Washington

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

Prepared by: WA
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.............................................................................................................................. 5

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

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

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 31

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 31

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 47

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................50

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 52

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 59

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 64

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 72
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Washington state HSIP program funds both local safety (70%) and state highway safety (30%) 

programs. The program continues to be successful (25.86 B/C for projects closed in 2010). Projects going 

forward using HSIP funds target the top two (both priority one) infrastructure focus areas identified in 

the SHSP (Run-Off-the-Road and Intersections).

The HSIP program has had a major benefit and effect on road safety in Washington state. While state 

highways have allocated state funds to support safety efforts, in addition to HSIP funds, the majority of 

local road safety efforts are funded by the HSIP program. With 70% of fatal and serious injury crashes in 

the priority one focus areas, this is a desperately needed program for the state to have any possibility of 

achieving its Target Zero vision by 2030.
2014 Washington 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.

The state uses a data-driven process to determine HSIP funding levels for state vs local roads. Our 

current SHSP (www.targetzero.com) has specific priority levels for types/causes/categories of fatal & 

serious injury crashes (some based on crash type, others based on driver behaviors, others based on 

user type). The top 2 infrastructure related priorities are Run-Off-the-Road crashes (priority 1) and 

Intersection crashes (priority 1). Evaluating crashes statewide for a 5 year period, we identify how many 

fatal & serious injury run-off-road crashes and how many fatal & serious injury intersection-related 

crashes occurred. That data is evaluated to see how many were on local agency responsibility roads 

compared to state responsibility roads. The HSIP funding is split by percentage based on that data. 
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Currently, that means that local agencies receive 70% of HSIP funds and the state receives 30% of HSIP 

funds.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Risk

Other: Other-Program Management

Other: Other-Local Programs

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Oversight for the 70% of the HSIP funds that are directed to local agencies is assigned to the Local 

Programs division for management (to identify local agency priorities, distribution of funds to counties & 

cities, individual project selection, federal oversight, project delivery, etc.).

Oversight for the 30% of the HSIP funds that are directed to the state is managed by our Highway Safety 

Executive Committee (HSEC). We do not have a specific highway safety office within the DOT. Instead, 

safety is part of everyone's responsibility. As such, safety oversight by HSEC provides an opportunity for 

major affected programs to provide input on safety issues. The HSEC is comprised of program directors 

from Design, Planning, Operations, Local Programs, Risk, and Program Management.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Panel of local agencies

The Local Programs division oversees the planning of HSIP funds for local agencies. In developing 

program methodology, local agency representatives and representatives of local agency associations are 

included in the decision-making process for agreement with the criteria in evaluating the projects for 

the programs. Those local agency representatives are identified with assistance from local government 

associations (city & county) to reflect a cross-section of those agencies.

For the City Safety program, representation includes FHWA, AWC (Association of Washington Cities), 

and city representatives from eastern and western Washington and from large, medium, and small 

cities.

For the County Safety program, representation includes FHWA, WSACE (Washington State Association of 

County Engineers), CRAB (County Road Administration Board), and county representatives from eastern 

and western Washington and from large and small counties.

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-no change

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

would like to elaborate.

None
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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 - Collision 

Analysis Corridors

Other: Other-State - Collision 

Analysis Locations

Other: Other-State -

Intersection Analysis Locations

Other: Other-Local - City 

Safety Program

Other: Other-Local - County 

Safety Program

The state HSIP program focuses on Collision Analysis Corridors (CACs), which are generally focused on 

Roadway Departure safety. The program also focuses on Collision Analysis Locations (CALs) and 

Intersection Analysis Locations (IALs) which are both generally related to Intersection safety.

The local HSIP program focuses on a County Safety Program - primarily Roadway Departure with some 

Intersection focus, and a City Safety Program - primarily an Intersection focus. It also funds the Corridor 

Safety Program on city & county roadways.

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2004

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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-Agreement between program managers at WSDOT and the Governor's Highway Safety Office, 

based on data & local leadership

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

Other 

Fatal & serious injury crash 

history

1

Local leadership & interest 2
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Program: Other-State - Collision Analysis Corridors

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

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-Fatal, serious, and 

evident injury crashes only

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
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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 

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 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Other 

Program: Other-State - Collision Analysis Locations

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

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-Fatal, serious, and 

evident injury crashes only

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
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

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 2
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Other-State - Intersection Analysis Locations

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

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-Fatal, serious, and 

evident injury crashes only

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
2014 Washington 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 

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 

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
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Other-Local - City Safety Program

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2011

 

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 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

15

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 

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).
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Other-Local - County Safety Program

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014

 

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
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

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-Allocation of funds to each county based on rate of fatal & serious injury crashes per mile
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Completion of Local Road 

Safety Plan

1

All state programs make use of Safety Analyst for identification of locations to consider for 

improvement.

City Safety Program includes elements of both high-cost spot improvements and low-cost systemic 

safety improvements.

County Safety Program is focused on low-cost systemic safety improvements. Counties are now required 

to submit a local road safety plan to be eligible to apply for funds. Allocation of funds is based on 

available funding with counties being required to meet certain criteria for approval for project award.

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

50
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

50% is an estimate. The majority of county projects have been systemic. A dedicated portion of city 

projects are systemic, and some of the "high-cost" projects also implement systemic improvements. And 

a portion of state funds have also been used for systemic safety.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures?

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

The majority of projects selected use engineering studies. A few projects use a road safety assessment 

process.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-No change

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

would like to elaborate. 

While the County Safety Program has used a systemic safety approach in the past, the current 

requirement to develop a local road safety plan as part of the application process for HSIP funds is new.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 74262986 46 % 58432514 51 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU)

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

2617742 2 % 2617742 2 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

50290533 31 % 23434148 21 %

State and Local Funds 17007968 10 % 16608683 15 %
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Other MAP-21 

Behavioral

10573325 7 % 4989556 4 %

Other Section 402: 

State and Community 

Highway Safety

6080397 4 % 5993854 5 %

Other Section 405: 

Occupant Protection 

Incentive Grants

320253 0 % 320253 0 %

Other Section 408: 

State Traffic Safety 

Information System 

Improvement

457251 0 % 457251 0 %

Other Section 410: 

Alcohol Impaired 

Driving 

Countermeasures 

Incentive

393248 0 % 393248 0 %

Other Section 2010: 

Incentive Grant to 

Increase Motorcycle 

Safety

202165 0 % 202165 0 %

Other Section 2011: 

Child Safety & Child 

Booster Seats 

Incentive Grant

160954 0 % 160954 0 %

Totals 162366822 100% 113610368 100%

HSIP, Other Federal Funds (primarily STP Safety funds), and State and Local funds represent Calendar 

Year 2013. Programmed and obligated funds are both based on projects in the 2013 STIP (see additional 

details below). Note that most projects include some safety elements and countermeasures, in larger or 

smaller shares of other projects using federal funds. These projects are not captured here, in part 

because it would be very difficult to break out the safety funding versus non-safety funding within those 

projects. However, additional information and projects are available if requested. It should be noted 

that the local funds included in the table are what was "committed" to the projects as part of a match, 

but are not officially "obligated" as they are not federal funds.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Local Agency Projects: Programmed values are from the 2013 STIP. Obligated values are from SPORT 

(internal program) for projects in the 2013 STIP.

State Projects: Programmed values are from the 2013 STIP for federal funds and from the state I2 

(Safety) program for state & local & 164 funds. Obligated values are from the state I2 (Safety) program 

for expenditures in 2013.

Behavioral Projects: Behavioral funds are administered by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission 

(WTSC). These figures represent federal fiscal year 2014, including carry forward funds for some 

categories. Programmed reflects funds that have been transferred from NHTSA to the WTSC. Obligated 

reflects funds that have been allocated to specific projects.

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

$82,374,758.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$60,783,304.00

Note that the local funding shown in answer to this question does not include any of the behavioral 

funds/programs shown in Question 17. Only the split for infrastructure-related projects is shown.

Also note that for HSIP funds, the funding is split 70% programmed/obligated for local safety projects, 

30% programmed/obligated for state safety projects.

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

$18,187,593.00

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

$12,517,281.00
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Note that none of the HSIP funds are directed to non-infrastructure projects. These funds represent only 

the behavioral funds shown in Question 17.

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.

The biggest impediment to obligating HSIP funds has been getting realistic schedules for local agency 

projects. For future project awards, several additional scheduling milestones have been included on 

application forms, to help local agencies think through all of the parts of the project life. With MAP-21 

requirements, projects will also be held to a strict project delivery schedule or will have funds rescinded.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvemen

t Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Tota

l 

Cost

Funding 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

City of 

Bellingham -

Ohio/King St. 

Intersection 

Safety

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

3 

Number

s

31500

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

1.9 Restrict or 

eliminate 

turning 

maneuvers at 

intersections.

Franklin 

County -

Countywide 

Safety 

Improvemen

ts

Roadside 

Barriermetal

65 

Miles

49820

6

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

2.2 

Install/maintai

n roadside 

safety 

hardware such 

as guardrail.

WSDOT - US 

2/SR 20 

Corridor 

Safety

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify 

intersection 

1 

Number

s

46785

8

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

corner radius

Lincoln 

County -

Countywide 

Low Cost 

Safety

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

81 

Miles

48122

7

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

1.1 Improve 

roadway 

signing and 

shoulder 

delineation, 

especially in 

curves.

City of Mount 

Vernon -

College/Urba

n Signal

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Number

s

84030

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Pend Oreille 

County -

Deer Valley 

Road HES

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

13 

Miles

31320 0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

1.1 Improve 

roadway 

signing and 

shoulder 

delineation, 

especially in 

curves.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

City of 

Seattle - SR 

99 @ N. 90th 

Street

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic signal 

timing - leftturn phasing 

(permissive 

to protectedonly)

1 

Number

s

14642

7

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

1.5 Convert 

permitted left 

turns to 

protected left 

turns at 

signals.

City of 

Seattle - 15th 

Avenue SW 

@ Roxbury

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic signal 

timing - leftturn phasing 

(permissive 

to protectedonly)

1 

Number

s

15279

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

1.5 Convert 

permitted left 

turns to 

protected left 

turns at 

signals.

City of 

Seattle -

Harvard & 

Pike Signal

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Number

s

78696 0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

City of 

Seattle -

Rainier Ave. 

SouthCorridor 

Safety

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Systemic 

improvemen

ts - signalcontrolled

1 

Number

s

12580

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

4.3 Extend 

crossing times 

and implement 

pedestrian 

lead intervals.

City of 

Spokane -

Wellesley & 

Belt Signal

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Number

s

34500

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

1.5 Convert 

permitted left 

turns to 

protected left 

turns at 

signals.

Spokane 

County -

Argonne Rd. 

@ Maringo 

Dr.

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn lane

1 

Number

s

14054

9

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

1.3 

Provide/impro

ve left- and 

right-turn 

channelization.

City of 

Tacoma - So. 

78th St/Tac 

Mall Blvd 

HES

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Number

s

15750

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

City of 

Vancouver -

NE 

49th/122nd 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Number

s

22500

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

1.3 

Provide/impro

ve left- and 

right-turn 

channelization.

City of 

Vancouver -

Evergreen 

Blvd: 

BlandfordAndresen

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

1 

Number

s

34200

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

1.2 Improve 

roadway 

geometry.

City of 

Vancouver -

Mill Plain 

Blvd Street 

Lighting

Lighting 

Continuous 

roadway 

lighting

1 

Number

s

10000

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

1.5 

Install/increase 

illumination at 

locations with 

night time 

crashes.

City of 

Vancouver -

Fourth Plain: 

Ft. 

Vancouver to 

Falk

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists 

Medians and 

pedestrian 

refuge areas

1 

Number

s

52500

0

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians 4.1 Improve 

safety at 

pedestrian 

crossings by 

installing 

refuge islands.

Walla Walla 

County - Five 

Shoulder 

treatments 

2 Miles 72452 0 HSIP 

(Section 

Rural Major 0 0 County 

Highway 

Roadway 1.2 Improve 

roadway 
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Mile Road 

MP 0.0 to MP 

2.0

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

1 148) Collector Agency Departure geometry.

Yakima 

County - High 

Risk Rural 

Corridors

Roadside 

Roadside 

grading

2 Miles 46496

3

0 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

2.3 Design 

safer slopes 

and ditches to 

prevent 

rollovers.

The report template does not allow for any descriptors with the "numbers" outputs. So we are unable to help differentiate between 

intersections, corridors, lanes, curves, etc., using the table provided.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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 588.2 573.2 535.4 499.6 474.2

Number of serious injuries 2779.2 2747.6 2670 2504 2400.4

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.05 1.02 0.946 0.882 0.838

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.962 4.89 4.724 4.426 4.25

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

32
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

18.6 51.8 0.41 1.15

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

19.6 52.2 0.94 2.37

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

34.2 107 1.38 4.25

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

38.2 113.4 1.83 5.42

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

19.6 82.2 1.74 7.3

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

69.8 236.2 1.84 6.2

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

18.2 74.6 1.57 6.38

URBAN PRINCIPAL 34.6 146.8 0.32 1.34
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

25 112.8 0.47 2.14

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

36.6 242 0.41 2.74

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

32.2 145 0.43 1.93

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

8.8 49.2 0.28 1.57

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

6 35.6 0.14 0.81
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 224.8 892 0.71 2.83

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 137.6 568.6 1.48 6.13

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 88.8 792.4 0.58 5.19

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 4.2 23.8 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) 0.2 2.2 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0.6 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 2.8 2.2 0 0
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

OTHER 1.6 5 0 0

FEDERAL 0.2 3.4 0 0

NATIONAL PARK 0.4 0.2 0 0
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

The functional classification data ONLY includes state and county road data. Our state database does not include federal functional classification 

for crashes on city streets or miscellaneous roadways. So the rural information should be accurate. The urban information would change 

significantly with this missing data. This also means that the rate per facility type (especially for urban crashes) is not accurate either.

The jurisdiction type data does not split out the miscellaneous roadways into sub-categories for VMT. So the rates are only shown for state, 

county, and city roads.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

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

While the most recent update to the state Strategic Highway Safety Plan: Target Zero (updated in 2013) 

showed significant progress and downward trends for both fatalities and serious injuries, the most 

recent 2-3 years have showed a flattening of the curve. This might be counted as success, considering 

the majority of states showed an increase during these same years. However, continued progress will 

need to be made to achieve our goal of Target Zero.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.684 0.614 0.628 0.614 0.46

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

1.662 1.646 1.592 1.578 1.242

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

2.344 2.258 2.218 2.19 1.7

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

FHWA shared the following information on population (# people 65+ per 1000 state population):

2005 = 111, 2006 = 115, 2007 = 117, 2008 = 120, 2009 = 120, 2010 = 123, 2011 = 126, 2012 = 132

Calculate rate to 0.01, round final result to 0.1. Rate calculation example:

2012 F+SI Rate = [(2012 F+SI / Pop) + (2011 F+SI / Pop) + (2010 F+SI / Pop) + (2009 F+SI / Pop) + (2008 

F+SI / Pop)] / 5

FARS (for fatalities) and WSDOT state collision repository (for serious injuries) shows older road users 

(65+) in crashes as:

2005 = 104 fatalities, 213 serious injuries

2006 = 69 fatalities, 195 serious injuries

2007 = 74 fatalities, 174 serious injuries

2008 = 92 fatalities, 202 serious injuries

2009 = 57 fatalities, 182 serious injuries

2010 = 73 fatalities, 226 serious injuries
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

2011 = 85 fatalities, 180 serious injuries

2012 = 74 fatalities, 187 serious injuries

The rates in the table above are calculated simply as # / Pop = Rate.

2006-2010 Combined Rate (see equation above) = 2.26 or 2.3

2008-2012 Combined Rate (see equation above) = 2.19 or 2.2

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

No
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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: 

B/C ratio calculated using projects completed in 2010. Before data is from 2007-2009. After data is from 

2011-2013.

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: 

Focus is already on fatal & serious injury crashes, and includes local roads.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

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

The only change is that counties are being required to submit a basic local road safety plan to be eligible 

to receive HSIP funds. The county safety focus was already on low-cost, widespread improvements. This 

change shifts that focus slightly into a more specific systemic safety approach.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 192 670 0.34 1.18 0 0 0

Intersections All 91 779 0.16 1.37 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 63 293 0.11 0.52 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 10 106 0.02 0.19 0 0 0

Older Drivers All 42 118 0.07 0.21 0 0 0

Motorcyclists All 72 396 0.13 0.7 0 0 0

Work Zones All 2 38 0 0.07 0 0 0

Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Impaired Driver 

Involved

All 218 486 0.38 0.86 0 0 0

Speeding Involved Speed-related 180 647 0.32 1.14 0 0 0

Young Driver (16-

25) Involved

All 153 833 0.27 1.46 0 0 0
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Distracted Driver 

Involved

All 132 315 0.23 0.55 0 0 0

Unrestrained 

Vehicle Occupants

All 108 238 0.19 0.42 0 0 0

Unlicensed Driver 

Involved

All 81 0 0.14 0 0 0 0

Opposite Direction Head on 74 223 0.13 0.39 0 0 0

EMS and Trauma 

Care Systems

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Heavy Truck 

Involved

Truck-related 35 80 0.06 0.14 0 0 0

Drowsy Driver 

Involved

All 14 81 0.02 0.14 0 0 0

Wildlife Vehicle/animal 3 22 0 0.04 0 0 0

School Bus Involved All 1 5 0 0.01 0 0 0

Vehicle-Train Vehicle/Train 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

All priority areas in the latest version of the SHSP are listed.

Year-by-year data is tracked starting with 2008. Therefore, 5-year rolling average data is only available starting with 2012.

Note that Roadway Departure focus area is Run-Off-the-Road, Older Driver data includes drivers 75+ in the state emphasis area (and in this 

table), and Opposite Direction includes both head on and other opposite direction crash types.

Serious injury data is not available for Unlicensed Drivers.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Traffic Data Systems and EMS & Trauma Care Systems focus areas do not have specific crash data associated with them.

SHSP Focus Area Priorities:

Priority 1: Impaired Driver Involved, Run-Off-the-Road, Speeding Involved, Young Driver (16-25) Involved, Distracted Driver Involved, Intersection 

Related, and Traffic Data Systems

Priority 2: Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants, Unlicensed Driver Involved, Opposite Direction, Motorcyclists, Pedestrians, and EMS & Trauma Care 

Systems

Priority 3: Older Driver (75+) Involved, Heavy Truck Involved, Drowsy Driver Involved, Bicyclists, Work Zone, Wildlife, School Bus Involved, 

Vehicle-Train
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Groups of similar project types

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

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

As stated in the executive summary, the HSIP program has had a major benefit and effect on road safety 

in Washington state. While state highways have allocated state funds to support safety efforts, in 

addition to HSIP funds, the majority of local road safety efforts are funded solely by the HSIP program. 

With 70% of fatal and serious injury crashes in the priority one focus areas, this is a desperately needed 

program for the state to make continued progress toward achieving its Target Zero vision by 2030.

The HSIP program has provided a matching effort corresponding to the behavioral programs run 

through NHTSA to help Washington State make progress toward our vision of Target Zero (zero deaths 

and serious injuries by 2030). Funds from this program directly target various emphasis areas within the 

SHSP. And again, this program is the primary way that local agencies make progress toward 

implementing infrastructure safety improvements on their road networks.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

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)

N/A

Overall results compiled to answer the previous question on B/C for the HSIP program.
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2014 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

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.