Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement 

Program FFY 2005 - 2013 

August 31, 2014

Written by:
 

Matt Warren, P.E.
 

Traffic Engineering Division
 

Oklahoma DOT
 

1 
Table of Contents 

Title Page 1 

Table of Contents 2 

A. Program Structure 3 

1. Program Administration 3 

2. Program Methodology 4 

B. Progress in Implementing the HSIP Projects 8 

1. HSIP Funds Available 8 

2. General Listing of Projects 8 

C. Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) 40 

1. Graphs of General Highway Safety Trends 40 

2. Description of Overall HSIP Effectiveness 44 

D. High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) 45 

E. References 46

Appendix A: Initial Request with HSIP Project Categories 47 

Appendix B: B/C Ratio and EUAC 54 

Appendix C: Discount Rates 56 

Appendix D: Oklahoma Highway Safety Office Crash Facts Book 59 

Appendix E: Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in 60

Departmental Analyses – 2011 Interim Revision 

Appendix F: MAPS-21 Interium HSIP Guidance 73 


 

2 
Program Structure 

1. Program Administration 

The following describes the practices for HSIP projects that are administered though the 

Traffic Engineering Division. The field Division Offices administered approximately half of 

HSIP projects. They selected these safety projects to address their need based on 

information about roadway, structures, maintenance status, pavement condition, and 

safety history. 

a. How are HSIP funds administered in the state, i.e. centrally or via 

districts? 

All of the HSIP funds are administered through ODOT’s Central Office. 

b. Describe any innovative practices used to implement the HSIP. 

ODOT is currently in transition on the method in which sites are ranked for both segments 

and intersections. We are currently using Bayesian methods for segments and 

probability-weighted rates for intersections. 

Road Safety Audits are currently conducted primarily on request to help recommend 

projects for hot spot locations. Routine implementation of Road Safety Audits for HSIP 

projects is planned in the future if and when staffing levels permit. 

c. Describe how local roads are addressed as part of the HSIP. 

The local roads are owned and operated by the local entity (county or city) and the data 

coverage represented in this report does not include county roads or city streets. Local 

roads are not identified as part of the HSIP. 

Currently, ODOT’s database does have city and county road collisions within it. However, 

these roads have two different coordinate systems than that of ODOT’s system and are 

not capable of being related to each other at this time. Furthermore, the software is not 

capable of drawing comparisons across the three coordinate systems. Roadway data is 

not available for most local roads, making it impossible to use the same analytical 

methods on these roads. Extension of the analytical methods to a limited set of local 

roads is planned as software development resources become available. 

Reporting methods for other local roads strictly require geocoded crash data. At present 

the majority of these crashes are geocoded and can be mapped but cannot be tied to 

3 
roadway data. Complete geocoding of all crashes and integration with roadway data will 

require extensive resources and is not being actively pursued at this time since the 

resources to collect the relevant roadway data are not expected to be available in the 

foreseeable future. ODOT is presently exploring methods of selecting systemic safety 

mitigations on local roads. 

d. Describe how highway safety improvement projects are selected for 

implementation. 

Currently, HSIP funds are used by ODOT exclusively; i.e. there are no other entities that 

can apply and we have no competitive application process for these funds. Crash 

experience, as reflected by the annual Collision Data Digest (parallel to the former 5% 

report), is a factor in project selection but there is no single governing metric. Possible 

B/C ratios are typically not estimated but some of the lists are ranked by expected crashes 

or expected crashes per mile, which may be taken as roughly proportional to a first 

approximation of B/C ratio. Sites for systemic improvement are chosen based on 

roadway characteristics and sometimes on crash history; for certain improvements 

specialized reports using Bayesian analysis are available to help optimize benefits. There 

is no established method for ranking systemic improvements relative to hot spot projects. 

2. Program Methodology 

The following describes the practices for HSIP projects that are administered though the 

Traffic Engineering Division. The other HSIP projects (approx. half) that go through the 

other Divisions have their own practices. 

The program was last updated approximately in 1998. 

a. Data Used 

Crash 

Crash data used to evaluate HSIP projects has a span of 5 years before the exact 

Work Start Date and 5 years after the exact Completion Date. Fatality, incapacitating 

injury and non-incapacitating injury collisions (types K, A, B) are used. Other than 

excluding possible injury and property damage only crashes (types C, O) all crash 

types are included. 

Site ranking for project selection typically uses 5 calendar years of prior crash data, 

including fatalities, incapacitating injuries and non-incapacitating injuries (K, A, B). For 

4 
many rankings, only certain crash types are considered, for instance only run-off-road 

or only non-intersection or only median-crossover. 

Exposure 

Estimated AADT is used in both crash rate analysis and Bayesian methods. 

Population is not considered. For intersections, mainline AADT is used instead of total 

entering vehicles due to an almost complete lack of traffic data for minor approaches. 

For purposes of comparison with other intersections only, crash counts are adjusted to 

reflect the lower bound of a one-tailed 99% confidence interval on the assumption that 

observed crashes are a sample from a Poisson distribution with a mean which is itself 

a sample from a uniform probability distribution over the interval (0,∞). This method 

produces an estimate significantly lower than the observed crash counts and is not an 

accurate estimate of future crashes; the estimates cannot be used for instance to 

predict B/C ratios but provides a reasonable ranking of intersections relative to each 

other (for network screening), effectively deflating the ranking of intersections with very 

low AADT and only a few crashes. 

Roadway 

Only data from Oklahoma Highways, U.S. Highways, and Interstates (non-turnpike) 

were used in the Collision Data Digest and HSIP reports. High-level roadway data 

(e.g. urban/rural, 2-lane/multi-lane, divided/undivided, shouldered/unshouldered, 

access control) are used to segregate many internal reports. Median width was also 

taken into account for ranking segments by potential for crossover collisions. 

b. Project Identification Methodology 

The Collision Data Digest and sometimes Road Safety Audits are used as guidance by 

Field Divisions to identify projects for safety hot spots. In accordance with our SHSP, 

HSIP funds are also used for systemic improvements, including cable barrier, rumble 

strips, and upgrades to striping, including edgeline striping, and guardrail. Systemic 

improvements are identified on the basis of past experience, including that of other states; 

expected benefits and known maintenance issues are taken into account. 

Data from the Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse is often used to help evaluate 

potential systemic programs and sometimes other projects as well. 

c. Summary of Targeted Programs being Implemented under the HSIP 

5 
 

SHSP targets currently being addressed with HSIP funds include median crossovers, lane 

departures, intersections, and rural highways. 

Median crossover collisions are being addressed by systemic application of median cable 

barrier, which has been notably successful. 

Lane departures are being addressed by application of shoulder rumble strips 

(systemically for new construction as well as selected retrofits), as well as systemic 

upgrades to guard rail and striping, including edgeline striping. Some shoulder cable 

barrier has also been placed and more is planned. Projects have been initiated to 

improve curve delineation and replace obsolete guardrail. A program for clear zone 

mitigation is incipient. A small number of high friction surface treatments are planned. A 

centerline rumble strip pilot project is awaiting evaluation. 

Intersection crashes are being addressed by a policy of systematically funding the highest 

ranked intersections recommended for traffic signals each year by the Field Divisions. 

Implementation has been initiated of systemic sign, signal and marking improvements as 

recommended by the FHWA Intersection Safety Assistance Program. Intersection 

crashes are also being addressed by a project to retrofit some existing signals with 

retroreflective backplates, which are also being used on all new signal projects. A few “JTurn” intersections are finished or under construction, and more are tentatively planned. 

Two high speed intersections are planned to be retrofitted with dynamic advance signal 

change warning signs as a pilot. 

Rural highways have been given increased attention by separating rural 2-lanes into their 

own reports and are ranked by Highway Safety Manual methods using Safety 

Performance Functions. Rural 2-lane highways are targeted especially for shoulder 

rumble strips, curve delineation, and shoulder widening. 

Procedures for Road Safety Audits have been established and we are planning to make 

them an integral part of project identification and selection when resources permit. 

d. Extent to which System Wide Improvements are Implemented as Part of 

the HSIP 

We currently have several ongoing system wide projects which include: Cable Barrier, 

Sub-Standard Guardrail Replacement, Clearzone Mitigation, Intersection Sign & Marking 

Improvement, Curve Delineation, Shoulder Rumble Strip, Retroreflective Backplate 

6 
Replacement and Striping, including edgeline striping. These are funded partly by HSIP 

funds and partly by other sources. 

In 1998 in coordination with FHWA and ODOT, a Guardrail Improvement Safety Policy 

was developed and implemented to address substandard guardrail and end treatments. 

The policy not only outlines strategies for ODOT’s maintenance forces but also for new 

construction projects. It was decided to fund guardrail projects each year and plan 

development would occur in of ODOT’s Traffic Engineering Division. These projects have 

created new guardrail and end treatments that are up to date with industry and highway 

standards and these projects are still ongoing today. It is expected the projects will 

continue until we are fully updated. 

ODOT has provided upgraded striping, including edgeline striping and delineation through 

the use of HSIP and/or other funds. Paint is being replaced with multipolymer and 

thermoplastic, and striping, including edgeline striping, on controlled access highways is 

being widened from 4” to 6”. In recent years, progress has been made to provide these 

improvements in a data-driven manner. In 2010, a decision matrix was finalized for the 

type and size of striping, including edgeline striping based on AADT and the type and 

condition of pavement. System-wide use of 6” edgeline and centerline stripe is under 

consideration. 

In 2012 ODOT received a plan for systemic intersection improvements from FHWA 

consultants, to be implemented over the next 5-10 years. 

Median cable barrier, initially treated as a hot spot mitigation, is now being treated as a 

systemic improvement. 

Systemic improvements to curve delineation are scheduled for more than 100 curve 

locations on rural highways. A second phase of this program will treat additional curves. 

Retroreflective borders on signal backplates have been established as standard for new 

signals and over two hundred intersections are already scheduled for the retrofit. 

e. Extent to which Highway Safety Improvements Projects Align with the 

State’s SHSP 

In accordance with our SHSP, ODOT is emphasizing rural locations and intersection 

improvements; we are implementing systemic improvements, especially to address 

roadway departure (i.e. cable barrier, curve delineation, guardrail, and rumble strips); we 

7 
 

 

 

are now considering only injury/fatality crashes in prioritizing locations and Traffic 

Engineering use of HSIP funding is increasingly data-driven. 

f. Project Prioritization Process 

Prioritization is guided by the crash ranking demonstrated in the Collision Data Digest, 

with adjustments for field conditions, funding, road safety audits when available, and other 

circumstances. 

B. Progress in Implementing the HSIP Projects 

1. HSIP Funds Available1 (Programmed) 

HSIP Project Funding 

Reporting Period: FFY 2013 

Funding Category Obligated 

HSIP (SAFETEA-LU Sect. 148) $7,115,860 

HSIP (MAP-21 Sect. 1112) $30,186,416 

Hazard Elimination (Section 152) -----

HRRRP -----

Optional Safety $2,000,000 

Other Federal Aid Funds (i.e. STP, ARRA) -----

State and Local Funds $5,814 

Total $ 

Table 1 

1. “Available Funds” are those funds that have been programmed in the 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for the reporting 

period and can be expended on Highway Safety Improvement projects. 

2. General Listing of Projects 

The following 31 pages are a general list of all projects from FFY 2005-2013 that use(d) 

Federal safety funds. The projects were identified using fund codes for HSIP, Hazard 

Elimination, Optional Safety, HRRRP, and Rail-Highway Crossings, which included H020, 

H210, H240, H260, H280, Q210, Q280, L010, LY10, LY20, L05E, L05R, L01E, L21R, 

L24R, L28R, LS30, LS2E, LS3E, LS4E, LS5E, and MS30. Also included are all projects 

let by Traffic Engineering Division in FFY 2008-2013 and all traceable cable barrier 

projects. 

When 5 years of “After” crash data are available for a project, a B/C ratio is reported. B/C 

ratios are based on the Value of a Statistical Life and estimated maintenance cost at the 

time the B/C is first calculated. 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
C. Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements 

(Program Evaluation) 

1. Graphs of General Highway Safety Trends 

 

Fig. 1 

40 
Fig. 3 

Fig. 4 

Fig. 2 

41 
Fig. 5 

 

Fig. 6 

42 
Fig. 7 

Fig. 8 

43 
Fig. 9 

See reference information in Appendix D for more trends and crash 

facts for Oklahoma. 

2. Description of Overall HSIP Effectiveness 

Improved site ranking methodologies include using only injury/fatal crash history (to better 

concentrate on reducing these crash types), introduction of Bayesian methods, 

specialized reports for prioritization of specific systemic mitigations, and probabilityadjusted rate-based rather than frequency-based methods in order to emphasize higher 

risk rural locations. Key systemic improvements (e.g. cable barrier and shoulder rumble 

strips) are being implemented on relevant construction projects. 

a. SHSP Emphasis Areas 

Crossover fatalities and injuries have diminished drastically on highways treated with 

cable median barrier. Because of this success, installation of cable median barrier is 

being considered even for highways with narrow medians. The overall fatality trend for 

2013 is downward, with the decrease dominated by declines in single vehicle crashes, 

roadway departures, and rural crashes. 

44 
 

  

b. Subprogram types 

Distinct subprograms exist for cable barrier, guard rail, shoulder rumble strip, low cost 

intersection safety improvement, retroreflective backplates, curve delineation, high friction 

surface treatment, and intersection signalization. The cable barrier program has been the 

longest running and has had the most obvious success to date. 

c. System Wide Treatments 

Most SHSP targeted areas are, or are planned to become, system wide. Systemic 

intersection treatment is moving toward implementation with site screening in progress 

and a small number of sites already treated. 

D. High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) 

ODOT did not utilize any HRRRP funds for FFY 2013. 

45 
E: References 

Lindeburg, Michael R., P.E. Engineering-In-Training Reference Manual, 8th Ed. Professional 

Publications, Inc. Belmont, 1998. 

Toole, Joseph S., Associate Administrator for Safety. Memorandum. Subject: 

INFORMATION: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reporting Guidance. 

USDOT / FHWA. May 14, 2009. 

Furst, Tony, Associate Administrator for Safety. Memorandum. Subject: Highway Safety 

Improvement Program – Map021 Interim Eligibility Guidance. USDOT / FHWA. October 4, 

2012. 

Rogoff, Peter, Acting Undersecretary for Policy. Memorandum. Subject: Guidance on 

Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of 

Transportation Analyses – 2014 Adjustment. Office of the Secretary of Transportation. June 13, 

2014. 

46 
Appendix A: Initial Request with HSIP Project Categories (Toole Memoran






Appendix B: B/C Ratio and EUAC (Lindeburg 13-7, 13-15, 13-16) 


Appendix C: Discount Rates 



                                       

                                           

   

Appendix D: Oklahoma Highway Safety Office Crash Facts 


2013 

OKLAHOMA 

Crash Facts 

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

Highway Safety Office 

3223 N. Lincoln Blvd. 

Okla. City, OK 73105‐5403 

Telephone (405) 523‐1570 

Fax (405) 523‐1586 

Web Site: www.ohso.ok.gov 

Document Location: 

http://www.ok.gov/ohso/Data/Crash_Data_and_Statistics/Crash_Facts_2013.html 

This publication is issued by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety as authorized by the Commissioner of Public Safety. The

Oklahoma Department of Libraries has been notified of the posting of the 2013 Crash Fact Book to the Department of Public Safety

web site: www.dps.state.ok.us.

59 
Appendix E: Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a 

Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation 

Analyses – 2014 Adjustment. 

60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
Appendix F: Highway Safety Improvement Program – Map021 

Interim Eligibility Guidance 

73 
74