Oklahoma

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: OK
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 .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 1

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 2

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 10

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 10

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 13

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 23

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 23

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 34

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................36

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 38

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 42

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 43

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 46

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 48
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

In FFY 2015 Oklahoma DOT obligated over $59 million in Federal safety funds, primarily HSIP funds 

(section 148) but also including $10 million in railroad program funding and $5 million in high risk rural 

roads funds. Major safety project types, excluding railroad, were median cable barrier ($13 million), 

guardrail ($5 million), intersection improvements ($5 million), and striping ($3 million). Groundwork 

was laid for several new systemic safety programs to be launched in FFY 2016 and 2017.

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

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

Local road projects do not currently use HSIP funds.

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

Design

Other-Safety Branch of Traffic Engineering
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The majority of HSIP funds are not allocated to the Division (Traffic) which is responsible for preparing 

this report. This report applies primarily to those funds which are allocated to Traffic Division. Traffic 

Division is not able to report on the administrative practices relevant to the remainder of the HSIP 

spending.

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

Other-None

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

the last reporting period.

Other-None

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

would like to elaborate.

N/A

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Horizontal Curve

Rural State Highways Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Shoulder Improvement Other-Shoulder Rumble Strip Other-Centerline Rumble Strip

Other-Backplate Upgrades
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/28/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-crossover crashes Traffic

Lane miles

Median width

Other-access control

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Other-crash severity prediction function

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 8/3/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-angle crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

crash frequency

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 2/23/2016

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-run off road injury/fatal 

crashes

Traffic

Lane miles

Horizontal curvature

Roadside features

Other-design speed

Other-speed limit

Other-shoulder width

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 2/17/2016

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Lane miles

Other-shoulder width

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 8/4/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-run off road injury crashes Traffic

Lane miles

Roadside features

Other-shoulder width

Other-terrain type

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 8/3/2016

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic Median width

Horizontal curvature

Lane miles Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Cost Effectiveness 1
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 8/3/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-run off road crashes Traffic

Lane miles

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Program: Other-Shoulder Rumble Strip

Date of Program Methodology: 8/4/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-run off road crashes Traffic

Lane miles

Other-shoulder width

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

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).

Program: Other-Centerline Rumble Strip

Date of Program Methodology: 8/4/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-cross-centerline crashes Traffic

Lane miles

Other-shoulder width

Other-terrain type

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Program: Other-Backplate Upgrades

Date of Program Methodology: 8/4/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Total Crashes 1

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

28%

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Clear Zone Improvements

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Other-curve delineation

Other-backplate upgrades

Other-centerline rumble strip
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

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

last reporting period.

Other-Extended use of safety performance functions

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

would like to elaborate. 

Most HSIP projects created by Traffic Division are systemic. Predictive methods are used to prioritize 

locations for treatment where practicable, otherwise (i.e. for intersections) total crashes are 

used. Predictive methods have been used in one case (median cable barrier) as a way of indirectly 

prioritizing one program in comparison to others. Predictive methods are also used to help identify hot 

spot locations and (outside of Traffic Division) to prioritize locations for shoulder widening. The core 

metric for prioritization is benefit/cost ratio, either explicitly or through some metric that is an 

approximate surrogate.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $42,269,162.00 90 % $44,048,385.75 88 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $0.00 0 % $1,421,406.68 3 %
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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

0 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

0 %

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

2 %

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

2 %

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

period?

HRRR Special Rule $3,730,081.00 8 % $3,798,818.00 8 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Other Federal-aid Funds

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

$852,760.00 2 % $941,929.00 2 %

State and Local Funds $0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Totals $46,852,003.00 100% $50,210,539.43 100%
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

0 %

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

period?

0 %

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

overcome this in the future.

N/A

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

N/A
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownersh

ip

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

149640

4

Alignment Vertical 

alignment or elevation 

change

3 Miles 100000

00

100000

00

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

255521

1

Advanced technology and 

ITS Advanced technology 

and ITS - other

0 Miles 200000 200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

ITS 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

255521

2

Advanced technology and 

ITS Advanced technology 

and ITS - other

0 Miles 600000 600000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

ITS 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

264950

4

Miscellaneous 1 Miles 175319

8

271204

4

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

270050

6

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Miles 260382 260382 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

270450

4

Miscellaneous 1 Miles 258970

7

369958

2

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

271420

4

Miscellaneous 0 Miles 353107

4

419139

6

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

271670

4

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspe

cified

1 Miles 228971

5

327102

2

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

279970

4

Miscellaneous 0 Miles 522022

5

522022

6

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

285610

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

0 Miles 261320 261320 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

Urban 

Major 

Collector

0 0 Railroad Railroad
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

NHPP)

291890

4

Roadside Barrier - cable 7 Miles 449680

4

449680

4

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

298580

4

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection flashers -

modify existing

0 Miles 194544

7

276322

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

302240

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Railroad grade crossings -

other

0 Miles 624961 668991 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 Railroad Railroad

302690

4

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (actuated)

1 

Numbe

rs

138948 159701 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

307300

6

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with 

retroreflective borders

9

Numbe

rs

49010 49010 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

307870

4

Roadside Barrier - cable 14 

Miles

413838

2

413838

2

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

307880

4

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles 715556 715556 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Other

308270

4

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles 910345 910345 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

308280

4

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numbe

rs

600000 600000 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

308500

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

71919 71919 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 Railroad Railroad

308510

4

Roadside Barrier- metal 6 Miles 165350

8

165350

8

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

309370

4

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity

37 

Miles

400000 400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

309700

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

225400 225400 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 Railroad Railroad

309710

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

143215

6

143215

6

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

309720

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

210607 210607 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 Railroad Railroad

311040

4

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity

15 

Miles

155000 155000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

313250

4

Roadside Barrier - cable 2 Miles 269985 269985 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

313860

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

305410 305410 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad

313870

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

303714 303714 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad

313890

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

1 

Numbe

438727 438727 Other 

Federal

Urban 

Major 

0 0 Railroad Railroad
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

signal rs -aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Collector

313900

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

305526 305526 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad

313930

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

302499 302499 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad

313950

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

245263 245263 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 Railroad Railroad

313960

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

239936 239936 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

313980

4

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (actuated)

1 

Numbe

rs

197017 197017 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

314000

4

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity

12 

Miles

132500 132500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

314030

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1

Numbe

rs

328494 328494 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad

314200

4

Miscellaneous 1 

Numbe

rs

24394 24394 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

314720

4

Roadside Barrier- metal 3 Miles 865620 865620 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

314730

4

Roadside Barrier- metal 0 Miles 182273 182273 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

314890

4

Roadside Barrier- metal 20 

Miles

650344 650344 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

315570

4

Roadside Barrier- metal 4 Miles 108798

9

108798

9

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

315580

4

Roadside Barrier - cable 8 Miles 308462

8

308462

8

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

315840

4

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (actuated)

1 

Numbe

rs

190726 190726 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

316030

5

Advanced technology and 

ITS Congestion detection / 

traffic monitoring system

1 

Numbe

rs

10000 10000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

316400

4

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity

35 

Miles

382850 382850 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

316420

4

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity

30 

Miles

325424 325424 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

316440

4

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity

16 

Miles

172830 172830 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

316450

4

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity

10 

Miles

108600 108600 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

316470

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

423140 423140 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad

316480

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

1 

Numbe

206877 229863 Other 

Federal

Rural 

Major 

0 0 Railroad Railroad
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

signal rs -aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Collector

316490

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

364728 364728 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 Railroad Railroad

316750

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

330394 330394 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 Railroad Railroad

316760

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

454823 454823 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad

316770

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

243250 243250 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP,

NHPP)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

0 0 Railroad Railroad
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

316810

4

Roadway delineation 

Improve retroreflectivity

16 

Miles

176038 176038 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

316910

4

Advanced technology and 

ITS Advanced technology 

and ITS - other

1 

Numbe

rs

300000 300000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Locations

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

322140

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

392031 424657 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 Railroad Railroad

322150

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

276150 296856 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 Railroad Railroad

322160

4

Railroad grade crossings 

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 

Numbe

rs

257037 276128 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

0 0 Railroad Railroad
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of fatalities 724.6 712.2 697.4 683.8 679.2

Number of serious injuries 3751.8 3667.2 3549.2 3410.4 3241.6

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.54 1.5 1.47 1.43 1.42

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 7.96 7.74 7.46 7.15 6.79

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

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

Year - 2015

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

43.6 127.6

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

4 11.4

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

85.8 233.4

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

82.8 211

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

95.6 272.6

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

119.4 461

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

42.8 291

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

15.8 102.6
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

39.8 277.8

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

15 65

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

9.8 39.4

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

130.2 1148.8
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Year - 2015

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 410 1575.2

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 115 449.2

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

123.2 1133.6

RAILROAD 4.6 3.2

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 28.2 79.6
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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

The overall statewide rate of fatalities and serious injuries per mile driven has had a downward trend 

since 2005, until an apparent upsurge in 2015. The strongest declines have been in non-intersection 

crashes on rural highways, and in particular run-off-road right crashes targeted by shoulder rumble 

strips. Several new systemic programs, including curve delineation, centerline rumble strips, clear zone 

mitigation, and signal backplate retrofits are too new to have yet impacted the annual data calculations.

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

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.45 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.44

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.61 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.59

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

Year K A K+

A

K rate A rate K+A 

rate

Rolling Averages

2005 85 19

6

281 0.18124

9

0.41793

9

0.59918

8

2006 79 17

6

255 0.16682

7

0.37166

5

0.53849

2

2007 79 22

9

308 0.16453

5

0.47694

4

0.64148

2008 89 22

8

317 0.18139

7

0.46470

2

0.64609

9

2009 92 21

6

308 0.18549

8

0.43551

7

0.62101

5

0.17590

1

0.43335

3

0.60925

5

2010 72 24

5

317 0.14152

6

0.48158

1

0.62310

7

0.16795

7

0.44608

2

0.61403

8
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

2011 91 23

3

324 0.17640

5

0.45167

4

0.62807

9

0.16987

2

0.46208

4

0.63195

6

2012 77 24

7

324 0.14409

2

0.46221

7

0.60630

9

0.16578

4

0.45913

8

0.62492

2

2013 81 23

5

316 0.14748

8

0.42789

7

0.57538

6

0.15900

2

0.45177

7

0.61077

9

2014 97 20

2

299 0.17243

5

0.35909

1

0.53152

6

0.15638

9

0.43649

2

0.59288

1

2015

*

10

5

23

0

335 0.18221

3

0.39913

2

0.58134

5

0.16452

6

0.42000

2

0.58452

9
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

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?

Policy change

if 'policy change', list the policy changes made.

Introduction of centerline rumble strip program.

Edge striping widened to 6".

Standard use of Safety Edge.

Standard use of retroreflective backplates.

Other-Deployment of 700+ miles of median cable barrier w/ concommitant reduction in median 

crossovers.

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Other-Use of custom safety performance functions to guide systemic safety programs

Other-Increased emphasis on low cost systemic treatments

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Custom safety performance functions have been used to help prioritize locations for systemic 

countermeasures, including centerline rumble strip, improved curve delineation, and roadside hazard 

mitigation. Benefit/Cost analysis based on a custom safety performance function has resulted in a shift 

of funding away from additional median cable barriers toward other countermeasures.
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2015

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

Lane Departure 299.4 974 0.63 2.04

Roadway Departure 514 1759.8 1.08 3.69

Intersections 150.6 1126.2 0.32 2.36

Pedestrians 59.4 153.6 0.12 0.32

Bicyclists 6.2 42 0.01 0.09

Older Drivers 81.2 219.6 0.17 0.46

Motorcyclists 84.6 354.4 0.18 0.74

Work Zones 17.6 82.2 0.04 0.17
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Groups of similar project types
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

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

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2015

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Median Barrier 7.2 19.2 0.02 0.04

Rural State 

Highways

212.6 552 0.45 1.16

Intersection 58.4 306.8 0.12 0.64

Shoulder 

Improvement

307.4 960.8 0.64 2.01

Other-Shoulder 

Rumble Strip

36 122.6 0.08 0.26

Year - 2015
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Systemic improvement Target 

Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Rumble Strips 36 122.6 0.08 0.26

Cable Median Barriers 7.2 19.2 0.02 0.04

Install/Improve Pavement Marking 

and/or Delineation

212.6 552 0.45 1.16

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

58.4 306.8 0.12 0.64

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 307.4 960.8 0.64 2.01

Install/Improve Signing 58.4 306.8 0.12 0.64
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

Preliminary figures for 2015 show a continuing decline in both rates and totals of fatalities and 

serious injuries statewide. The rate of serious (fatality/serious injury) collisions on the State 

highway system, where all HSIP funding is invested as of 2016, has declined in 7 of the last 8 

years. The following table shows the statistical significance of the reduction for each year, or 

alternatively the likelihood that the change in crash rate reflected a real reduction in the risk of 

serious collisions (as opposed to random variation).

Year # K,A 

Crashes HMVMT KA crash 

rate

variance of estimate 

of KA crash rate

annual 

reduction 

significance

2015 1459 290 5.031 0.0173 93.86%

2014 1509 283 5.324 0.0188 84.28%

2013 1530 277 5.522 0.0199 99.99%

2012 1728 275 6.288 0.0229 68.08%

2011 1741 273 6.389 0.0234 17.60%

2010 1666 269 6.188 0.0230 62.24%

2009 1684 269 6.255 0.0232 51.69%

2008 1660 265 6.265 0.0236 99.99%

2007 1905 268 7.103 0.0265
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ Cost 

Ratio)

None None Miscellaneous 0
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

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. 

Systematic refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

system.

Systemic safety improvement means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk 

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal 

year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.