Oregon

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: OR
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............................................................................................................. 14

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 14

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 17

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 22

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 22

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 38

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................42

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 54

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 58

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 63

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 67

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 73
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is responsible for administering Oregon’s 

Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) Program. All roads within the state of Oregon are eligible to 

receive HSIP funding under the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program.

The mission of the Highway Safety Program at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is 

to carry out highway safety improvement projects to achieve a significant reduction in traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries. For purposes of programming Highway Safety funds in the Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), all highway safety infrastructure improvement 

projects shall follow these guidelines.

The majority of the funding for the ODOT Highway Safety Program comes from the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP), which is a core federal-aid program under the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act that went into effect in December, 2015. The primary goal of the 

HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, 

including non-state owned roads and tribal roads. The HSIP also requires a data-driven and strategic 

approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. The FAST 

Act, which replaced the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), largely 

maintained the program structure of the HSIP with slight increases in funding and a change that 

disallows HSIP funds to be transferred to and used for educational and enforcement type activities. 

The HSIP funds are primarily intended for infrastructure improvement projects. Non-infrastructure 

highway safety improvements such as education and enforcement programs are administered by the 

ODOT Transportation Safety Division (TSD), and are typically funded with separate funding from 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), or state funds. 

Following the HSIP requirements, ODOT has developed a new safety program, known as the All 

Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program, which addresses safety on all public roads including 

non-state roadways. ODOT worked with the representatives from the League of Oregon Cities 

(LOC) and the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) to document principles for a jurisdictionally 

blind safety program for Oregon to address safety on all public roads of the state, which eventually 

led to the development of the ARTS Program. 

The ARTS Program is intended to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. About half of 

the fatal and serious injury crashes in the state occur on non-state roadways. By working 

collaboratively with local road jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPOs, and tribes) ODOT can expect to 

increase awareness of safety on all roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, 

complement behavioral safety efforts, and focus limited resources to reduce fatal and serious injury 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

crashes in the State of Oregon. The program is a data-driven program to achieve the greatest benefits 

in crash reduction and is blind to jurisdiction. 

Under the inaugural round of the ARTS Program, safety projects have been selected that will be 

delivered between 2017 and 2021. The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) has allocated 

approximately $31 to $37 million dollars per year to the ODOT Highway Safety Program for these 

five years (for a total of $166 million dollars) for infrastructure improvements. The majority of this 

funding will come from the federal HSIP. 

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.

Program Structure

The objective of the ARTS Program is to select the best safety projects using a jurisdictionally blind 

and data-driven approach to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious injuries on 

all roads in the state. A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported 

methods to identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway 

projects incorporate design features or elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

guardrail or improving intersection channelization, signing, and pavement markings. But appropriate 

use of HSIP funds is only for locations or corridors where a known problem exists as indicated by 

location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is determined that the specific 

project can with confidence produce a measurable and significant reduction in such fatalities or 

serious injuries. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the ARTS Program is on costeffective use of the funds allocated for safety improvements addressing fatal and serious injury 

crashes. 

The general program guidelines are as follows: 

• All projects shall address specific safety problems that contribute to fatal and serious injury crashes. 

• All projects shall use only countermeasures from the ODOT-approved countermeasure list. 

• Only the most recent available five years of ODOT-reported crashes shall be used for crash 

analysis. 

• Projects shall be prioritized based on ODOT-approved prioritization method such as Benefit-Cost 

Ratio. 

• ODOT Regions will be responsible for developing and delivering projects. 

The ARTS Program has two components – a hotspot component and a systemic component, as 

shown in Figure 2-1. The hotspot approach is the traditional approach used in safety analysis, in 

which ‘hotspot’ locations are identified based on crash history and appropriate countermeasures 

are implemented to reduce crashes. Hotspot projects typically focus on a particular location (for 

example, an intersection or a short segment of a roadway) that may have multiple causes to 

address. For the ARTS Program, a hotspot location is defined as a location that has at least one fatal 

or serious injury crash within the last five years.

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost countermeasures that can be widely 

implemented and then applies the countermeasures where there is evidence that they would be most 

useful. The HSIP places a significant emphasis on the systemic approach, which has been proven to 

successfully reduce the occurrences of fatal and serious injury crashes. The systemic component of 

the ARTS Program has been further divided into three emphasis areas – roadway departure, 

intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle. Based on 2009 through 2013 data, these three emphasis areas 

accounted for approximately 85% of the fatal and serious injury crashes in the state. 

The systemic approach originally used Section 164 penalty funds allocated to the Safety Program, 

but under the ARTS Program the systemic approach has been moved into the mainstream safety 

program equal with the hotspot approach.

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

Design
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC)

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

ODOT established a Highway Safety Engineering Committee (HSEC) on February 18, 2005 which meet 

quarterly. This committee provides a leadership forum to strategize, coordinate and direct the 

engineering-related highway safety activities and is comprised of individuals with a mix of expertise 

within the Department. Members of the committee represent the Transportation Safety Division, 

Region and Headquarters Traffic, Region Technical Centers, Region Planner, District Maintenance and 

Roadway Section. The Traffic Operations and Leadership Team (TOLT) was also established several years 

ago which provides statewide policy and procedure leadership for traffic engineering related issues.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Local Government Association

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

the last reporting period.

Other-All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS)

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

would like to elaborate.

Although not as commonly used as benefit-cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis is another tool 

that is used by ODOT for project prioritization. Rather than comparing the economic value of the 

crash reductions to the project cost, cost-effectiveness analysis compares the change in crash 

frequency due to the implementation of a countermeasure to the project cost. For Oregon’s 

pedestrian/bicycle projects under the ARTS Program, Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI) is used to 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

prioritize projects. CEI estimates the cost to reduce one crash. The lower the CEI value of a project, 

the higher it will rank in the prioritized list.

Here is a link to the ARTS program for more information 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx .

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Horizontal Curve

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Right Angle Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other-Safety Edge

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 3/27/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Median width

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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).
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Median Width 60 feet or less 

shall be closed

100

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 6/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Population

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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).

Ranking based on B/C 100

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-Crash severity (weighted at 50% of the SPIS value)

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).

Available funding 100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 6/15/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Population

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Each Region selects which roadway departure safety project to funds.

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).

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 9/20/2007

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Population Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Region Traffic offices select low cost safety projects on State Highways only

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).

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

Other-Installation date stickers 

on the backs of signs

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-Sign Reflectivity

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

No

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).

Available funding 100

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2016

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Population

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-Crash severity (weighted at 50% of the SPIS value)

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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).

Ranking based on B/C 100

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-A shoulder improvement like Safety Edge is to be installed on all paving projects with 6 feet or 

less shoulder width

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).

Available funding 100
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1996

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-Crash severity (weighted at 50% of the SPIS value)

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Region's investigate their top 5% SPIS sites and complete for safety project funding

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).

Ranking based on B/C 100

Program: Other-Safety Edge

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-Safety edge is to be 

Traffic

Volume

Functional classification
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

installed on all paving projects 

with 6 feet or less shoulder 

width

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-All ODOT paving projects with 6 feet or less shoulder width will install safety edge

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).

Available funding 100

Closing Medians on the Interstate and Non-interstate Freeways 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TECHSERV/docs/tech_bulletins/RD15-04b.pdf

Intersection Safety http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/intersections.aspx

Roadway Departure Safety Program http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFICROADWAY/pages/roadway_departure.aspx

Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) segments http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFICROADWAY/pages/spis.aspx

"Quick Fix" Safety Program for State Highways only 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/tech_bulletins/tr_07-07b.pdf
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Safety Edge at Oregon DOT 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/ResearchReports/SPR714_SafetyEdge.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ENGSERVICES/Pages/hwy_manuals.aspx#2012_English_Manual

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

50%

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other-Region Traffic Investigator's investigate the top 5% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) each year 

and identify potential cost effective countermeasures.

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Systemic Approach
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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

would like to elaborate. 

The All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program (formerly known as Jurisdictionally Blind Safety 

Program) is a safety program to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. Only by working 

collaboratively with local road jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPO’s and tribes) can ODOT expect to increase 

awareness of safety on all roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, compliment behavioral 

safety efforts and focus limited resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the state of Oregon. 

The program will be data driven to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction and should be blind to 

jurisdiction.

In late 2012 ODOT reached out to the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and the Association of Oregon Counties 

(AOC) to mutually agree upon principles for a Jurisdictionally Blind Program. The Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) documents the understanding of ODOT, LOC, and AOC reached to apply Federal 

Highway funding from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to roads managed by Oregon 

Counties and Cities.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

30 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

30 %

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$9,600,000.00 100 % $9,600,000.00 100 %

Totals $9,600,000.00 100% $9,600,000.00 100%
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

$180,000.00

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

$180,000.00

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

period?

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.

Some impediments this year to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds involve noise 

and bicycle advocates issues with the installation of shoulder rumble strips. Oregon DOT plans to 

conduct a pilot project on quieter type rumble strips (mumble strips) this year for a pilot project. If the 

results are positive, we anticipate installing them at other locations across the state. Here is a link to 

Oregon DOT YouTube video "The Sound of Safety".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adcnUwVJzhM&feature=youtu.be
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

In Oregon we had some high profile open median cross-over crashes that generated a technical bulletin 

RD15-04 to install median barrier in areas of the interstate 100 feet or less in width. The intent of the 

technical bulletin and the change to the Highway Design Manual is that by December 31, 2021 ODOT 

will have made substantial progress toward completion of closing all interstate and non-interstate 

freeway medians of 100 feet wide and less. Some of the HSIP funds were used to construct median

barrier. Here is a link to the technical bulletin 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TECHSERV/docs/tech_bulletins/RD15-04b.pdf . 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Outp

ut 

HSI

P 

Cos

t

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

George 

Millican 

Rd:OR126 

Res. Rd 

Reallign. 

(18446)

Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

72963

30

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Roadway 

Departure

Reallign 

and 

Reconstruct 

Road in 

Crook & 

Desch. Co

Eugene 

Signalized 

Intersection 

Improveme

nt (19406)

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

50098

8

Intersectio

ns

Signalized 

improveme

nts along 2 

corridors

HSIP City of 

Portland 

Bike/Ped 

(19723)

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

46919

2

City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Bicyclists Ped/Bike 

improveme

nts

HSIP 2016 

Signalized 

Improveme

nts (Portld) 

(19722)

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

77842

3

City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Signalized 

intersection 

improveme

nts
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Region 2 

Curve 

Warnings, 

Part 2 

(19095)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

65748

1

Roadway 

Departure

Added 

additional 

curve 

warning 

enhanceme

nts

Garden 

Valley 

Signal 

Upgrades, 

Douglas Co. 

(19494)

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

24985

4

Intersectio

ns

Upgrades 

Roseburg 

Signals in 

Douglas

County

Region 5 

HSIP 

Transition 

Rural 

(19509)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

58114

8

Roadway 

Departure

Installed 

curve 

warning 

signs 

w/riders

I-5 Cable 

BarrierSouther 

Oregon 

(19659)

Roadside Barrier - cable 74145 Roadway 

Departure

Installed 

cable 

barrier on I5 in Region 

3

I-5: Exit 58 

6th & 

Morgan 

Intersect. 

Align 

(17477)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

16650

0

Intersectio

ns

Constructe

d 

intersection 

realignmen

t

I-84: Baker 

Valley VSL 

2015 

(18135)

Speed management Speed 

management - other

45857

89

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Variable 

Speed Limit 

based on 

weather 

conditions
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

I-85: 

PendletonLaGrande 

VSL Old OR 

Trail 

(18994)

Speed management Speed 

management - other

61050

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Installing 

variable 

speed limit 

signs

US101: 

Johnson Crk 

0 

McTimmons 

Lane Paving 

(17474)

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

18200 State 

Highway 

Agency

Mctimmon

s lane 

paving

US101 @ NE 

Devils Lake 

Rd (17811)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

35728

57

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

OR-82: 

Joseph/wall

ow Lake 

Bike/Ped 

Improv. 

(18903)

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

69368

0

State 

Highway 

Agency

Bicycle and 

Pedestrian 

Improveme

nts

OR58: Salt 

Cr. Tunnel -

MP 70 

(17819)

Lighting Lighting - other 84434

4

Tunnel 

lighting 

improveme

nts

OR58: Black 

Canyon-Mid 

Fork 

Willamette 

R. (18616)

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

22200 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Inlay Travel 

Lanes

US26: SE 

Cesar E 

Chavez 

Roadway Roadway - other 56808

1

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Blvd-Wolf 

Dr. (18785)

OR8 @ 

OR219 

(Hillsboro) 

(18791)

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

16650

0

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

OR8 @ SE 

44th Ave. & 

SE 45th Ave 

(18793)

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

12300

0

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

OR8: 

Corridor 

Safety & 

Access to 

Transit

Non-infrastructure Noninfrastructure - other32280

0

State 

Highway 

Agency

Corridor 

Safety & 

Access to 

Transit

OR18: @ 

Christensen 

Rd (16118)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

25471

68

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

OR551: @ 

Keil Rd. 

(17812)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

23388

71

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

OR551: @ 

Ehlen Rd. 

(18664)

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

31524

0

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

OR126: 

Eugene -

Florence 

Safety 

Improvment 

(19661)

Roadside Roadside - other 11100

00

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-84 & I-205 

Barrier 

Installation 

Roadside Barrier - other 49127

18

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Barrier 

Installation
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

(19691)

OR224 

(Clackamas 

Hwy): SE 

232nd Dr. 

(17716)

Miscellaneous 8460 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

OR34 Safety

Improveme

nts, I-5 to 

Corvallis 

(19662)

Roadside Roadside - other 33300

0

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Region 5 

Curve 

Warning 

Signs 2016 

(18984)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

10212

0

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

update 

Curve 

Warning 

Signs

City of 

Salem 

Signalized 

Intersection 

Improveme

nts

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

72816 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Signalized 

intersection 

improveme

nts

US30 

(Astoria) & 

OR99W 

Signal 

Upgrade 

(18665)

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

14208

0

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

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 379.2 355.6 335 330.8 356.6

Number of serious injuries 1585.2 1530.6 1437.2 1490.2 1540.6

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.12 1.06 1 0.98 0.79

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 4.682 4.568 4.282 4.422 3.602

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

23
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

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

15.8 40 0.41 1.02

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

60.6 161.8 1.43 4.28

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

33.2 107.2 1.71 5.46

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

8.6 36

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

39.8 136.8 2.07 7.02

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

16.6 58 1.01 3.52

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

7 44 0.14 0.96

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

1.6 16.6 0.12 1.26
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

41.8 266.8 0.85 5.44

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

21.6 183.4 0.57 4.78

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

14.6 93.8 0.62 3.98

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

6.2 50.4 0.29 2.34
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 187.2 654.4 0.96 3.34

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 69.2 217.6

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 144 420

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

1 2.4

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 1 0.4
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

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

ODOT's Roadway Departure investment projects appear to be working given that in most other 

categories in the data show increases or staying relative level but the Roadway Departure 

fatalities and injury A's have gone down. Over the last 5 years, ODOT has invested 

approximately $47 million to focus on developing safety project to reduce Roadway Departure 

crashes.

 Oregon Highways, Fatalities and Serious Injuries 2006-2013

Public Roads by Jurisdiction State Highways Urban Non-State Streets Rural NonState Roads All Roadways

 Average Per VMT* Average Per 

VMT* Average Per VMT* Average Per VMT*

All F&A 

Crashes 998 4.82 588 8.23 414 5.79 

 1,999 5.88 

Roadway Departure 

F&A 455 2.24 120 1.68 290 4.06 865 

 2.54 

Intersections 

F&A 250 1.15 300 4.20 60 0.84 

 611 1.80 

Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

F&A 86 0.41 136 1.90 16 0.22 237 

0.70

*Fatalities and serious injuries per hundred million vehicle miles traveled (non-state VMT is 42% 

of total, best estimate is that it is 

almost evenly split between urban and rural) 

Non-state VMT = 142.85

Oregon Highways, Fatalities and Serious Injuries 2010-2014
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

Public Roads by Jurisdiction State Highways Urban Non-State Streets Rural NonState Roads All Roadways

 Average Per VMT* Average Per 

VMT* Average Per VMT* Average Per VMT*

All F&A 

Crashes 908 4.44 547 7.73 367 5.19 

 1,822 5.40

Roadway Departure 

F&A 395 1.96 118 1.66 257 3.62 769 

 2.28 

Intersections 

F&A 248 1.17 293 4.14 55 0.77 

 596 1.77

Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

F&A 88 0.43 131 1.85 15 0.21 234 

0.69 

*Fatalities and serious injuries per hundred million vehicle miles traveled (non-state VMT is 42% 

of total, best estimate is that it is 

almost evenly split between urban and rural)

Non-state VMT = 141.58

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) 0.054 0.072 0.088 0.088 0.088

Serious injury rate (per 0.136 0.194 0.252 0.256 0.266
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

capita)

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.19 0.266 0.34 0.344 0.354

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

40

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

Yes

If yes, describe the approach to include respective strategies to address the increase in those rates in 

the State SHSP.

In the draft Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan 2016, on page 6-25 under Table 6.12 Older Road 

Users Actions states the following:

Tier 1

Action: Identify risk factors for older drivers and implement treatments, within current law.
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Co-Benefits: Data

Tier 2

Action: Identify risk factors for older walkers and implement treatments, within current law.

Co-Benefits: Pedestrians, Data
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

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?

Benefit/cost

If 'benefit/cost', indicate the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program benefit/cost ratio.

All of our ODOT safety projects have a B/C ratio of 1.0 or greater or is on the top 10% Safety Priority 

Index System (SPIS) list that is run each year. Our Region Traffic Investigator's investigate these top SPIS 

sites for safety countermeasure to improve or elimate the crash problems.

Policy change

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

Several policy changes regarding the use of safety edge, rumble strips, curve warning signs and median 

barrier have been implemented to improve our continued focus on reducing fatal and serious injury 

crashes.

Other-At ODOT, we currently look at a 3 year before and after study on our safety projects.

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

Other-The development of the All Roads Transportation System (ARTS)

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

The All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program is a safety program that addresses safety 

needs on all public roads in Oregon. Only by working collaboratively with local road jurisdictions 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

(cities, counties, MPO’s and tribes) can ODOT expect to increase awareness of safety on all 

roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, compliment behavioral safety efforts 

and focus limited resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the state of Oregon. 

This program uses a data-driven approach that is blind to jurisdiction to achieve the greatest 

benefits in crash reduction.

All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS)

Background

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is moving towards a safety program for 

addressing all public roads in Oregon. ODOT met with representatives from the League of 

Oregon Cities (LOC) and the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) to discuss the need for 

addressing safety on all roads in Oregon. The outcome of the meetings was a Memorandum of 

Understanding detailing the principles and purpose of the program. The result is the All Roads 

Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program.

The ARTS Program is intended to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. About half 

the fatal and serious injuries occur on non-state roadways. By working collaboratively with local 

road jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPO’s and tribes) can ODOT expect to increase awareness of 

safety on all roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, complement behavioral 

safety efforts and focus limited resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the state 

of Oregon. The program will be data driven to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction 

and will be blind to jurisdiction.

Purpose

The ARTS program primarily uses federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP). The principles and purpose of ARTS and HSIP are:

• The program goal is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.

• The program must include all public roads.

• The program is data driven and blind to jurisdiction.

• The process will be overseen by ODOT Regions.

• Both traditional “hot spot” methodology and systemic methodology will be used.

Criteria

The objective of ARTS and HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious 

injuries. A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods 

to identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway projects 

incorporate design features or elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating 

guardrail or improvements to intersection channelization, signing and pavement markings. But 

appropriate use of HSIP funds is only for locations or corridors where a known problem exists as 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

indicated by location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is 

determined that the specific project can with confidence produce a measurable and significant 

reduction in such fatalities or serious injuries. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the 

ARTS program is on cost effective use of the funds allocated for safety improvements 

addressing fatal and serious injury crashes.

All Projects shall:

• Address a specific Safety problem contributing to fatalities and serious injuries

• Use proposed countermeasures that correct or substantially improve the fatal and 

serious injury problem

• Use ODOT crash data to establish the Benefit/Cost ratio

• Use ODOT Benefit Cost method

• Be prioritized or categorized based on the Benefit/Cost Ratio for developing the 150% 

list

• Use only countermeasures from the approved ODOT Crash Reduction Factor list (a 

written process will be developed for considering new measures)

• Projects must include written support from the Road Jurisdiction if the project is 

proposed by another agency

• Benefit Costs will be based on the most recent available three to five years of crash data

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hot spot” locations, and then identify 

measures to implement by diagnosing the “hot spot”.

Hot Spot Projects shall:

• Address a location with a crash history of at least one fatal or serious injury crash within 

the last five years

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, 

then implements the measures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The 

systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious 

injury crashes. The sites may be selected from ODOT’s list of priority corridors for Roadway 

Departure, Intersections or Pedestrian/Bicycle crashes.

Systemic Projects shall:

• Use only approved “Systemic” countermeasures as listed in the Crash Reduction factors 

list

• Not require the acquisition of significant amounts of right of way (more than 10% of 

project costs), preferably no right of way.

• For the Pedestrian and Bicycle Benefit Cost Analysis, use Highway Safety Manual 

methods to estimate predicted crashes for pedestrians and bicycles.

Systemic Projects should:
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

• Have a history of fatal or serious injury crashes or a risk of high severity crashes and 

preferably used on priority corridors from Systemic plans. 

Transition

To bridge the gap between no funding for non-state roads and the ARTS program, $16 million in 

funding for the “Transition” (2014-2016) was allocated, primarily to focus on a few systemic low 

cost fixes that can be implemented in the shorter timeframe on non-state roads.

Funding

The Safety funds are split to each region based on the amount of fatalities and serious injuries 

occurring in the region on all public roads. Regions will be required to spend a minimum of 50% 

of their funding on Systemic projects. 

Systemic funding is intended to be used for Roadway Departure, Intersections and 

Pedestrian/Bicycle type projects. At the statewide level the split in F&A between Roadway 

Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike is about 40%/40%/20% respectively. Regions will be 

given the flexibility to determine the appropriate splits between systemic types of projects for 

their regions. It is suggested: 

• That at least one project per year be developed for each type, if possible.

• Region splits of systemic funds for each systemic type be roughly equivalent to the 

proportion of F&A occurring in the region

Funding is eligible to be used for approved countermeasures as long as those countermeasures 

provide an improvement to reducing fatal and serious injury crashes and are prioritized through 

the ARTS data driven process. Other elements may be added to the project beyond those 

prioritized in the ARTS process, but must be funded by other sources, not safety funds. Safety 

funds may be used to include or replace elements that are necessary, such as non-compliant 

ADA ramps and pavement marking that is removed, but those elements must be included in the 

cost of the project and part of the prioritization process.

Process

There will be two separate processes used, one for Hot Spot projects and a different one for 

Systemic projects. ODOT Regions will meet with local jurisdictions within the Region and share 

the program purpose and the details of both processes. ODOT will distribute data on Hot Spots 

and Systemic Plans to help determine potential locations for improvement.

The process for Hot Spots projects will consist of each ODOT region developing a draft list of 

potential projects for all roads including both state highways and non-state highways. The 

Regions will share the draft list with the agencies to engage local jurisdictions in collaboration 

to look for gaps or missing potential projects. The agencies will be given the opportunity to 

submit projects with justification that it meets the program purpose. The number of submittals 

should be limited because of limited funds. Regions will categorize projects based on the 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

project’s ability to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and the benefit cost of the project, 

and finalize a draft list for field scoping.

The process for Systemic projects will be an application process. Each jurisdiction, including 

ODOT, will be invited to submit projects for systemic improvements from a large list of low cost 

proven countermeasures. These submittals will be for three systemic categories of funding, 

roadway departure, intersections and pedestrian/bicycle. Regions will check all applications for 

program purpose and correctness, working with the submitting agencies when necessary in 

order to develop a potential list of projects. The intent is that the ODOT Regions will refine the 

list of submitted projects and desk scope about a 150% list. The ODOT Regions will prioritize 

the project list based on program purpose of reducing fatal and serious injuries and benefit 

cost, in order to finalize a draft list for field scoping.

Once the refined lists are ready, all projects (both hot spot and systemic) will go through a 

multi-discipline assessment to verify the solution. A multi-disciplinary team, including the 

owner of the facility, will assure the best countermeasure is chosen to mitigate fatal and 

serious injury crashes. The project will also be scoped to verify the costs and any possible 

barrier to implementation. A finalized list of prioritized projects can then be produced with the 

best solution and the best cost.

Once the list is prioritized and a final 100% list is produced ODOT Region’s will work with 

Jurisdictions to determine the delivery methods, delivering agency and timelines (applicable 

funding year). For projects involving local agencies, the ODOT Regions will work with 

Jurisdictions to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement. The delivering agency will be 

accountable for timely and fiscally responsible delivery.

Timing of the Process

The process for ARTS project selection will run concurrently with the new Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) development process for the 2018-2021 STIP 

scheduled to begin in late 2014. The process will include funding for 2017-2018 projects (in the 

current STIP) as well as 2019-2021 funding (in the new STIP), five years’ of funding in all. The 

draft STIP list should be complete by the end of March 2015.

Federal Match

The Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) currently requires a 7.78% match for 

projects. During the Transition ODOT committed to 100% funding for most projects to assist 

local agency participation in the program because of a lack of advance notice. Within the ARTS 

program ODOT will require participating agencies to contribute match to the project. This will 

require local agencies to come up with the 7.78% non-federal cash match. If the local agency 

fails to identify local matching funds, the local agency and ODOT Region staff should work 

together to develop a funding plan for local match subject to Highway Administrator approval.
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program

Funding subdivided to Regions based on F&A

Regions meet with LPA’s to share program purpose and goals

Regions share data with Local Agencies

Hot Spot Process Systemic Process

ODOT Regions draft potential list of projects All Agencies submit applications for Systemic 

funds

ODOT shares list with LPAs Draft list based on B/C

LPAs given opportunity to submit additional 

projects

ODOT Regions desk scope 150% list

ODOT refine list ODOT Regions refine B/C

Finalize scoping list Finalize scoping list

Final Steps

Multi-disciplinary Assessment of projects to verify solution

Field scoping to verify cost

Finalize B/C

Finalize priority and 100% list with LPA’s

Regions determine delivery methods and timelines

Regions work on IGA

Responsible agency develops and delivers project

Timeline of events for ARTS:

• ODOT met with AOC and LOC in 2012.

• ODOT signed Memorandum of Understanding with AOC and LOC in February 2013

• Introduced the ARTS program in April 2013.

• Held meetings with local jurisdictions to discuss a transition process in May 2013.

• Completed project selection for the Transition in the fall of 2013.

• Scope Transition projects in summer and fall of 2014.

• Begin Transition project development in 2014 through 2015. 

• Transition Projects should begin construction in 2015 through 2016.

• Funding for the ARTS process was reserved in Regions budgets for 2017-2018.

• In 2014 ODOT works to develop the ARTS process.

• Regions will meet with Local Agencies to discuss program purpose and goals starting the 

fall of 2014.
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

• ODOT Regions use ARTS process to develop project lists in collaboration with local 

agencies, starting in fall of 2014. 

• Field scoping beginning approximately April of 2015

• Final lists for STIP due March 2016 (following closely with the STIP development process

for the 2018-2021 STIP).

• Amend 2015-2018 STIP with Safety projects for 2017 and 2018 (anticipate this can be 

done in mid-2015).

• Follow 2018-2021 STIP process to incorporate Safety projects for 2019, 2020 and 2021 

(anticipated to be complete in 2017).

• Delivery timeline of individual projects dependent on schedule, funding and responsible 

agency (anticipate agencies will complete PS&E in the funding year).

The All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program is a safety program that addresses safety 

needs on all public roads in Oregon. Only by working collaboratively with local road jurisdictions 

(cities, counties, MPO’s and tribes) can ODOT expect to increase awareness of safety on all 

roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, compliment behavioral safety efforts 

and focus limited resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the state of Oregon. 

This program uses a data-driven approach that is blind to jurisdiction to achieve the greatest 

benefits in crash reduction.

All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS)

Background

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is moving towards a safety program for 

addressing all public roads in Oregon. ODOT met with representatives from the League of 

Oregon Cities (LOC) and the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) to discuss the need for 

addressing safety on all roads in Oregon. The outcome of the meetings was a Memorandum of 

Understanding detailing the principles and purpose of the program. The result is the All Roads 

Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program.

The ARTS Program is intended to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. About half 

the fatal and serious injuries occur on non-state roadways. By working collaboratively with local 

road jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPO’s and tribes) can ODOT expect to increase awareness of 

safety on all roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, complement behavioral 

safety efforts and focus limited resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the state 

of Oregon. The program will be data driven to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction 

and will be blind to jurisdiction.

Purpose
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

The ARTS program primarily uses federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP). The principles and purpose of ARTS and HSIP are:

• The program goal is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.

• The program must include all public roads.

• The program is data driven and blind to jurisdiction.

• The process will be overseen by ODOT Regions.

• Both traditional “hot spot” methodology and systemic methodology will be used.

Criteria

The objective of ARTS and HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and serious 

injuries. A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data supported methods 

to identify the best possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. Many highway projects 

incorporate design features or elements that relate to highway safety, such as updating 

guardrail or improvements to intersection channelization, signing and pavement markings. But 

appropriate use of HSIP funds is only for locations or corridors where a known problem exists as 

indicated by location-specific data on fatalities and serious injuries, and/or where it is 

determined that the specific project can with confidence produce a measurable and significant 

reduction in such fatalities or serious injuries. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the 

ARTS program is on cost effective use of the funds allocated for safety improvements 

addressing fatal and serious injury crashes.

All Projects shall:

• Address a specific Safety problem contributing to fatalities and serious injuries

• Use proposed countermeasures that correct or substantially improve the fatal and 

serious injury problem

• Use ODOT crash data to establish the Benefit/Cost ratio

• Use ODOT Benefit Cost method

• Be prioritized or categorized based on the Benefit/Cost Ratio for developing the 150% 

list

• Use only countermeasures from the approved ODOT Crash Reduction Factor list (a 

written process will be developed for considering new measures)

• Projects must include written support from the Road Jurisdiction if the project is 

proposed by another agency

• Benefit Costs will be based on the most recent available three to five years of crash data

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hot spot” locations, and then identify 

measures to implement by diagnosing the “hot spot”.

Hot Spot Projects shall:
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

• Address a location with a crash history of at least one fatal or serious injury crash within 

the last five years

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely implemented, 

then implements the measures where there is evidence that they would be most useful. The 

systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the occurrence of fatal and serious 

injury crashes. The sites may be selected from ODOT’s list of priority corridors for Roadway 

Departure, Intersections or Pedestrian/Bicycle crashes.

Systemic Projects shall:

• Use only approved “Systemic” countermeasures as listed in the Crash Reduction factors 

list

• Not require the acquisition of significant amounts of right of way (more than 10% of 

project costs), preferably no right of way.

• For the Pedestrian and Bicycle Benefit Cost Analysis, use Highway Safety Manual 

methods to estimate predicted crashes for pedestrians and bicycles.

Systemic Projects should:

• Have a history of fatal or serious injury crashes or a risk of high severity crashes and 

preferably used on priority corridors from Systemic plans. 

Transition

To bridge the gap between no funding for non-state roads and the ARTS program, $16 million in 

funding for the “Transition” (2014-2016) was allocated, primarily to focus on a few systemic low 

cost fixes that can be implemented in the shorter timeframe on non-state roads.

Funding

The Safety funds are split to each region based on the amount of fatalities and serious injuries 

occurring in the region on all public roads. Regions will be required to spend a minimum of 50% 

of their funding on Systemic projects. 

Systemic funding is intended to be used for Roadway Departure, Intersections and 

Pedestrian/Bicycle type projects. At the statewide level the split in F&A between Roadway 

Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike is about 40%/40%/20% respectively. Regions will be 

given the flexibility to determine the appropriate splits between systemic types of projects for 

their regions. It is suggested: 

• That at least one project per year be developed for each type, if possible.

• Region splits of systemic funds for each systemic type be roughly equivalent to the 

proportion of F&A occurring in the region

Funding is eligible to be used for approved countermeasures as long as those countermeasures 

provide an improvement to reducing fatal and serious injury crashes and are prioritized through 

the ARTS data driven process. Other elements may be added to the project beyond those 
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

prioritized in the ARTS process, but must be funded by other sources, not safety funds. Safety 

funds may be used to include or replace elements that are necessary, such as non-compliant 

ADA ramps and pavement marking that is removed, but those elements must be included in the 

cost of the project and part of the prioritization process.

Process

There will be two separate processes used, one for Hot Spot projects and a different one for 

Systemic projects. ODOT Regions will meet with local jurisdictions within the Region and share 

the program purpose and the details of both processes. ODOT will distribute data on Hot Spots 

and Systemic Plans to help determine potential locations for improvement.

The process for Hot Spots projects will consist of each ODOT region developing a draft list of 

potential projects for all roads including both state highways and non-state highways. The 

Regions will share the draft list with the agencies to engage local jurisdictions in collaboration 

to look for gaps or missing potential projects. The agencies will be given the opportunity to 

submit projects with justification that it meets the program purpose. The number of submittals 

should be limited because of limited funds. Regions will categorize projects based on the 

project’s ability to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and the benefit cost of the project, 

and finalize a draft list for field scoping.

The process for Systemic projects will be an application process. Each jurisdiction, including 

ODOT, will be invited to submit projects for systemic improvements from a large list of low cost 

proven countermeasures. These submittals will be for three systemic categories of funding, 

roadway departure, intersections and pedestrian/bicycle. Regions will check all applications for 

program purpose and correctness, working with the submitting agencies when necessary in 

order to develop a potential list of projects. The intent is that the ODOT Regions will refine the 

list of submitted projects and desk scope about a 150% list. The ODOT Regions will prioritize 

the project list based on program purpose of reducing fatal and serious injuries and benefit 

cost, in order to finalize a draft list for field scoping.

Once the refined lists are ready, all projects (both hot spot and systemic) will go through a 

multi-discipline assessment to verify the solution. A multi-disciplinary team, including the 

owner of the facility, will assure the best countermeasure is chosen to mitigate fatal and 

serious injury crashes. The project will also be scoped to verify the costs and any possible 

barrier to implementation. A finalized list of prioritized projects can then be produced with the 

best solution and the best cost.

Once the list is prioritized and a final 100% list is produced ODOT Region’s will work with 

Jurisdictions to determine the delivery methods, delivering agency and timelines (applicable 

funding year). For projects involving local agencies, the ODOT Regions will work with 

Jurisdictions to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement. The delivering agency will be 

accountable for timely and fiscally responsible delivery.
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Timing of the Process

The process for ARTS project selection will run concurrently with the new Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) development process for the 2018-2021 STIP 

scheduled to begin in late 2014. The process will include funding for 2017-2018 projects (in the 

current STIP) as well as 2019-2021 funding (in the new STIP), five years’ of funding in all. The 

draft STIP list should be complete by the end of March 2015.

Federal Match

The Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) currently requires a 7.78% match for 

projects. During the Transition ODOT committed to 100% funding for most projects to assist 

local agency participation in the program because of a lack of advance notice. Within the ARTS 

program ODOT will require participating agencies to contribute match to the project. This will 

require local agencies to come up with the 7.78% non-federal cash match. If the local agency 

fails to identify local matching funds, the local agency and ODOT Region staff should work 

together to develop a funding plan for local match subject to Highway Administrator approval.

All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program

Funding subdivided to Regions based on F&A

Regions meet with LPA’s to share program purpose and goals

Regions share data with Local Agencies

Hot Spot Process Systemic Process

ODOT Regions draft potential list of projects All Agencies submit applications for Systemic 

funds

ODOT shares list with LPAs Draft list based on B/C

LPAs given opportunity to submit additional 

projects

ODOT Regions desk scope 150% list

ODOT refine list ODOT Regions refine B/C

Finalize scoping list Finalize scoping list

Final Steps

Multi-disciplinary Assessment of projects to verify solution

Field scoping to verify cost

Finalize B/C

Finalize priority and 100% list with LPA’s

Regions determine delivery methods and timelines

Regions work on IGA

Responsible agency develops and delivers project

Timeline of events for ARTS:
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

• ODOT met with AOC and LOC in 2012.

• ODOT signed Memorandum of Understanding with AOC and LOC in February 2013

• Introduced the ARTS program in April 2013.

• Held meetings with local jurisdictions to discuss a transition process in May 2013.

• Completed project selection for the Transition in the fall of 2013.

• Scope Transition projects in summer and fall of 2014.

• Begin Transition project development in 2014 through 2015. 

• Transition Projects should begin construction in 2015 through 2016.

• Funding for the ARTS process was reserved in Regions budgets for 2017-2018.

• In 2014 ODOT works to develop the ARTS process.

• Regions will meet with Local Agencies to discuss program purpose and goals starting the 

fall of 2014.

• ODOT Regions use ARTS process to develop project lists in collaboration with local 

agencies, starting in fall of 2014. 

• Field scoping beginning approximately April of 2015

• Final lists for STIP due March 2016 (following closely with the STIP development process 

for the 2018-2021 STIP).

• Amend 2015-2018 STIP with Safety projects for 2017 and 2018 (anticipate this can be 

done in mid-2015).

• Follow 2018-2021 STIP process to incorporate Safety projects for 2019, 2020 and 2021 

(anticipated to be complete in 2017).

• Delivery timeline of individual projects dependent on schedule, funding and responsible 

agency (anticipate agencies will complete PS&E in the funding year).

erte5ter
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 181.4 587.6 0.54 1.74

Intersections All 63.8 531.8 0.19 1.58

Pedestrians Pedestrian 55.4 110.8 0.16 0.33

Bicyclists Bicycle 8.4 59.2 0.02 0.18

Motorcyclists Motorcycle 42.5 204.6 0.13 0.61

Work Zones All 7.2 17.4 0.02 0.05
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Groups of similar project types
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway 

Departure

Run-offroad181.4 587.6 0.54 1.74

Intersection All 63.8 531.8 0.19 1.58
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Systemic Treatments
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2015

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Rumble Strips Run-offroad1
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

ODOT's Highway Safety Improvement program in 2012 to present, has aggressively targeted systemic 

treatments by dedicating $9.5 million each year of 164 penalty funds to be spent on safety projects to 

reduce roadway departure crashes. We have technical bulletins regarding the use and installation of 

rumble strips, median barrier and safety edge (which is now incorporated into ODOT's Highway Design 

Manual).

In May 2016 we signed a contract with Portland State University (PSU) to conduct a "Wrong way driving 

analysis and recommendations" focused primarily on I-5 in our southwest region of Oregon.

ODOT's Region 1 Traffic office in Portland is working on developing our first high friction surface 

treatment safety project which should be ready for construction next year.
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

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)

US 199 @ 

Josephine County 

Fairgrounds (key 

no. 12715)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Signal removal, 

Paving and 

Signing

6 7 13 1 1 2

FFO - US 730: 

Irrigon - Diagonal 

Rd Section (key 

no. 13607)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

3 44 58 105 3 66 41 110
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

US 26: 

Rhododendron -

MP 49.20 Section 

(key no. 13716)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening -

travel lanes

1 3 10 15 29 1 13 7 21

OR213: Cascade 

Hwy S. (Milk Cr. 

Br.) Mulino 

Section (key no. 

13723)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

2 12 18 32 3 2 5

US 199: Dowell 

Rd to Rogue 

Community 

College (key no. 

14019)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians 

and bicyclists

3 2 84 81 170 1 2 54 31 88

OR99E @ Belle 

Passi Road 

Section (key no. 

14755)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

9 8 17 1 5 4 10
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

FFO - US26 @ 

Gumwood Lane 

(Madras) Section 

(key no. 14936)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or 

shoulder

2 5 7 1 2 1 4

US30: 

Swedetown Road 

- Jct OR-47 

Section (key no. 

15530)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

9 1 10 6 9 15

Blackwell Road: 

Road Realign MP 

2.0 - 3.0 (key no. 

15780)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Alignment Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

1 1 2 2 3 5

I-5 Cable Median 

Barrier (Lane 

County) Section 

(key no. 16123)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 2 7 138 219 366 6 6 117 81 210
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

OR35: Cooper 

Spur Rd. - Neal 

Creek Rd. Section 

(key no. 16153)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Pavement 

surface -

miscellaneous

1 1 2 4 2 4 3 9

FFO - OR39: 

Matney - Merrill 

N. City Limits 

Section (key no. 

16200)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add right-turn

lane

1 1 13 17 32 1 18 13 32

OR: ScottsburgWells Cr. Curve 

Realignment (key 

no. 16207)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Pavement 

surface -

miscellaneous

1 1 4 4

FFO - US26: MT 

Hood Jct. To 

Wapinitia Jct. 

Section (key no. 

16251)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Roadway Pavement 

surface -

miscellaneous

2 2 13 32 49 3 4 23 28 58
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

I-205: SE Foster 

Rd. - SE 82nd Dr. 

Section (key no. 

16847)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 4 280 283 567 1 9 374 241 625

I-5: Elkhead RdSutherlin Paving 

and Climbing 

Lanes (key no. 

16971)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadway Roadway 

widening -

travel lanes

2 9 11 22 2 6 11 19
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 Oregon Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

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.