Kansas 

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

 

Prepared by: KS

 

 
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............................................................................................................. 23

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 23

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 37

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 37

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 51

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................54

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 56

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 61

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 66

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 74
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

In Kansas we continue to spend our HSIP dollars in a variety of independently managed sub-programs, 

including intersections, signing, pavement markings, lighting, rail, HRRR, and general safety 

improvements. The rail program is reported with the RGCHP report. This is the second year HRRR is 

reported with the HSIP report. We are working with our sub-program managers to develop program 

manuals specific to each sub-program in a manner consistent with the requirements of this report. 

These manuals will include performance measures, which continue to be a work in progress.
2014 Kansas 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. 

Our HSIP program is made up of seven sub-programs: lighting, pavement marking, signing, rail, 

intersections, HRRR, and general safety improvements. Lighting, pavement marking, and signing projects 

are exclusive to the State Highway System, although projects may impact intersecting non-state roads. 

Intersections and rail projects may include local roads, that is, public roads not a part of the State 

Highway System. HRRR is exclusive to local roads. The rail program is addressed in the Rail-Highway 

Grade Crossing Program report.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Lighting sub-program: Projects are selected with input from the structural engineer in our State Bridge 

Office responsible for traffic signals and lighting, as well as field information from our Area Offices, and 

road safety audits performed by our Traffic Engineering Unit.

Signing sub-program: This blanket replacement program was programmed to cover the entire state 

highway system in ten years. It took longer than that, but we have completed the first cycle and are 

beginning a second cycle. Our Area Offices complete a sign inventory for each project. The Area 

Offices typically install the new signs and posts, which are purchased using HSIP funds. Although, many 

of the early projects in the second cycle will be let to a contractor because they are on urban interstate 

routes.

Pavement Marking sub-program: Our pavement marking technician works closely with our district 

maintenance engineers to identify recommended routes. Works also with Traffic Engineering Unit to 

identify locations in need of improved markings for safety.

Intersections sub-program: Projects are typically identified based on recommendations from cities. 

When the intersection is located on the State Highway System, our District and Area Offices are made 

part of the discussion as well.

HRRR sub-program: District Offices provide construction oversight.

General Safety Improvements sub-program: Projects are selected and scoped in partnership with District 

and Area Offices.
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

All sub-programs: The Geometric and Accident Data Unit in our Bureau of Transportation Planning 

manage and report on roadway and crash data as needed.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Local Roads Support Team (SHSP)

Other: Other-Kansas Association of 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-beginning transition to data-based allocation of funds to each sub-program

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

would like to elaborate. 

A total of $23,808,684 in safety funds (HSIP and Rail) was apportioned for FFY 2014, 

distributed to each sub-program as follows:

Lighting: $1,500,000 HSIP

Pavement Marking: $4,000,000 HSIP
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

Signing: $3,700,000 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $9,886,861 ($5,886,862 Rail & $4,000,000 HSIP)

Intersection Safety: $1,921,822 HSIP

High Risk Rural Roads: $2,800,000 HSIP

General Safety Improvements: $0 HSIP

The following dollars were obligated for SFY 2014 in each program:

Lighting: $325,447.32 HSIP

Pavement Marking: $1,966,752.79 HSIP

Signing: $1,147,314.26 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $14,969,539.01 ($2,462,326.21 Rail; $0 STP; 

$12,507,212.80 HSIP)

Intersection Safety: $6,762,669.57 ($163,352.07 STP; $6,599,317.50 HSIP)

High Risk Rural Roads: $4,999,960.07 ($2,405,948.36 HRRR; $2,594,011.71 HSIP)

General Safety Improvements: $351,423.03 HSIP

Each of the programs discussed further in this report are consistent with our SHSP. It is our 

intent that strategies identified or developed as part of the SHSP process will contribute to the 

continued success of these programs. A portion of our HSIP funding is programmed as part of 

our RHGCP. See RHGCP report for more information.

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 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Pavement 

Marking

Other: Other-Lighting Other: Other-General Safety 

Improvements

 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1980

 

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
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

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

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

State: consider only pattern and crash rate; The method for local road projects is more time-consuming 

to validate counter-measures, including information such as EPDO, CMFs and BC.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

8 

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 3

Available funding 4

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

EPDO and crash rate 1

Project viability 2

 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

Other-Sign inventory

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 

Other-Pre-programmed blanket replacement program

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

10

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

Other-Projects were pre-programmed based on a blanket replacement 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

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Per established cyclical 

program

1

 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/11/2011

 

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

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

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

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated.)

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 2
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 1

Geographical distribution 3

 

Program: Other-Pavement Marking

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

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-If we considered only 

traffic volumes, only high volume 

districts (1 and 5) would get 

funded, thus population is taken 

into account. At the district level, 

we then consider higher volume 

routes first and take into account 

retro-readings.

Other-Retro-reflectivity. 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Pavement Marking Specialist works closely with district maintenance engineers to select 

projects.

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

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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 

 

Program: Other-Lighting

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2006

 

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 Other-Road type: 

Interchanges
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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-Locations are brought to our attention

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-Lighting Unit
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

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 

 

Program: Other-General Safety Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 2/10/2012

 

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 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 1

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

9 

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

Safety Edge

Clear Zone Improvements

Install/Improve Lighting
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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 changes from FY13 to FY14. However, beginning in FY15 Lighting hopes to advance 

LED lights, and Signing will move from a route to sub-area based approach. Intersections is planning 

changes beginning in FY16.
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

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

would like to elaborate. 

Intersections sub-program:

Kansas chooses to devote a portion of its HSIP funding to intersection projects, as Intersections have 

been identified as one of the emphasis areas in our Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Recently, the 

majority of funds have been spent in the metro areas. Metropolitan and Urban jurisdictions are requested 

to submit three years of crash data for up to four high-crash locations on any system where the major 

street is not classified as a local street or rural minor collector within their areas. High-crash locations are 

determined and ranked by descending equivalent-property-damage-only (EPDO) accident rate. The top 

20 (approximately) are considered for further analysis. To determine if a location is a high-frequency 

location on Rural State Highways, a comparison is made between the actual crash rate and the statewide 

average rate for similar highways. KDOT conducts county-wide road safety audits. From these audits and 

from traffic studies, high-crash locations are established. High-crash locations are ranked in descending 

EPDO crash rate order, with further analysis done on the top ten locations. Identified high-crash locations 

are prioritized on the basis of the average annual net return for each location. The average net return is a 

dollar amount found by subtracting the average annual costs from the average annual benefits. First 

priority is given to the location with the highest average annual net return. Remaining projects are 

selected in descending order until funds are exhausted. Exceptions to this practice might be caused by 

the unavailability of city matching funds, future projects that may encompass the selected location, a 

grouping of proximate locations into one project, or combining several smaller projects for a total net 

return larger than another single project. Projects on County Roads and other roadways are selected by 

local units of government. These projects are subject to approval by the Federal Highway Administration 

and are administered by KDOT.

Lighting sub-program:

Because lighting is beneficial to the safety and operation of the highway system, this set-aside program 

was established in FY 2000. Projects are selected by the Bureau of Transportation Safety & Technology 

(BTS&T) based on the roadway's volume and the potential for night-time crash history. This program is 

limited to projects which are not included under any other KDOT program. Projects are scheduled until 

the available lighting funds are exhausted. This is the ninth year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve 

lighting.

Pavement Marking sub-program: 

This set-aside program was established in FY 1996 to address pavement marking necessary due to 

pending new federal requirements for minimum retro-reftectivity of pavement markings. Improvements in 

this category utilize high-performance, long-life pavement marking materials. Efforts are also made to 

identify those marking materials with wet-weather retro-reftectivity. This program is limited to projects that 

do not have high-performance markings included under any other KDOT program. Projects are selected 

by the BTS&T based upon a roadway's traffic volumes, past performance of marking material, geometry, 

surface condition, surface type, crash history, and, in the case of new marking materials, the research 

benefit. This is the ninth year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve pavement markings.

Signing sub-program:

This program was established in 1996 to address necessary sign replacements on the State Highway 

System due to pending (now final) federal requirements for minimum retro-reftectivity of highway signs. 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

This program schedules sign replacements based upon highway routemileage statewide and the total 

mileage of all the routes in each District for that year. This program excludes signs on any other state 

projects that include sign replacement for that highway route in the same year. This program also 

excludes any signs that were replaced within seven years of the scheduled date of the replacement 

project. This is the seventh year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve permanent signing. The projects 

in this program are typically not let to contract via the normal letting procedure. Instead, materials are 

purchased thru the purchase request process and signs and posts are installed by KDOT maintenance 

forces. However, with the beginning of a second cycle many of the projects are on urban interstates and 

these projects will be let to contract.

HRRR sub-program:

This program was established under SAFETEA-LU as a set-aside. It was eliminated under MAP-21 

although states are required to address locally-owned roads if crash rates increase. Regardless, KDOT 

continues to fund HRRR as a sub-program to the HSIP program. The focus is on low-cost safety 

improvements at site-specific locations and systemic improvements to signing, pavement marking, and 

roadsides.

General Safety Improvement sub-program:

Every year the FHWA provides funds for DOT’s to make safety improvements to their system through the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). As a pilot KDOT has developed a program that will direct 

up to $6,000,000 of HSIP funds to projects that will be selected using a new system that combines 

quantitative safety analysis and prediction (IHSDM) with District input. The goal is to distribute these 

funds throughout the state and address spot locations, like individual curves, intersections, or short 

tangent sections that are identified with tools developed for the Transparency Report. Moreover the hope 

is that the program can help address locations that demonstrate a potential safety issue but have not 

been addressed through traditional KDOT funding programs.
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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) 17921822 100 % 25491479 91 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 2405948 9 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 0 0 % 163352 1 %

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Totals 17921822 100% 28060779 100%

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

38 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$20,908,211.00

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

$273,999.00

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

$273,999.00

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

period?

$0.00
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

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. 

Except as noted below, nothing to report at this time. We obligated an amount equivalent to 142% of our 

apportionment, plus an additional $2.5 million in HRRR (SAFETEA-LU).

Signing sub-program: The FY14 program is continuation of the FY13 program. Projects identified and 

obligated required additional funding above the allotment allocated to signing under the FY13 program. 

The decision was made to delay construction lettings and the purchase of materials for several projects. 

New obligations will not be shown in the HSIP annual report for FY14, since the obligations were 

previously shown in the FY13 report.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Nothing to note at this time.
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

General Listing of Projects

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

Proje

ct

Improvement Category Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Categor

y 

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T 

Spee

d 

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

C0047-

01

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry - 

other

1 

Numbe

rs

307282 351808 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

1600 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Perform 

improveme

nts of 

crashprone 

intersectio

ns

C0054

-01

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

6 Miles 75000 97508 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

220 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Create a 

program 

that funds 

the 

removal of 

fixed 

objects

C0059

-01

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.35 

Miles 

265405 294924 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

415 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Create a 

program 

that funds 

the 

deploymen
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

t of lowcost safety 

improveme

nts at rural 

or high

C0062

-01

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.5 

Miles 

218077 242459 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

370 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Create a 

program 

that funds 

the 

deploymen

t of lowcost safety 

improveme

nts at rural 

or high

C0063

-01

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

20 

Numbe

rs

71945 79939 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Create a 

program 

that funds 

the 

removal of 

fixed 

objects

C0064

-01

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.38 

Miles 

45894 50993 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local Road 

or Street

5 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Create a 

program 

that funds 

the 

deploymen
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

t of lowcost safety 

improveme

nts at rural 

or high

C0317

-01

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.2 

Miles 

225000 482573 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local Road 

or Street

175 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Create a 

program 

that funds 

the 

deploymen

t of lowcost safety 

improveme

nts at rural 

or high

C0321

-01

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder treatments - 

other

6.5 

Miles 

600000 923971 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

2620 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

shoulders 

where 

reasonable

C0323

-01

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

3 Miles 100000

0 

1547305 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

1100 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

shoulders 

where 

reasonable

C0324

-01

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

4.5 

Miles 

550000 638454 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

461 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Create a 

program 

that funds 

the 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

removal of 

fixed 

objects

C0326

-01

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel lanes

0.81 

Miles 

500000 714955 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

1725 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

shoulders 

where 

reasonable

C0390

-01

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

0.82 

Miles 

57465 63850 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Create a 

program 

that funds 

the 

removal of 

fixed 

objects

C0484

-01

Non-infrastructure Noninfrastructure - other10 

Numbe

rs

54000 60000 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Experiment 

with the 

safety edge

C0486

-01

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - modify 

free-flow turn lane

3 

Numbe

rs

285292 316991 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

684 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

left-turn 

and rightturn lanes 

at 

intersectio

ns

C0493Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

56 90755 90755 HSIP 

(Section 

Rural 

Major 

0 0 County 

Highway 

Roadway Maintain 

pavement 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

-01 markings - new Miles 148) Collector Agency Departure marking 

retroreflectivity 

C0508

-01

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

17 

Miles 

30000 30000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector 

705 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Maintain 

sign retroreflectivity 

C0512

-01

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder treatments - 

other

12.65 

Miles 

228816 254333 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

shoulders 

where 

reasonable

C0619

-01

Roadway Rumble strips -

center 

10.42 

Miles 

31719 31719 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

centerline 

rumble 

strips 

where 

appropriat

e 

C4494

-01

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection flashers - add 

stop sign-mounted

1 

Numbe

rs

35658 39741 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

3121 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Install 

flashing 

solarpowered 

beacons on 

intersectio

n warning 

and stop 

signs 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

where 

appropriat

e 

C4495

-01

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection flashers - add 

stop sign-mounted

1 

Numbe

rs

46463 51701 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

5143 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Install 

flashing 

solarpowered 

beacons on 

intersectio

n warning 

and stop 

signs 

where 

appropriat

e 

C4591

-01

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

0 129425 129425 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Maintain 

sign retroreflectivity 

C4592

-01

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder treatments - 

other

9.06 

Miles 

123903

0 

1376700 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

1375 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

shoulders 

where 

reasonable

C4594

-01

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

112 

Miles 

103270 103270 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Maintain 

sign retroreflectivity 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

updated

KA3028

-01

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

1 

Numbe

rs

502525 502789 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

6220

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

street 

lighting at 

highervolume 

intersectio

ns and 

interchang

es 

KA3029

-01

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

1 

Numbe

rs

537954 538445 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

7980

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

street 

lighting at 

highervolume 

intersectio

ns and 

interchang

es 

N0544

-01

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

703800 782000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

6280

8 

40 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

left-turn 

and rightturn lanes 

at 

intersectio

ns
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

N0548

-01

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

900000 1740000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

2293

2 

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

left-turn 

and rightturn lanes 

at 

intersectio

ns

KA2617

-01

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

200000 1064287.

21

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

1172

7 

55 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

left-turn 

and rightturn lanes 

at 

intersectio

ns

U0161

-01

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

1 

Numbe

rs

144424.

76

160763.8 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2174

4 

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Perform 

improveme

nts of 

crashprone 

intersectio

ns

KA2611

-01

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry - 

other

1 

Numbe

rs

200000 160763.8 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

3870

0 

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Perform 

improveme

nts of 

crashprone 

intersectio
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

ns

U0066

-01

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified 

1 

Numbe

rs

350000 783559.9

3 

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

1141

9 

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Perform 

improveme

nts of 

crashprone 

intersectio

ns

U0065

-01

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

400000 1607009.

56

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

2012

4 

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

left-turn 

and rightturn lanes 

at 

intersectio

ns

U0162

-01

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

252812.

98

294528.7

6 

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2283

6 

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

left-turn 

and rightturn lanes 

at 

intersectio

ns

KA0047

-01

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

275366

2.7

3338180.

54

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

9760 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Promote 

and 

construct 

roundabou
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

ts

N0547

-01

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

1 

Numbe

rs

650000 937880.5 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector 

9000 55 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Perform 

improveme

nts of 

crashprone 

intersectio

ns

KA3623

-01

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0.3 

Miles 

72000 80000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Expand the 

use of highfriction 

surfacing

KA3645

-01

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0.1 

Miles 

22808 25342 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expresswa

ys

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Expand the 

use of highfriction 

surfacing

KA3301

-01

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane

0.7 

Miles 

163323 181470 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

5030 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Provide 

left-turn 

and rightturn lanes 

at 

intersectio
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

ns

KA3461

-01

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

5 Miles 70000 70000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Coordinate 

traffic 

signals 

along 

urban 

corridors

KA3538

-01

Non-infrastructure Noninfrastructure - other126 

Numbe

rs

149999 166666 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Purchased 

portable 

rumble 

strips
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

37 

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* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 416 417 401 398 392

Number of serious injuries 1763 1731 1700 1655 1603

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.41 1.39 1.33 1.31 1.3

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.98 5.79 5.66 5.43 5.31

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

38
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

23 93 0.71 2.89

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

3 8 0.28 0.67

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

77 195 2.5 6.34

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

47 135 2.08 6.01

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

9 27 3.35 9.47

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

54 176 1.95 6.32

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

62 175 3.74 10.59

URBAN PRINCIPAL 22 137 0.58 3.6
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

15 66 0.81 3.56

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

28 227 0.82 6.75

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

25 172 0.83 5.66

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

8 58 0.56 4.32

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

18 134 0.79 5.85
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT) 

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 208 730 1.21 4.27

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

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

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 184 874 1.4 6.67

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

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

Overall, based on five-year averages, fatalities are down nine percent from 2008 to 2013. On the State 

Highway System fatalities are down 16 percent. However, on locally-owned roads fatalities are 

essentially unchanged. Similarly, serious injuries are down 11 percent overall, 16 percent on state 

highways, while only six percent on locally-owned roads since 2008. The trend on locally-owned roads is 

discouraging and indicates more attention should be focused on the 93 percent of our public roads 

owned by cities, counties, and townships.

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)

0.418 0.432 0.4 0.428 0.458

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.908 0.874 0.892 0.87 0.878

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

1.33 1.31 1.296 1.302 1.34

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

Fatality rate per capita per year equals total number of older drivers and pedestrians (65+) killed based 

on FARS data, divided by the state population figured for Kansas provided in the guidance.

Serious injury rate per capita per year equals total number of older drivers and pedestrians 

(65+) seriously injured based on the state crash database, divided by the state population figured for 

Kansas provided in the guidance.

Fatality and serious injury rate per capita per year equals the fatality rate plus the serious injury rate.

The rates per capita per year are then averaged over five years. For example, the 5-yr average for 2010 

equals the average of the five years 2006 thru 2010. 

Here is the data we used, followed by the calculations:
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Year Fatals Disabled Total

State 

Population 

Figure

2005

54 147 201 129

2006 74 105 179 129

2007 47 120 167 129

2008 47 109 156 131

2009 50 108 158 130

2010 65 129 194 133

2011 55 120 175 133

2012 68 113 181 137

2013*

70 119 189 137

2009 ((201/129)+(179/129)+(167/129)+(156/131)+(158/130))/5 1.3

2010 ((179/129)+(167/129)+(156/131)+(158/130)+(194/133))/5 1.3

2011 ((167/129)+(156/131)+(158/130)+(194/133)+(175/133))/5 1.3

2012 ((156/131)+(158/130)+(194/133)+(175/133)+(181/137))/5 1.3

* Assumes state population figure from 2012.
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

54

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-The intersection sub-program is struggling to find locations in our urban areas that 

generate benefit-to-cost ratios greater than one; suggesting many of our old urban intersections with 

antiquated designs have been improved.

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-We are beginning a transition to a data-based distribution of HSIP dollars.

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Nothing to note at this time.
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Roadway Departure 237 769 0.78 2.54 0 0 0

Intersections 87 488 0.29 1.62 0 0 0

Pedestrians 21 70 0.07 0.23 0 0 0

Bicyclists 4 28 0.01 0.09 0 0 0

Older Drivers 86 242 0.28 0.8 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 44 222 0.15 0.73 0 0 0

Work Zones 5 48 0.02 0.16 0 0 0

Occupant Protection 171 392 0.57 1.3 0 0 0

Teen Drivers 55 322 0.18 1.06 0 0 0

Impaired Driving 140 300 0.46 0.99 0 0 0

Large Commercial 

Vehicles

67 138 0.22 0.46 0 0 0
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

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)

Other1 Other2 Other3 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

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)

Other1 Other2 Other3 
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

It is our intent to develop performance measures for each of these HSIP sub-programs in preparation for 

next year's report. This will be in concert with completing new "white papers" for each eligible subprogram, and be driven by our nearly complete revised SHSP which will include reallocation of HSIP 

funding as a key strategy for the emphasis areas intersections and roadway departure. As an example, 

three of these programs (lighting, pavement marking, and signing) can be measured by wet-weather 

and/or nighttime crashes. Data can be shown to demonstrate a positive trend in each of these areas.
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

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 NA
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2014 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

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.