine the best countermeasures for these 

locations, local governments typically conduct an engineering analysis that includes a review of 

existing roadway conditions and crash reports. This analysis will help identify common crash 

patterns and determine the best strategies to reduce crashes.

Projects sponsors are encouraged to examine a full range of options from short-term, low-cost 

strategies, such as new signs, pavement markings and drainage improvements to mid-cost, midterm strategies such as new traffic signals, turn lanes and realignments.

Local governments may pay for these improvements through their annual budget or they can 

seek money each spring (April 30) and fall (September 30) through ODOT's Highway Safety 

Improvement Program. The maximum amount of funding available is $5 million per project. A 

multi-discipline committee at ODOT headquarters reviews all applications and supporting 

safety studies. The committee can approve a proposal, select a different safety strategy or 

request further study before allocating money. ODOT spends approximately $85 million dollars 

in safety funds annually through this program.

Once funding is secured, safety projects are scheduled for construction. How quickly projects 

proceed to construction depends on the available funding and complexity of the project. Shortterm, low-cost projects can be implemented within a few months. Other projects that require 

environmental mitigation, complex engineering design and/or utility and right of way relocation 

may take several years. In all cases, ODOT encourages sponsors to act as quickly as possible. 

Upon project completion, the department monitors locations to make sure the improvements 

are reducing crashes as designed.

ODOT also provides an additional $12 million, separate from $102 million, annually to the 

County Engineers Association of Ohio (CEAO) to make safety improvements on countymaintained roads. This funding can be used to make spot and systematic improvements tied to 

the SHSP. Applications are accepted once a year and scored using criteria developed in 

conjunction with ODOT. 

The CEAO subdivides the $12 million in to several smaller funding categories. Each county is 

permitted to program eligible construction projects up to $5 million overall for spot safety 

improvements. In addition to spot safety improvements, CEAO provides up to $300,000 per 

county for each guardrail project, $150,000 per county for each pavement marking project, 

$75,000 per county for each raised pavement marker project, and $15,000 per county for curve 

signage upgrade projects. 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

ODOT continues to look for opportunities for deployment of safety improvements. With a data 

driven focus, we have been able to use innovative contracting practices and partnerships 

through LTAP and CEAO to improve safety performance on local maintained roads. We have 

developed creative methods to quickly produce signage for local governments and allow them 

to install them with their own forces. This methodology is being used to upgrade signage in 

curves to prevent roadway departure crashes and around schools to make walking and biking 

safer for kids.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

ODOT’s Office of Systems Planning and Program Management accepts applications –

accompanied by safety studies – from ODOT District Offices and local governments twice a 

year. Applications must be submitted through the District Offices, which have a multidisciplinary committee that reviews and approves them for Central Office consideration. 

Projects are then reviewed and selected for funding by the Safety Review Committee in Central 

Office, which includes expertise in safety, planning, geometric design, and traffic operations. 

Priority is given to any project that improves safety at a roadway location with high frequency, 

severity and rate of crashes. Projects are scored based on: 

• Crash frequency/density 

• Crash rate 

• Relative severity index 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

• Equivalent property damage only rate 

• Percentage of truck traffic 

• Rate of return (anticipated savings in crash costs, property damage, injuries and fatalities 

relative to the cost of the improvement plus cost of maintenance for the life of the project). 

Consideration is also given to lower-volume, lower-crash local roads with identified needs and 

cost-effective countermeasures. 

Funding awarded through the program is used to make traditional safety improvements at spot 

locations, such as intersections, and along sections or corridors throughout the state. 

Ohio’s program also works collaboratively with other local, state and federal agencies to 

develop multi-agency safety initiatives through the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. These efforts 

allow ODOT to pair engineering expertise with education and enforcement initiatives that play 

a key role in reducing injuries and deaths.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: 

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.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

would like to elaborate.

Ohio uses a focused approach to safety that targets resources based on the greatest need and 

greatest opportunity for improvements. We also promote the use of proven, cost-effective, 

systematic safety solutions that target critical, severe-crash types such roadway departure and 

intersections crashes. These focus areas are embodied in both the HSIP and the state’s 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

We advanced the HSIP through the balanced deployment and implementation of a host of 

traditional spot safety investments and a host of systematic safety investments.

ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and Safety Analyst Implementation

Each year, ODOT staff reviews the top safety locations in Ohio. Ohio is one of the first states in 

the country to fully implement Safety Analyst and use it to prioritize safety locations across 

Ohio. Safety Analyst uses state-of-the-art statistical methodologies to identify roadway 

locations and safety improvements with the highest potential for reducing crashes. The 

software systems flags spot locations and road segments that have higher-than-predicted crash 

frequencies. It also flags locations for review based on crash severity. This methodology is more 

efficient and cost effective and will allow the department to study fewer locations yet address 

more crashes each year. 

ODOT has developed six priority lists based on rural and urban roadway types. . The urban 

system covers all streets, roads, and highways located within urban boundaries designated by 

the U.S. Census Bureau. The Bureau defines two types of urban areas based on population. 

Small urban areas are urban places with a population or 5,000 or more and not located within 

any urbanized area. An urbanized area is an area with a population of 50,000 or more. As might 

be expected, the rural functional classification system covers all other streets, roads, and 

highways that are not located within the boundaries of small urban and urbanized areas.

Approximately, $85 million is used to fund projects through this program.

The priority lists are: 

1. Rural Intersection Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected 

because they have a higher-than-predicted crash frequency for each intersection.

Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

2. Rural Non-Freeway Peak Searching Excess Segment Locations: These locations were 

selected because they have a higher-than-predicted crash frequency for this roadway 

type. Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied. Only crashes indicated on 

the OH-1 as being non-intersection crashes were included in this analysis.

3. Rural Freeway Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because 

they have a higher-than-predicted crash frequency for this roadway type or interchange 

location. Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied.

4. Urban Intersection Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected 

because they have a higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for each 

intersection. Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied.

5. Urban Non-Freeway Peak Searching Excess Segment Locations: These locations were 

selected because they have a higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for 

this roadway type. Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied. Only crashes 

indicated on the OH-1 as being non-intersection crashes were included in this analysis.

6. Urban Freeway Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because 

they have a higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for this roadway type 

or interchange location. Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied.

Systematics Safety Program

The Ohio Department of Transportation spends approximately $15 million annually of the $102 

million program on systematic safety improvements. These are safety improvements that can 

be installed across hundreds of road miles for a relatively small public investment. Systematic 

safety improvements are low cost improvements that are complete at similar locations to 

address a specific type of crash pattern.

Examples of systematic project types are Curve Signing Upgrade, Edge Line Rumble Stripes, 

Cable Barrier, Signal Upgrade, Intersection Signing Upgrade, Wider Pavement Markings, and 

Guardrail End Treatment Upgrade Projects.

Safe Routes to School Program

ODOT’s use $4 million from the Transportation Alternatives Program to fund Ohio’s Safe Routes 

to School Program. Again, this is separate and in addition to the $102 million ODOT HSIP 

program. Funds can be used on any public roadway as long as the school has completed a 

School Travel Plan. The School Travel Plan outlines where investments should be made for a 

specific school district.

Other Programs

Small portions of ODOT’s HSIP Program funding ($102 million) are used for work zone 

enforcement, OVI checkpoints, and other educational opportunities. Although money is not 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

specifically set aside for the High Risk Rural Roads Program in Ohio at this time, we still 

encourage agencies to apply for funding through our traditional application process. Any 

projects that are prioritized based on the HRRR Program are funded through the ODOT’s HSIP 

Program ($102 million).

ODOT also combines HSIP funding with other funding sources (such as MPO and ORDC) to make 

safety improvements.

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-State HSIP 

Program

Other: Other-CEAO HSIP 

Program

Other: Other-State High Risk 

Rural Road

Other: Other-State Safe 

Routes to School

Other: Other-ODOT 

Systematic - Guardrail

Other: Other-ODOT 

Systematic - Signal Upgrade

Other: Other-ODOT 

Systematic - Wet Pavement

Other: Other-ODOT 

Systematic - Median Barrier

Other: Other-ODOT 

Systematic - Roadway Departure

Other: Other-ODOT 

Systematic - Intersection Signage

Other: Other-CEAO 

Systematic - Guardrail

Other: Other-CEAO 

Systematic - Pavement Markings

Other: Other-CEAO 

Systematic - RPMs

Other: Other-CEAO 

Systematic - Curve Signage
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Program: Other-State HSIP Program

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2006

 

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-Truck Volume 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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Truck AADT

Other-Volume to Capacity Ratio

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 3
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Other-CEAO HSIP Program

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2011

 

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-Rural County Highway 

System

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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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-Amount of Funding Requested

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Other-State High Risk Rural Road

Date of Program Methodology: 6/1/2008

 

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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Other-State Safe Routes to School

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2008

 

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-Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Crashes

Lane miles Roadside features
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Other-Student Population Other-Proximity to School

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-Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes

Other-Project vicinity to students

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Countermeasure fills need 1

Proximity to student 

population

2

Program: Other-ODOT Systematic - Guardrail

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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-NHS System

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?
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Systematic Safety Program

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 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2

Program: Other-ODOT Systematic - Signal Upgrade
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Date of Program Methodology: 6/1/2009

 

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 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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

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-Systematic Safety Program

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 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Program: Other-ODOT Systematic - Wet Pavement

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012

 

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-Wet crashes Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Fixed object crashes 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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

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?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Systematic Safety Program

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 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Program: Other-ODOT Systematic - Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2009

 

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-Cross-Median Crashes 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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

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?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Systematic Safety Program

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 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Cost Effectiveness

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2

Program: Other-ODOT Systematic - Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Shoulder width

Other-Lane width

Other-Urban / Rural

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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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-FHWA Roadway Departure Safety Project Identification Methods

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Systematic Safety Program

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).
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2

Program: Other-ODOT Systematic - Intersection Signage

Date of Program Methodology: 7/12/2012

 

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? 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

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-FHWA Intersection Safety Project Location Identification Methods

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Other-Systematic Safety Program

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 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2

Program: Other-CEAO Systematic - Guardrail

Date of Program Methodology: 6/1/2011

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Rural County Roadway 

System

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

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Relative County Ranking 1

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Program: Other-CEAO Systematic - Pavement Markings

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2011

 

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-Rural County Roadway 

System

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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Cost Effectiveness

Relative County Ranking 1

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2

Program: Other-CEAO Systematic - RPMs

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2011

 

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-Rural County Roadway 

System

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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

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

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Relative County Rankin 1

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2

Program: Other-CEAO Systematic - Curve Signage

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2012

 

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-Rural County Roadway 

System
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

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

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Relative County Ranking 1

Systematic Safety 

Improvement

2

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

20

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

improvments?
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

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-Wet Pavement Locations

Other Other-Roadway Departure

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: Other-Using Safety Analyst software to identify potential systematic safety improvement 

locations.

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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Other: Other-Safety Analyst

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

would like to elaborate. 

SafetyAnalyst and HSM Integration

Because Ohio has a long history of making road inventory and crash data investments, it was 

the first state in the nation to fully implement SafetyAnalyst and use it to prioritize safety 

locations.

In 2011, ODOT began working with local governments to study and address the top 100 spot 

locations in six roadway-type categories. Using state-of-the-art analysis techniques, Ohio is 

studying 67% more fatalities, 151% more serious injuries and 105% more total crashes per mile 

than in previous years. These efficiencies allow ODOT and local governments to spend more 

time addressing crash problems and less time studying them

SafetyAnalyst was developed as a pooled fund study with FHWA and 25 state DOTs and uses 

state-of-the-art statistical methodologies to identify roadway locations and safety 

improvements with the highest potential for reducing crashes in line with the concepts 

presented in the HSM Part B (network screening procedures). The software system flags spot 

locations and road segments that have higher-than-predicted crash frequencies. It also flags 

locations for review based on crash severity. ODOT is also using SafetyAnalyst tools and 

techniques to guide its systematic safety investments. Using SafetyAnalyst, the department is 

identifying high-risk roadway features and candidate locations for low-cost safety investments 

such as cable barrier, rumble stripes and reflective back plates for traffic signals. ODOT 

dedicates typically $10-$15 million in safety funds for these types of nationally proven 

treatments.

In 2011, ODOT embarked on two-year program that will further improve Ohio’s roadway 

inventory database by documenting the state’s key assets. Ohio is prioritizing the data 

collection efforts using those roadway features identified by the HSM as critical to developing 

state-specific safety performance functions and crash modification factors. Ohio is also focused 

on collecting those roadway assets first that will have the greatest impact on reducing crashes. 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

And finally, Ohio’s historical investments in road inventory and crash data have helped position 

the state for more rapid deployment of the HSM into statewide transportation planning.

In 2012, Ohio began statewide training efforts that will build basic, intermediate and expert 

HSM users. During stage 1, Ohio held basic training for decision makers, whose support is 

needed to integrate HSM methodologies and approaches into all transportation planning, 

project development and investment processes. In the second stage of training, which began 

this summer, the focus has shifted to building intermediate users through hands-on use of the 

manual. This fall, the HSM will be added to the state’s Traffic Academy Training, so state and 

local transportation professionals, and consultants can begin to understand and incorporate the 

principles into statewide studies and analysis.

This past year, Ohio has been working to calibrate the HSM Safety Performance Functions in 

order to incorporate the HSM methodology into the project selection process beginning April 

2014. Utilizing data specific to Ohio, tools have been developed to complete the HSM 

calculations at a project level. This also includes a benefit-cost analysis in order to evaluate 

proposed countermeasures. Training has continued in an effort to prepare for the change to 

the new program methodology.

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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

HSIP (Section 148) 59104233 27 % 73556285 39 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 2576380 1 % 2312530 1 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

38395915 17 % 26037627 14 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

72053148 33 % 38480182 20 %

State and Local Funds 49379057 22 % 49379057 26 %

Totals 221508733 100% 189765681 100%

The table contains money expended during the 2012 state fiscal year. This table 

includes both State discretionary funds and Federal HSIP money. In FFY 2012, Ohio 

obligated 100% of its Federal HISP funds. For FFY 2013, Ohio has obligated 

approximately 88%. ODOT’s safety program is making great progress working with our 

SHSP partners to further highway safety in Ohio. The table contains carry forward 

dollars from the state discretionary funding portion.

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

$26,486,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$26,120,000.00
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

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

$923,598.00

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

$340,000.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

In FFY 2012, Ohio obligated 100% of its HSIP funds. For FFY 2013, Ohio has obligated 

approximately 88%. ODOT's safety program is making great progress working with our SHSP 

partners to further highway safety in Ohio.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Ohio uses the Strategic Highway Safety Plan to guide project selection for the HSIP Program.

The following contains a complete list of Emphasis Areas, Targets Areas, and Strategies 

contained in the current plan posted at the following link: 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/SPPM/MajorPrograms/Safety/Documents/SHS

P%20Report.pdf

These have been provided at the end of each SHSP Strategy field in the project listing table in 

the following section. An example of improve signage or install warning signs for a fixed object 

crash location would be coded as “II-a-4”.

Emphasis Area I – Data and Support Systems

Targets

a. Timely Data

b. Reliable Data

c. Comprehensive Data

d. Integrated Data and Analysis Systems

Strategies

1. Provide statistical crash information and reports to outside agencies through web-based 

applications that allow local governments, law enforcement and the public to download 

the information quickly.

2. Develop a multi-jurisdictional, statewide road inventory network that contains accurate 

centerline information, valid address ranges and other information features critical to 

improving crash information, analysis and emergency response.

3. Design and implement a centralized statewide citation tracking system so law 

enforcement officers, court personnel and prosecutors have up-to-date driver histories

4. Improve railroad crossing data and integrate into statewide crash analysis system

5. Identify those municipal and county law enforcement agencies that report the largest 

number of crashes and work with them to reduce delays in submitting crash reports to 

ODPS
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

6. Implement Ohio’s Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES)

7. Use this information in crash analysis, problem identification, and program evaluation to 

improve decision-making at the local, state and national levels

8. Update the Emergency Medical System Incident Reporting System to meet the 

standards set forth by the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS).

Emphasis Area II – Serious Crash Types

Targets

a. Fixed Object Crashes

b. Intersection Crashes

c. Head-On Crashes

d. Cross-Median Crashes

e. Highway/Railroad Crossing Crashes

Strategies – Fixed Object Crashes (a)

1. Identify areas with disproportionate number of roadway departure crashes

2. Implement asset management for roadside safety features 

3. Conduct roadway safety audits

4. Improve signs or install warning signs

5. Remove or relocate obstacles, or delineate with reflective paint and/or reflectors

6. Provide adequate clear zones, flatten slopes and reduce sharp curves

7. Shield motorists from trees, poles, or other fixed objects using guardrail or other barrier 

types

8. Alert motorists by installing rumble strips (pilot locations to be selected)

9. Provide selective enforcement aimed at speeding and impaired driving

10. Investigate new technologies

Strategies – Intersection Crashes (b)

1. Stop approach rumble strips

2. Improve signs and visibility of the intersection including the installation of sign 

post/drive post delineators, dual stop and stop ahead signs and flashing LED or beacon 

enhanced stop signs

3. Improve sight distance
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

4. Improve signal timing

5. Dynamic flashing beacons

6. Install or enhance intersection lighting

7. Increase enforcement of intersection violations

8. Access management to reduce intersection conflicts

9. Conduct roadway safety audits

10. Investigate new technologies

11. Educate motorists on intersection crash issues and encourage safer driving behavior

Strategies – Head-On Crashes (c)

1. Identify areas with disproportionate number of roadway departure crashes

2. Deploy centerline rumble strips

3. Deploy, as appropriate, “No Passing Zone” signs

4. Deploy, as appropriate, passing lanes on rural, two-lane roads

5. Train and educate motorists on passing zone markings and lanes

6. Provide selective enforcement aimed at speeding and impaired driving

Strategies – Cross-Median Crashes (d)

1. Identify areas with a disproportionate number of cross-median crashes

2. Establish policy and guidelines for installing median barrier

3. In congested areas, install “Watch for stopped traffic” signs to prevent cross-median 

crashes

4. Provide selective enforcement aimed at speeding, impaired and aggressive driving

Strategies – Highway/Railroad Crossing Crashes (e)

1. Streamline the process to help local governments reduce crossing profiles, eliminate 

redundant crossings and separate highway/rail crossings

2. Market existing programs that expand the use of alternative crash prevention methods, 

such as improved street lighting at approaches, rumble strips, warning signs and flashing 

lights

3. Continue the use of visible, high-profile law enforcement programs at problem crossings 

to deter drivers from violating gates and lights

4. Use automated enforcement of crossing violations to the extent allowed by law

5. Encourage greater participation in programs that establish multi-disciplinary teams to 

examine railroad corridors for improvements and fatal crash locations for quick 

corrective action
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

6. Modify the project selection by hazard index to include the review of older circuitry on 

gates and lights

7. Encourage all Ohio counties to develop or expand the County Task Force Program to 

encourage grass roots interest in railroad safety and to identify problem locations

8. Expand involvement with Operation Lifesaver and other highway safety education and 

enforcement programs

9. Encourage railroads to provide accurate and timely railroad crossing data such as crash, 

train volume and speed data, which can be better integrated into the Federal Railroad 

Administration’s Accident Prediction Model and other statewide analysis systems used 

to create safer crossings

10. Develop policies that encourage ODOT district offices and local governments to identify 

and include rail improvements early in the project development process for highway 

improvements

11. Encourage the closure of redundant crossings through policies and funding 

commitments To ensure railroad compliance at crossings, FRA will increase inspection 

activities with railroad managers by conducting field test and observations of crossing 

activation failures

Emphasis Area III – High-Risk Behaviors/Drivers

Targets

a. Occupant Protection Devices – Nonuse and Misuse

b. Impaired by Alcohol

c. Young Driver – 15 to 25

d. Distracted or Fatigued Driver

e. Aggressive Driving

f. Older Driver – 65 or Older

Strategies – Occupant Protection Devices – Nonuse and Misuse (a)

1. Support efforts to enact primary safety belt legislation through state law or local 

ordinances

2. Upgrade child restraint law to include booster seats

3. Expand the Rural Demonstration Project designed to increase safety belt use in rural 

areas

4. Implement media and education campaign targeting pick-up drivers
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

5. Encourage law enforcement to aggressively enforce safety belt and child restraint laws

6. Increase emphasis on special occupant protection mobilizations (public information and 

high visibility enforcement campaigns)

7. Continue campaigns to educate the general public and target groups about the 

importance of occupant protection

8. Pilot test the “I’m Safe” Occupant Protection Program for K through Second Grade and 

continue to provide other child-based educational programs

9. Educate parents, caregivers, and grandparents about proper selection and installation of 

child safety seats and booster seats

10. Encourage corporations to enact policies to require safety belt use in company vehicles 

or when driving on company or personal time

Strategies – Impaired by Alcohol (b)

1. Targeted Alcohol Counties –Continue target law enforcement and educational grants to 

those counties with the worst fatal alcohol crash problems

2. You Drink & Drive. You Lose. (YD&DYL) Crackdown – Ohio will continue to participate in 

the national crackdown, which combines highly visible law enforcement with both local 

and national media exposure.

3. Continued use of OVI checkpoints 

4. Implement an OVI Tracking System to collect data from all law enforcement, courts and 

treatment facilities

5. Develop Statewide Citation Tracking System to improve the OVI process and Conviction 

rate

6. Streamline the impaired driving arrest process and provide standardized electronic OVI 

reporting format to all law enforcement agencies

7. Pilot Test the OVI Court Model, which is a multidisciplinary effort to forcefully intervene 

and break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, crime and impaired driving

8. Expand “Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Program” to improve prosecution of 

impaired driving cases, serve as an information resource for prosecutors and conduct 

training for prosecutors as needed

9. Expand alcohol server programs for on and off-premise sales

10. Increase law enforcement training on alcohol-related detection techniques and issues, 

including training to address underage consumption and detection of impaired 

motorcyclists

11. Secure Ohio Department of Health approval for law enforcement agencies to use 

portable evidential breath testing instruments by 2007
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Strategies – Young Driver – 15 to 25 (c)

1. Support strengthening the Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) law to restrict the number 

of passengers and nighttime driving

2. Continue Safe Communities programs that target young drivers and passengers. These 

community-based organizations conduct youth educational programs, including safety 

belt challenges, mock crashes, “None for Under 21” rallies and teen countermeasure 

programs like “Every 15 Minutes,” “You Hold the Key,” and “Buckle Up for a Successful 

Season”

3. Expand alcohol server programs for on and off-premise sales

4. Increase law enforcement training on alcohol-related youth programs

5. Provide selective enforcement aimed at speeding and impaired drivers

6. Support court-based programs, such as the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office, “Last 

Chance” program, which uses educational strategies to reduce repeat driving offenses 

among 16 to 24-year-olds.

Strategies – Distracted or Fatigued Driver (d)

1. Deploy shoulder, edge line and centerline rumble strips

2. Expand available parking in rest areas 

3. Educate roadway users and employers on the dangers of distracted and fatigued driving

4. Consider public and corporate policies regulating cell phone use and other electronic 

devices

Strategies – Aggressive Driving (e)

1. Develop common definition for aggressive driving in Ohio

2. Expand high visibility enforcement , such as Operation TRIAD (Targeting Reckless 

Intimidating and Aggressive Drivers), which uses aircraft and on-road target 

enforcement and media coverage to discourage unsafe driving behavior

3. Educate roadway users on the dangers of aggressive driving and the rules of the road 

4. Expand use of speed monitoring and changeable message signs

5. Minimize work zone delays, which can lead to aggressive driving

6. Support legislative efforts to define aggressive driving and impose increasing penalties 

and fines on repeat offenders of aggressive driving laws

7. Add aggressive driving as a causative crash factor on Ohio’s crash reports (OH-1) once it 

is defined by law

Strategies – Older Driver – 65 or Older (f)
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

1. Expand use of Mature Driver Program and senior driver presentations that educate 

older drivers and their caregivers about driving risks associated with this age group

2. Expand number of facilities to test older drivers

3. Expand and maintain roadway features including larger signs and more visible 

pavement markings

4. Increase safety belt use among older drivers

Emphasis Area IV – Special Vehicles/Roadway Users

Targets

a. Commercial Vehicles

b. Motorcycles

c. Bicycles

d. Pedestrians

Strategies – Commercial Vehicles (a)

1. Enhance the electronic data capture software used to report commercial vehicle crashes 

to increase the accuracy and timeliness of data reported by local law enforcement (90-

day requirement to report)

2. Expand use of Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks program, which 

electronically collects and exchanges motor carrier safety, registration and other related 

information used for national roadside screening

3. Reduce the percentage of “at-fault” commercial vehicle drivers involved in work zone 

crashes by raising the awareness of the possibility of enforcement in work zones

4. Expand number of work zones targeted for increased enforcement, crash data and 

speed monitoring. Post “Target Zone Enforcement” signs to alert and deter unwanted 

behavior

5. Maintain and improve efforts to ensure only qualified drivers and properly maintained 

vehicles are used on Ohio highways. (Continue FMSCA audit of new carriers and 

compliance reviews on existing carriers)

6. Continue aggressive driver/vehicle inspections throughout Ohio

7. Identify high-crash corridors and initiate appropriate engineering and enforcement 

interventions

8. Coordinate efforts regarding hazardous moving violations by cars and trucks under the 

new SAFETEA-LU FMCSA authority
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

9. Educate roadway users, motor carriers and the agriculture community on commercial 

vehicle performance, visibility, and regulations including the Share the Road Program, 

hazardous materials, Highway Watch, etc.

10. Conduct analysis on commercial motor vehicle seat belt use in Ohio to better 

understand geographic locations and causes for nonuse.

11. Expand commercial motor vehicle seat belt outreach efforts

Strategies – Motorcycles (b)

1. Encourage the use of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets and other protective gear

2. Initiate a program to decrease the number of unendorsed motorcyclists

3. Expand Ohio motorcycle rider education programs through public and private sponsors 

and continue marketing campaigns to encourage training

4. Increase the awareness among motorcyclists of the dangers of riding impaired and enlist 

the support of motorcycle organizations to promote the separation between drinking 

and riding

5. Distribute NHTSA’s “Detection of DWI Motorcyclists” materials to law enforcement 

agencies

6. Increase the use of warning signs to alert motorcyclists when roadway surface 

conditions are changing significantly (metal bridge gratings, bumps, rain grooves, grating 

of roadway surface, etc.)

7. Provide training to law enforcement on OH-1 Failure to Control code relative to 

motorcycle crashes

8. Educate roadway users on motorcycle performance, visibility, sharing the roadway with 

motorcyclists, etc.

9. Establish a motorcycle liaison at OSHP facilities who can speak to groups about 

motorcycle safety and respond to related inquiries and issues

10. Hold motorcycle awareness month to educate the public about motorcycle safety 

issues.

Strategies – Bicycles (c)

1. Increase enforcement, education and training in bicycle/pedestrian laws and safety 

through Ohio’s Safe Routes to Schools Program

2. Increase problem identification and infrastructure planning for bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities through Ohio’s Safe Routes to Schools Program

3. Conduct target enforcement of bicycle/pedestrian traffic laws in high crash zones

4. Strengthen penalties/enforcement for right of way, assured clear distance and marked 

lane violations that endanger bicyclists and pedestrians
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

5. Conduct law enforcement and judicial awareness seminars to educate these groups in 

the violations and penalties associated with bicycle/pedestrian related traffic violations

Strategies – Pedestrians (d)

1. Improve pedestrian signs and road markings

2. Increase enforcement, education and training in bicycle/pedestrian laws and safety 

through Ohio’s Safe Routes to Schools Program

3. Increase problem identification and infrastructure planning for bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities through Ohio’s Safe Routes to Schools Program

4. Conduct target enforcement of bicycle/pedestrian traffic laws in high crash zones

5. Strengthen penalties/enforcement for right of way, assured clear distance and marked 

lane violations that endanger bicyclists and pedestrians.

6. Conduct law enforcement and judicial awareness seminars to educate these groups in 

the violations and penalties associated with bicycle/pedestrian related traffic violations.

Emphasis Area V – Incident and Congestion Related Crashes

Targets

a. Rear End Crashes

b. Work Zone Crashes

Strategies - Rear End Crashes (a)

1. Target congested highway segments for improvements, including adding roadway 

capacity and Intelligent Transportation Systems, as well as deploying access 

management techniques

2. Continue to develop innovative practices designed to maintain traffic flow throughout 

construction

3. Develop pre-planned detours for closures on any link of the state freeway system to 

reduce the impact of lane closures due to spills, crashes etc.

4. Educate motorists to move minor crashes off the road

5. Educate law enforcement and fire departments on “Quick Clear” protocols

6. Work with law enforcement agencies to develop special enforcement programs that 

target congested, high-crash areas, such as Ohio Safe Commute
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

7. Educate motorists and EMS on the use of urban freeway reference markers so cellular 

telephone callers can accurately report crash locations

8. Deploy freeway service patrols to clear debris and minor incidents before they cause a 

major problem

9. Develop intelligent transportation systems (cameras, overhead message signs) to inform 

motorists of incidents, congestion and detours

10. Develop Homeland Security and Critical Incident Management Plan to prepare and 

respond to natural disasters and terrorism incidents.

Strategies - Work Zone Crashes (b)

1. Evaluate effectiveness of 2005 special enforcement and crash data collection effort in 

select work zones for possible expansion

2. Consider use of innovative technology in candidate work zones to supplement available 

law enforcement officers

3. Advertise (signs) work zones with increased law enforcement

4. Reduce the percentage of “at-fault” commercial vehicle drivers involved in work zone 

crashes by raising the awareness of the possibility of enforcement in work zones

5. Provide work zone training to ODOT, local agencies, law enforcement, contractors, and 

utility companies

6. Provide work zone information to the public

7. Update current state guidelines, policies, regulations and statutes pertaining to work 

zone safety including those of public safety and motor vehicles to adopt the FHWA final 

rule on Work Zone Safety and Mobility

8. Utilize new and innovative ITS technologies to obtain traffic count data, verify traffic 

queue lengths in order to deploy a reliable traffic alert system.

9. Require trucks to use lanes that don’t have conflicting merges/diverges due to ramps

10. Require paved shoulders of at least 2’ wherever practical and possible 

11. Use rumble strips to alert motorists of construction work zones and changes in traffic 

patterns
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total Cost Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functiona

l 

Classifica

tion

AAD

T

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

76691 -

ALL IR 75 

5.53

Access management 

Change in access -

close or restrict 

existing access

0.44 

Miles

4253406

.85

17102159

6.83

State 

and 

Local 

Funds

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3646

4

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Constructe

d raised 

concrete 

median to 

reduce 

head-on, 

sideswipe 

meeting 

and 

turningrelated 

crashes. (IIb-8)

93075 -

ALL SR 

309 8.67

Access management 

Raised island -

modify existing

0.31 

Miles

137080.

56

137080.56 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3040

0

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Constructe

d raised 

concrete 

median to 

reduce 

head-on, 

sideswipe 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

meeting 

and 

turningrelated 

crashes. (IIb-8)

92550 -

FRA 

Queue 

Warning 

System

Advanced 

technology and ITS 

Congestion 

detection / traffic 

monitoring system

3 

Numb

ers

483900 532290 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

6810

0

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

drivers 

alert

Erected 

overhead 

message 

signage to 

reduce 

congestion 

related 

crashes. (Va-9)

76747 -

ATB IR 

0090 

07.56

Alignment Horizontal 

and vertical 

alignment

6.14 

Miles

2028000 73049326.

53

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2783

0

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Realigned 

roadway to 

reduce 

fixed object 

crashes (IIa-6)

86944 -

LOG SR 

235 16.05

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.26 

Miles

672215.

09

711685.67 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

1824 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Realigned 

roadway to 

reduce 

fixed object 

and 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

overturning 

crashes (IIa-6)

83816 -

ATH SR 

329 0.000

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.3 

Miles

79863.6

4

1796460 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

816 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Realigned 

roadway to 

reduce 

fixed object 

and 

overturning 

crashes (IIa-6)

90980 -

KNO SR 

229 00.45

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.14 

Miles

275539.

35

303590 HSIP Rural 

Major 

Collector

3494 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Realigned 

roadway to 

reduce 

fixed object 

crashes (IIa-6)

75143 -

FAI CR 17 

03.23

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.56 

Miles

639751.

67

1022158.9

9

HSIP Rural 

Minor 

Collector

1951 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Realigned 

roadway to 

reduce 

fixed object 

crashes (IIa-6)

82092 -

STA SR 

0183 

Alignment Vertical 

alignment or 

elevation change

0.23 

Miles

5039268

.4

6659041.1

1

HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

1319

0

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Making 

truck 

travel 

Increase 

vertical 

clearance 

to reduce 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

18.84 Other Agency safer crashes 

with 

overhead 

structure 

(IV-a-7)

93717 -

LOR 

Boston 

Road R/R 

Xing

Alignment Vertical 

alignment or 

elevation change

1 

Numb

ers

638811 727290 HSIP Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 25 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Making 

truck 

travel 

safer

Increase 

vertical 

clearance 

to reduce 

crashes 

with 

overhead 

structure 

(IV-a-7)

84699 -

LIC IR 70 

15.30

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

1 

Numb

ers

1848529

.19

2376230 HSIP Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

4358

0

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Reconfigura

tion of the 

interchange 

to reduce 

rear end, 

sideswipe 

passing and 

fixed object 

crashes (IIb-2)

94628 -

HAM IR 

71 14.33

Interchange design 

Acceleration / 

deceleration / merge 

1 

Numb

ers

3065000 3174561 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

1442

52

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Improving 

the design 

and 

Connecting 

the merge 

and diverge 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

lane Interstate Agency operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

ramps of 

two closely 

spaced 

interchange

s to allow 

additional 

time to 

weave into 

traffic. This 

should 

reduce 

sideswipe 

passing and 

rear end 

crashes (IIb-2)

84506 -

FRA IR 

270 

10.160

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

1 

Numb

ers

7682650 11646884 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1310

00

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Reconfigura

tion of the 

interchange 

to reduce 

rear end, 

angle, left 

turn, 

sideswipe 

passing and 

fixed object 

crashes (IIb-2)
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

92502 -

CLE CR 

341 0.17

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

1 

Numb

ers

5175794

.26

12259937.

13

State 

and 

Local 

Funds

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

6485

0

55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Reconfigura

tion of the 

interchange 

to reduce 

rear end, 

angle, left 

turn, and 

sideswipe 

passing 

crashes (IIb-4)

93623 -

MEG US 

33 3.090

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

1 

Numb

ers

518000 539000 HSIP Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5680 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improved a 

2 to 4 lane 

transition 

area to 

reduce the 

number of 

rear end 

and 

sideswipe 

passing 

crashes (IIb-2)

86847 -

FAI SR 

37/664 

25.01/04.

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

1380843

.34

1550580.1

9

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5750 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle, 

sideswipe 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

21 highway 

intersectio

ns

passing and 

left turn 

crashes (IIb-4)

78041 -

DEL SR 

315 1.30

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

3000000 6774555.5

6

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1289

2

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to rear end 

and left 

turn 

crashes (IIb-4)

79009 -

POR 

Prospect 

Street

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

2 

Numb

ers

1234620

.8

1441738.7

5

HSIP Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1098

0

45 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle and 

rear end 

crashes (IIb-4)

81425 -

CLE SR 

125 0.40

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

5665312

.66

6020568.0

6

HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3110

7

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle, 

sideswipe 

passing left 

turn, and 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

ns rear end 

crashes (IIb-2)

83389 -

WAS SR 7 

23.740 

Pike/Acm

e

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

1348616

.87

2313507 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2403

4

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle, 

sideswipe 

passing left 

turn, and 

rear end 

crashes (IIb-2)

86852 -

CUY 

SUPERIOR 

RD/NOBL

E RD

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

398387.

48

509018 HSIP Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1334

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle, 

sideswipe 

passing and 

rear end 

crashes (IIb-2)

86867 -

ROS US 50 

23.37 

Safety/Pa

ving

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

6 

Numb

ers

1344768

.43

1733586 HSIP Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1458

2

25 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle, 

sideswipe 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

highway 

intersectio

ns

passing left 

turn, and 

rear end 

crashes (IIb-2)

91351 -

MIA SR 55 

9.74

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

413518.

52

506411.52 HSIP Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1316

8

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle, rear 

end and left 

turn 

crashes (IIb-2)

91544 -

WOO US 

20 4.71 LT 

lane add.

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

1348970

.45

1483600 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1285

7

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle, rear 

end and left 

turn 

crashes (IIb-2)

94630 -

SUM SR 

0091 

19.38

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

500000 969300 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1914

4

25 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

Constructin

g turn lanes 

to reduce 

rear end, 

sideswipe 

passing and 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

intersectio

ns

left turn 

crashes (IIb-2)

84731 -

CLE CR 33 

Clough 

Pike 

Widening

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

1.14 

Miles

4966400 7041660.9

4

HSIP Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1469

0

55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Constructin

g a Two 

Way Left 

Turn Lane 

to reduce 

the number 

of head-on, 

sideswipe 

meeting, 

rear end 

and 

turningrelated 

crashes (IIb-4)

92553 -

GRE US 42 

8.36

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - modify leftturn lane offset

1 

Numb

ers

182098.

8

222570 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

8374 50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Constructe

d offset left 

turn lanes 

to reduce 

angle and 

left turn 

crashes (IIb-3)

87541 - Intersection 1 648285. 1739519.2 State Rural 1796 55 State Improving Realigning 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

MUS SR 

146 

20.92/27.

39

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics - modify 

skew angle

Numb

ers

87 4 and 

Local 

Funds

Major 

Collector

Highwa

y 

Agency

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

roadway 

intersection

s to reduce 

rear end, 

angle, and 

sideswipe 

passing 

crashes (IIb-3)

83002 -

MUS SR 

60 18.35 

(Bethesda 

Dr)

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics -

realignment to align 

offset cross streets

2 

Numb

ers

2282259

.58

4061099.5

5

HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2857

0

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Realigning 

roadway 

intersection

s to reduce 

rear end, 

angle, and 

sideswipe 

passing 

crashes (IIb-3)

83005 -

CUY MLK 

BOULEVA

RD

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics -

realignment to align 

offset cross streets

2 

Numb

ers

3275000 10787745.

66

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2295

9

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Realigning 

roadway 

intersection

s to reduce 

rear end, 

angle, and 

sideswipe 

passing 

crashes (II-
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

b-3)

83571 -

MOT SR 

741 3.15

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics -

realignment to align 

offset cross streets

2 

Numb

ers

2950846

.34

3232017.1

7

HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3812

3

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Realigning 

roadway 

intersection

s to reduce 

rear end, 

angle, 

sideswipe 

passing, 

and left 

turn 

crashes (IIb-3)

87037 -

CUY SR 

014 03.74 

HSIP

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics -

realignment to align 

offset cross streets

1 

Numb

ers

575726.

4

844648.09 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

9656 25 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Realigning 

roadway 

intersection

s to reduce 

rear end, 

angle, and 

left turn 

crashes (IIb-3)

93540 -

HAM IR 

75 10.78

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics -

realignment to align 

1 

Numb

ers

574476 574476 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1329

60

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Realigning 

roadway 

intersection

s to reduce 

rear end 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

offset cross streets highway 

intersectio

ns

and 

sideswipe 

passing 

crashes (IIb-2)

86849 -

GEA SR 

044 06.61 

HSIP

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 

Numb

ers

163809.

1

212582 HSIP Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5324 40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Increasing 

intersection 

sight 

distance to 

reduce the 

number of 

angle and 

rear end 

crashes (IIb-3)

93725 -

MOT IR 70 

3.34

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.25 

Miles

114715.

25

127190 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3802

0

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Installing a 

traffic 

signal to 

improve 

operation 

and reduce 

rear end 

and angle 

crashes (IIb-4)

80912 -

HOC US 

Intersection traffic 

control Modify 

2 

Numb

1504510

.18

5977364 HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Principal 

2681

0

65 State 

Highwa

Improving 

the design 

Constructin

g a 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

33 7.740 control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

ers n 148) Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

y 

Agency

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

roundabout 

to reduce 

angle and 

rear end 

crashes (IIb-2)

86928 -

SUM SR 

0532 

01.56

Intersection traffic 

control Modify 

traffic signal -

modernization/repla

cement

1 

Numb

ers

112715 155658.5 HSIP Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

8592 25 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and 

visibility to 

reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes (IIb-2)

91463 -

GRE US 35 

4.51

Intersection traffic 

control Modify 

traffic signal -

modernization/repla

cement

1 

Numb

ers

198578 218440 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4108

7

25 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and 

visibility to 

reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes (IIb-2)

88276 - Intersection traffic 4 607059. 659631 HSIP Urban 2602 25 State Improving Improving 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

D12 TSG 

FY2013

control Systemic 

improvements -

signal-controlled

Numb

ers

8 Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4 Highwa

y 

Agency

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

signal 

operation 

and 

visibility to 

reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes (IIb-2)

88714 -

RIC US 

0030 

09.82

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements -

signal-controlled

5 

Numb

ers

989335.

5

1074223 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

3094

8

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and 

visibility to 

reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes (IIb-2)

92950 -

D07 

Traffic 

UPS Backups

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements -

signal-controlled

29 

Numb

ers

151000 167100 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

8570 35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and 

visibility to 

reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes (II-
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

b-2)

92959 -

D08 

Battery 

Backup

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements -

signal-controlled

18 

Numb

ers

797070 724610 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improving 

signal 

operation 

and 

visibility to 

reduce 

intersection 

related 

crashes (IIb-2)

81605 -

SUM 

State 

Road

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists 

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

2.35 

Miles

850000 9805854.4

4

State 

and 

Local 

Funds

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1882

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Ensuring 

safer 

bicycle 

travel

Constructio

n of bike 

lanes to 

reduce the 

number of 

bike related 

crashes (IVc-2)

93849 -

D06 GR 

Upgrade 

FY13

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

28 

Numb

ers

1335683

.5

1430180 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

6301

0

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

83137 -

D10 

General 

System 

GR 

FY2013

Roadside Barriermetal6.5 

Miles

497490.

08

942510 HSIP Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4383 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

87572 -

ERI CR

0568 

00.55 

(Barrett 

Rd)

Roadside Barriermetal3.79 

Miles

272375 272375 HSIP Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

1400 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

87900 -

D05 GR 

FY2013

Roadside Barriermetal4.63 

Miles

363527.

05

911110 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7373 35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

90249 -

ADA CR 

Various 

Roadside Barriermetal1.67 

Miles

158560 145143 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

0 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Guardrail 

2013

Street Agency nces of 

leaving 

the road

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

90251 -

HIG CR 

83/Variou

s GR 2013

Roadside Barriermetal0.75 

Miles

376568 377568 HSIP Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

287 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

90586 -

MEG CR 1 

Var GR 

FY2013

Roadside Barriermetal2.73 

Miles

252623.

75

277890 HSIP Rural 

Major 

Collector

1560 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

91925 -

D09 

Guardrail 

Project 

2013

Roadside Barriermetal3.8 

Miles

695314.

59

1516320 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

2596 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

crashes (IIa-7)

92499 -

LOR CR 

GR 

FY2013

Roadside Barriermetal1.8 

Miles

434432.

5

434432.5 HSIP Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

2243 35 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

92787 -

PIK CEAO 

GR 

Various

Roadside Barriermetal3.27 

Miles

222746.

74

246020 HSIP Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

92790 -

SCI CEAO 

GR 

Various

Roadside Barriermetal3.75 

Miles

300000 301000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

92835 -

ASD CR 

GR FY 

2013

Roadside Barriermetal2.52 

Miles

320837 320837 HSIP Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 25 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

93516 -

D12 GR 

FY2013(B)

Roadside Barriermetal0.31 

Miles

891225 980350 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

1709

9

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

94602 -

D08 GR 

FY2014/2

015

Roadside Barriermetal1.2 

Miles

340828.

91

2192790 State 

and 

Local 

Funds

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1658

6

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

95634 -

SCI CEAO 

GR 

Roadside Barriermetal5.14 

Miles

543993 544993 HSIP Rural 

Local 

Road or 

0 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

Installed 

guardrail to 

address 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

Various 

FY13

Street Agency nces of 

leaving 

the road

issue of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-7)

89415 -

D03 PR 

FY2013

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

515 

Numb

ers

559945 559945 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Removal of 

fixed 

objects 

from clear 

zones to 

reduce the 

number of 

fixed object 

crashes (IIa-5)

93421 -

HAM US 

22 3.54

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

8 

Numb

ers

1125281

.78

1237810 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1086

3

30 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Installing 

high friction 

surfaces to 

reduce the 

number of 

roadway 

departure 

and rear 

end crashes 

(II-a-10)

94583 -

HAM 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

1.3 

Miles

341982 365363 HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Principal 

0 65 State 

Highwa

Keeping 

vehicles in 

Installing 

high friction 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

77

IR71/IR27

5 Antiskid 

Treatmen

surface n 148) Arterial -

Interstate

y 

Agency

the 

roadway

surfaces to 

reduce the 

number of 

roadway 

departure 

and rear 

end crashes 

(II-a-10)

95363 -

LUC IR 75 

7.76 

Dimnd 

Grind Sfty

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

1.85 

Miles

262507.

74

288760 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

7662

8

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Installing 

high friction 

surfaces to 

reduce the 

number of 

roadway 

departure 

and rear 

end crashes 

(II-a-10)

96277 -

MOT IR 75 

15.03

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0.2 

Miles

21334 24470 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

9196

0

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Installing 

high friction 

surfaces to 

reduce the 

number of 

roadway 

departure 

and rear 

end crashes 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

(II-a-10)

76437 -

SUM SR 

0093 

06.92

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

0.9 

Miles

6463065

.27

8355468 HSIP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2015

6

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Widening a 

highway 

corridor to 

add turn 

lanes and 

reduce the 

number of 

rear end 

and angle 

crashes (IIb-2)

90250 -

ADA CR 

Various 

PM 2013

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement markings -

new

63.66 

Miles

246600 238112.54 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Added 

pavement 

markings to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-5)

90595 -

GAL CR 2 

Var PM 

FY2014

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement markings -

new

171.14 

Miles

113616 113616 HSIP Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Added 

pavement 

markings to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (II-
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

a-5)

92219 -

FUL CR 

Var PM 

FY-2013

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement markings -

new

95 

Miles

138113.

25

138113.25 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Added 

pavement 

markings to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-5)

92272 -

CLI CR 

VAR 

Pavement 

Marking 

Ph 6

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement markings -

new

105 

Miles

179988.

4

179988.4 HSIP Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Added 

pavement 

markings to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-5)

92232 -

SEN CR 

Var RPM 

FY2013

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement 

markers

3090 

Numb

ers

55788 55788 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 55 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Added 

raised 

pavement 

markings to 

reduce 

roadway 

departure 

crashes (IIa-5)
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

Funding contained in the project listing is total project cost. Larger projects are likely funded in multiple fiscal years. The 

total safety dollars shown in the project listing will not match the fiscal year expenditures.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

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* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 1260 1208 1158 1114 1087

Number of serious injuries 10861 10427 10249 10041 9902

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.14 1.09 1.05 1.01 0.98

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 9.77 9.41 9.22 9.04 8.91

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

84

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

Year - 2012

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

32 173 0.35 1.89

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

65 411 1 6.27

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

81 543 1.86 12.5

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

46 334 2.37 17.17

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

186 1357 2.11 15.33

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

128 865 2.26 15.3

URBAN PRINCIPAL 80 707 0.36 3.13
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

85

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

19 195 0.35 3.51

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

139 1726 1.1 13.63

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

142 1616 1.1 12.49

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

86 907 1.06 11.27

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

38 363 0.3 2.84

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

88
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

89
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

Year - 2012

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

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

601 5283 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

350 3302 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

88 657 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

23 349 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
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

8 51 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 19 264 0 0

OTHER 19 264 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

92
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

93
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

94
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

95
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

96

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

Ohio has also been effective in developing policies that expand the use of new treatments and 

strategies to drive down fatalities, serious injuries and crashes.

The department sets aside up to $20 million each year for systematic safety improvements. 

National studies have shown these types of treatments can significantly reduce crashes, 

including injury and fatal crashes that cost Ohioans millions of dollars each year. 

Cable Barrier

ODOT installs cable barrier at freeway locations where the median is 59 feet wide or less, and 

the average daily traffic is at least 20,000 vehicles. The department also installs cable barrier at 

locations with a strong history of cross-median crashes. Since 2003, 330 miles of cable barrier 

have been installed across Ohio. The typical cost per mile is $105,000. One in 16 cross-median 

crashes typically results in death. In those areas where cable barrier has been installed, deadly 

cross-median crashes have been nearly eliminated. Property damage crashes will increase, but 

the severity of crashes is dramatically reduced.

Edge Line Rumble Stripes

ODOT is developing a statewide policy to require the use of edge line rumble stripes on twolane, rural roads with a minimum lane width of 11 feet and shoulder width of 2 feet. About 

7,700 miles of roadway are potentially eligible for the treatment. ODOT is focusing on two-lane 

rural roads because they have a high percentage of fatal crashes, many involving motorists that 

veer from the travel lane and hit oncoming vehicles, or trees, ditches and utility poles close to 

the road. Adding shoulder and centerline rumble stripes to a two-lane resurfacing project, onemile long, costs about $2,000. National studies have shown that this safety improvement can 

reduce crashes between 7% and 25%. In addition, adding the rumble to the pavement stripe 

will increase pavement marking visibility.

Curve and Intersection Upgrade

In 2011, ODOT kicked-off a new systematic curve improvement program that targets more than 

500 high-crash curves on the state highway system. ODOT staff can select from a menu of 

options that include bigger, more reflective signs, and pavement treatments meant to prevent 

drivers from skidding off the road. In 2012, the department will also begin a multi-year effort 

to upgrade signage, pavement markings and lighting at high-crash intersections. In 2013, a 

second round of curve signage will be completed to address locations with a significant number 

of roadway departure crashes. The locations were identified by the FHWA Roadway Departure 

Project location identification methods.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

97

Wet Pavement Locations

Beginning in 2012, the department plans to review almost 500 locations with a high number of 

crashes occurring under wet conditions. ODOT staff can select from a menu of treatment 

options to address problem locations, including milling the surface to roughen the pavement 

texture, and various overlays to the pavement surface to restore friction or skid resistance to 

acceptable levels. For each following year, the Top 20 locations will be investigated for possible 

countermeasures.

Wider Pavement Markings

In 2012, ODOT changed its pavement marking standards to require 6-inch edge and lane line 

markings on all interstates, interstate lookalikes and rural, high-speed, multi-lane divided 

roadways. Previously, theses pavement markings were 4 inches wide. Wider pavement 

markings can increase visibility and help reduce crashes, particularly for older drivers.

Centerline Rumble Stripes

A committee has been assembled to determine the standards for centerline rumble stripes for 

Ohio. Pilot locations will be completed in SFY2014 which will be used to develop a program in 

SFY 2015. This improvement will be used to target roadway departure crashes as identified by 

the FHWA Roadway Departure Project.

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

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 1.16 1.1 1.06 1.03 1.05

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

5.26 5.17 5.2 5.2 5.22

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

6.42 6.26 6.25 6.22 6.27

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

Example calculation for 2009: 
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

98

(F+SI 2009 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2009 Population) + (F+SI 2008 

Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2008 Population) + (F+SI 2007 Drivers and 

Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2007 Population) + (F+SI 2006 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2006 Population) + (F+SI 2005 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age 

and over/2005 Population)/5

Population data from:

U.S. Census American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates for population 65 and older. 

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical 

testing can be found on the American Community Survey website 

(http://www.census.gov/acs/www) in the Data and Documentation section.

Note: The 2005 population figure was used in the calculation of the 2004 rate because no value 

was available. Similarly, the 2011 population value was used for the 2012 year because no 

value was available (This will be update for the next submittal).
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

99

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

100

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: Other-Downward Crash and Severity Trends

Ohio routinely evaluates crash trends, quarterly and annually, to determine the 

effectiveness of its Highway Safety Improvement Program.

The safety benefits are calculated by using the total number of crashes by year and 

severity in order to determine a 5-year average. Crash cost where calculated for 2012 

based on the Highway Safety Manual methodologies. For each year, the crash severity 

was multiplied by its associated cost and then summed for all severity levels. A fiveyear rolling average was calculated for 2011 (2007-2011) and 2012 (2008-2012). The 

difference between these two values equates to the safety benefits between the two 

years and is equal to $356,350,000. ODOT spends a total of $102,000,000 annually on 

safety projects. The ratio of the safety benefits and program cost equates to a benefitcost ratio of 3.49.

We also track our statewide progress in implementing systematic safety treatments that 

target serious crash types and roadway features that can potentially increase the 

likelihood of crashes. This program element has been successful in reducing crashes 

based on the naïve before-and-after results for the different systematic treatments. In 

addition, we have increased our efforts to complete systematic projects on locally 

maintained roads by working with MPOs, County Engineers and LTAP to provide 

technical assistance and funding for local road safety improvements.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

101

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: Other-Systematic Safety Improvements
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

102

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

ODOT has made changes in the safety program based on past experiences and new research.

We strive to increase our systematic safety programs (median barrier, LED signals & backplates, 

rumble stripes, guardrail upgrades, etc) to continue to reduce crashes. ODOT has also increased 

outreach efforts to other state, federal, and local agencies as a result of the SHSP. ODOT has 

also worked closely with MPOs and county engineers on local roadways as a result of the HSIP.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

103

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

104

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

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Reducing impaired 

driving

421.6 1587.6 0.378 1.426 0 0 0

Keeping drivers alert 30.4 432.4 0.028 0.388 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

402 1701 0.37 1.54 0 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

100 518.8 0.09 0.468 0 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

16.6 222 0.016 0.198 0 0 0

Improving motorcycle 

safety and increasing 

motorcycle awareness

174.2 1173.8 0.16 1.056 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in the 

roadway

570.6 3610 0.512 3.244 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

277.6 3720.6 0.25 3.346 0 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

105

highway intersections

Reducing head-on and 

across-median crashes

195.2 1042 0.174 0.936 0 0 0

Designing safer work 

zones

15.2 154.2 0.014 0.14 0 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

106
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

107
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

108
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

109

Groups of similar project types
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

110

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Subprogram Types

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Roadway 

Departure

Run-off-road 268 1622 1.01 6.12 10491 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Guardrail

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-State HSIP 

Program

All 1087 9903 0.98 8.91 108437 0 0

Other-CEAO 

Systematic -

Curve Signage

Curve Related 53 318 0.91 5.46 1904 0 0

Other-State Safe 

Routes to School

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Median Barrier

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-CEAO 

Systematic -

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

111

Curve Signage

Other-State Safe 

Routes to School

Vehicle/pedestrian 117 759 0 0 4191 0 0

Other-CEAO 

Systematic -

Guardrail

Fixed object 98 644 1.68 11.05 3860 0 0

Other-CEAO 

Systematic -

Pavement 

Markings

Run-off-road 111 650 1.91 11.15 3811 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Roadway 

Departure

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-CEAO 

Systematic -

RPMs

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-CEAO HSIP 

Program

All 151 1052 2.59 18.05 6582 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Guardrail

Fixed object 204 1356 0.77 5.11 8392 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

112

Intersection 

Signage

Other-CEAO 

Systematic -

Guardrail

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Median Barrier

Freeway 142 1150 0.14 1.13 13928 0 0

Other-State HSIP 

Program

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-CEAO HSIP 

Program

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-CEAO 

Systematic -

Pavement 

Markings

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Signal Upgrade

Signalized 

Intersections

81 1526 0.08 1.38 25120 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic - Wet 

Pavement

Wet road 60 526 0.06 0.48 4700 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Unsignalized 86 817 0.33 3.08 6486 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

113

Intersection 

Signage

Intersection

Other-ODOT 

Systematic -

Signal Upgrade

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-ODOT 

Systematic - Wet 

Pavement

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-CEAO 

Systematic -

RPMs

Run-off-road 111 650 1.91 11.15 3811 0 0

Other-State High 

Risk Rural Road

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-State High 

Risk Rural Road

Serious Rural 

Crashes

363 2567 2.21 15.6 16073 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

114
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

115
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

116
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

117
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

118

Systemic Treatments
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

119

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

The systematic 

program 

evaluations are 

included in 

question #33 for 

program 

evaluation.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

120
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

121
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

122
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

123
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

124

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

Cable Barrier

Since 2003 - 330 miles installed

Edge Line Rumble Stripes

2010 - Installed 1,380 miles of edgeline rumble stripes.

Curve and Intersection Upgrade

2010 - Upgraded 904 intersections with LED signal heads, backplates, and battery backups were 

applicable.

2011 - 576 curves investigated and signing improvements programed

2012 - 800 stop controlled intersection signing layout to be investigated

2013 - 840 curves to be investigated for signing and other improvement needs.

Wet Pavement Locations

2012 - 177 projects implemented to reduce wet pavement related crashes

2013 - 20 sites identified.
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

125

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)

None
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

126

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2013 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

127

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.