Wisconsin

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

Prepared by: WI
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.............................................................................................................................. 6

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 18

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 18

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 22

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 33

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 33

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 48

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

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 51

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 56

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 61

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 69
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The following report outlines the details of projects obligated in SFY2014 for Wisconsin's Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP). Also included are program methodologies, historical crash data and safety 

trends, information on subprograms, and project evaluation data.
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

with the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

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

HSIP applications from local governments are solicited by the Regions as part of the regular HSIP 

Program. All applications derived from local governments are selected and submitted voluntarily by local 

governments. Projects on the local system or sponsored by local governments must meet the same 

requirements and follow the same process as HSIP applications submitted by WisDOT Regions for 

improvements on the State Trunk Network. Exceptions to this equal competition requirement are local 

projects identified on the Local 5% Report. Local 5% Report projects follow a different set of 

requirements that streamline the approval process and allows the state's most severe locations to be 

addressed appropriately. The Local 5% Report was not continued in SFY2014 due to its elimination in 
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

MAP-21. There are, however, projects currently programmed within the HSIP that were identified and 

programmed via the Local 5% Report process.

In addition, Wisconsin has continued moving forward in implementing a data-driven High Risk Rural 

Roads Program (HRRRP) despite its formal elimination in MAP-21. Wisconsin has developed a statewide 

data analysis methodology allows the focused use of safety funding to improve eligible segments on 

county rural roads exhibiting particular run-off-road non-intersection crash issues. A primary goal of the 

HRRRP is to install low-cost safety treatments on these roadways to mitigate KA crash rates as quickly as 

possible. It is unlikely these county trunk highways would receive federal investments outside of the 

HRRRP. In SFY 2014, seven projects with estimated costs totaling approximately $1M were approved for 

various of years of the HSIP on county highway systems throughout the state.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The HSIP Program is managed by WisDOT's Division of Transportation Investment Management (DTIM) 

and the Bureau of State of Highway Programs (BSHP). DTIM/BSHP makes all final application approvals 

or denials and related project change or cost increase requests. However, DTIM/BSHP coordinates its 

efforts with several internal partners that both directly and indirectly influence the decision making 

process. Below is a summary of these partners and their role in the program.

- Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV): DMV receives, edits, and maintains all law enforcement crash report 

files.
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

- Traffic Safety Council (TSC): The TSC is comprised of representatives from Division of Transportation 

System Development (DTSD), DTIM, DMV, Division of State Patrol (DSP), and various Executive Offices. 

This group is charged with developing and maintaining the Wisconsin Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP), which helps guide the safety efforts of the HSIP Program. The TSC's primary effort in SFY2014 

was updating the Stragetic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) for approval by the WisDOT Secretary within the 

2014 calendar year. Notably, the TSC held a SHSP Peer Exchange in October of 2013 and subsequently 

facilitated the activities of issue area task forces. These issue area task forces developed SHSP language 

and statewide safety goals that reach beyond the realm of WisDOT and into the activities of local 

governments, court systems, law enforcement agencies, non-profits, and advocacy agencies statewide 

to communicate the intergovernmental, interdisciplinary, and comprehensive approaches required to 

increase transportation safety statwide. The most recent SHSP document was approved the 

Transportation Secretary in July of 2011. The revised SHSP is pending approval as of June 2014.

- Safety Engineer Executive Group (SEEG): This is a high-level group comprised of representatives from 

DTSD and DTIM management. Its focus is to identify safety trends and issues to develop and offer 

direction and initiatives to both the HSIP Program and the TSC on important safety engineering issues 

throughout the state. For example, the SEEG played a critical role in expanding WisDOT's Cross Median 

Crash (CMC) Initiative in the spring of 2014. By approving a change in the definition of CMC crashes to 

include single vehicle crashes and expanding crash rate warrants, SEEG enabled additional opportunities 

for projects to be constructed to address CMC problem areas across the state.

- Traffic Safety Engineering Workgroup (TSEWG): TSEWG is comprised of the State HSIP Coordinator, 

State Traffic Safety Engineer, and the Regional Traffic Safety Engineers. In some cases, the Regional HSIP 

Coordinators also participate. This group identifies and evaluates potential safety initiatives both within 

and outside of the HSIP Program, provides peer support, and reviews proposed HSIP projects. After a 

group evaluation, a recommendation to approve or not approve is forwarded to the State HSIP 

Coordinator for final review.

- State Project Oversight Engineers: The State Project Oversight Engineers are a critical component of 

the joint process with the TSEWG for application review and approval. The DTSD State Project Oversight 

Engineers, Regional Traffic Safety Engineers, the State Traffic Safety Engineer, and the State HSIP 

Coordinator will provide a consensus approval or disapproval of HSIP funding after a comprehensive inperson peer review. Each Region has one Project Oversight Engineer. State Project Oversight Engineers 

only review applications originating from the Region in which they are assigned. This consensus approval 

or disapproval is advisory to DTIM/BSHP.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Local Government Association

Other: Other-University of Wisconsin-Madison's Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory (UW TOPS 

Lab)

Other: Other-FHWA

Other: Other-LTAP/Individual counties and municipalities

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Revised Program Management Manual/HSIP Guidelines

- Revised Program Management Manual/HSIP Guidelines: Efforts were made to significantly revise the 

FHWA-approved HSIP Guidelines within WisDOT's Program Management Manual (PMM). The previous 

version evolved over a period of years without a cohesive edit, resulting in a confusing and disorganized 

document that failed to address, in writing, many nuances of HSIP program management. BSHP revised 

the document, reorganized its layout, authored completely new sections, and offered cross references 

to increase its usability and relevance within daily HSIP operations. The target audience of the revised 

document includes Region HSIP Coordinators and Central Office staff. FHWA approved these new HSIP 

Guidelines on 4.14.2014.

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

would like to elaborate.

WisDOT makes continuous efforts to strengthen the administration and implementation of the HSIP 

Program. Several changes made since the last reporting period include, but are not limited to:
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

1. Revision of the FHWA-approved HSIP Guidelines within WisDOT's Program Management Manual

2. Simplification of the scope change application process so project sponsors can better plan and 

prepare for various project delivery scenarios

3. Introduction of the Locations of Interest Report (LOIR) and the implementation of B-level crash 

severities within the statewide safety screening process

4. Introduction of a new requirement for project sponsors to submit a Scoping Intersection Control 

Evaluation (ICE) on applicable projects as part of the standard HSIP application document to better align 

with existing statewide policies within the Facilities Development Manual (FDM).

5. Increase of the companion funding source/copay concept rule within WisDOT's HSIP Guidelines from 

$1.5M to $1.7M.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Beam Guard Other: Other-High Risk Rural 

Roads

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2005

 

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

7

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-All CMC Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

8

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Non-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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

CMC crash rate threshold 2

Program: Other-Beam Guard

Date of Program Methodology: 8/22/2011

 
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Guardrail end 

inventory

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Other-Guardrail end inventory
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Non-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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Other-High Risk Rural Roads
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-All ROR Crashes Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Ranking by filtered KA crash 

rate method

1

Local support of process 2

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

4

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Other: Other-County Traffic Safety Commission recommendations

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-No change

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

would like to elaborate. 

Project Evaluation Factor (PEF)

The PEF is a tool for ranking the relative merits of a group of projects, and should not be compared to a 

benefit/cost analysis.

Accident reduction benefits are one of the elements needed to justify infrastructure projects for the 

HSIP program. Establishing value associated with loss of life and quality of life is obviously very 

challenging. When developing values related to various types of crashes, it is necessary to consider, 

among other things, the available data regarding crash values, the relative causes of different types of 

crashes and the ability of traditional treatment options to address safety issues. Following identification 

of crash problems, and treatment solutions, projects are compared on a relative basis so that funding 

decisions can be made.
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

The following values per crash are to be used in the Excel spreadsheet program for estimating various 

types of crash reductions:

Property damage crashes (Type PDO) $10,000

Possible injury (Type C) crashes $50,000

Non-incapacitating injury (Type B) crashes $200,000

Incapacitating injury (Type A) crashes $200,000

Multiple incapacitating injury (Type A) crashes $230,000

Each incapacitating (Type A) crash in combination with one or more Fatal (Type K) crashes $230,000

Fatal (Type K) crash $200,000

Multiple fatal (Type K) crashes $250,000

The "Multiple incapacitating injury (Type A) crashes," "Each incapacitating injury (Type A) crash in 

combination with one or more Fatal crash/es," and "Multiple fatal crashes" crash severity values are 

triggered if the multiple or combination scenarios occur at any point throughout the required five year 

analysis period.

The current values used within the PEF calculation are influenced by the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 

developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The 

above crash severity values are adjusted to approximate 2011 dollars using the Consumer Price Index, 

correlating to the most recent year of available crash data.

Although Wisconsin designs solutions to reduce all crashes, a number of targeted engineering, 

educational and enforcement efforts have been implemented with the defined goal of reducing crashes 

involving serious injuries and fatalities. Because of this focus on reducing serious injuries and fatalities, 

the PEF scoring mechanism assigns higher values to reoccuring Type A and Fatal crashes.

An Excel spreadsheet program is available that performs a safety project analysis and computes the PEF. 

It should be used for all standard HSIP projects, except for minor installations of safety hardware, such 

as beam guard, impact attenuators, etc. Operational costs should be included in the computations for 

signal projects. It is critical that appropriate crash reduction factors are used to calculate PEFs. More 

information on the use of reduction factors is below.

Projects require a PEF of 1.0 or greater for approval. However, the HSIP Review Committee 

acknowledges the PEF contains many variables and that sometimes additional expense is needed to 
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

sufficiently address a safety issue. As such, the HSIP Review Committee can consider applications with a 

PEF greater than or equal to 0.9 for approval. Projects with a PEF less than 0.9 will not be approved. 

Projects treating LOIR locations require a PEF of 0.5 or greater for approval. LOIR locations with a PEF 

less than 0.5 will not be approved. After a project is approved, all project funding cap increase requests 

for projects over $200,000 in total costs must include a recalculated PEF spreadsheet. The recalculated 

PEF must be greater than or equal to 1.0 to receive cost increase approval consideration.

All data fields should be inputted to ensure accurate and consistent PEF calculations across projects. The 

most recent five years of available crash data is required.

Construction, such as intersections, left turn storage lanes and geometric improvements, requires 

justification with a PEF. Traffic signals must meet warrants in addition to having a favorable PEF.

The following additional information and guidance is provided for the Regions and local officials on how 

to use the crash data.

1. Rather than use typical reduction factors for various types of improvements in the spreadsheet, the 

following more site-specific approach should be used:

 a. Gather all crash reports from the most recent 5 year period for the site under consideration. Local 

officials are required to submit this information. Applicants may use 6th year data as Year 1 of the 

required consecutive 5 year data period. The Division of State Patrol Bureau of Transportation Safety 

does not have an established annual deadline for finalizing crash data. For example, if the current 

calendar year is 2014, 2008-2012 or 2009-2013 data is acceptable for required crash histories.

 b. Plot collision diagrams (include all crashes except deer hits). Locals provide for their requests.

 c. Identify those crashes that likely would have been avoided if the proposed safety improvement had 

been constructed.

 d. Estimate what percentage of those crashes, by crash type, would be reduced by constructing the

proposed improvement and enter that percentage on the spreadsheet. Several resources are available 

to help determine the use of appropriate crash modification and reduction factors. Contact the State 

Traffic Safety Engineer with any immeidate questions related to CMFs and/or CRFs. The Crash 

Modification Factors Clearinghouse and FHWA Crash Reduction Factors Desktop Reference can be used 

to help determine appropriate CMFs and CRFs. In addition, historical CMFs and CRFs used in previous 

applications can be found in the HSIP Application Database on the DOTNET server. Please contact the 

Statewide HSIP Coordinator for access to the HSIP Application database.

 e. The program will then compute the total crash reduction factor.

2. To aid the Regions in identifying exceptionally hazardous locations, average crash rates for sections of 

various types of streets and highways, and average intersection crash will be provided.

Program Approval Process
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Program approval is a joint process between the Regional Safety Engineers, the Statewide Traffic Safety 

Engineer, applicable Regional Project Oversight Engineers, and the Statewide HSIP Coordinator. These 

indiviuals together comprise the HSIP Review Committee and are advisory to BSHP. 

Efforts will be made to streamline the approval process by gathering all members of the HSIP Review 

Committee at in-person HSIP Application Review Meetings after the Standard or Mid-Cycle HSIP 

application deadline. These meetings will serve as a comprehensive peer review and ultimately provide 

a consensus approval or disapproval of application submittals.

HSIP applications occasionally a "tabling" to allow time for further review led by the application's 

primary Regional Safety Engineer contact. Depending on the timeline of this work, efforts to generate a 

HSIP Review Committee consensus approval or disapproval on the subject application will occur over 

email or at the next bi-montly TSEWG meeting.

BSHP will distribute the HSIP approval memos containing a regional HSIP project listing and FIIPS loading 

instructions to the Regions for implementation as soon as possible after approval.
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 22674847 82 % 22662247 82 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 2039393 7 % 2039393 7 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

100800 0 % 100800 0 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds 2757227 10 % 2755827 10 %
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Totals 27572267 100% 27558267 100%

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

18 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

18 %

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

3 %

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

3 %

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

period?

0 %
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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

period? 

48 %

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

overcome this in the future.

1. A significant increase in federal funds in 2005 and again in 2012 has historically made it difficult to 

fully obligate available funding on projects that meet Wisconsin's high safety benefits standards outlined 

in the state's HSIP Guidelines. Wisconsin has traditionally been hesitant to implement broad systemwide safety upgrades (e.g., blanket median barrier upgrade decisions, expansive sign inventories and 

replacements, etc.) with available HSIP funding due to the lack of data-supported evidence to justify 

such large expenses. As such, standalone projects that can feasibly demonstrate expected datasupported safety benefits have received funding priority. This makes it more difficult to quickly spend 

available increased funding levels. WisDOT is exploring options to better and more fairly integrate 

systemic-type safety treatments within the dynamics of the current process that is more focused on 

spot treatments. Language included within the most recent version of WisDOT's HSIP Guidelines gives 

WisDOT the capability to test systemic treatment approval processes via pilot efforts before formal HSIP 

Guidelines would be written by WisDOT and approved by FHWA.

2. A primary impediment to implementing the HSIP has been successfully incorporating natural project 

attrition into program planning to deliver a full HSIP that fully utilizes federal sources. Smaller projects 

(particularly on the local system) have traditionally experienced project delays with greater frequency 

than larger projects. This could be for a variety of reasons, like local governments' unfamiliarity with 

HSIP and federal rules and regulations, lack of priority on smaller projects, a HSIP project's interaction 

with larger tied projects experience delays, etc. Issues are shared between state and local projects. 

WisDOT undertakes outreach and education efforts with local governments in conjunction with partners 

like LTAP to ensure local governments are more familiar and comfortable with the HSIP and Federal-aid 

process at the onset of potential involvement. WisDOT has also adjusted application deadlines to better 

align with the realities of the chronology of project planning and development internally on WisDOT 

state projects. This will reduce the number of project delays and/or cancellations that ultimately affect 

HSIP federal obligation levels. 

The delay or cancellation of larger projects imposes significant impacts on program management. Large 

projects can become delayed or canceled for a variety of reasons. WisDOT accommodates these large 

changes in approved projects through the scope change application process, but occasionally projects 
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

still get canceled. WisDOT attempts to position the HSIP to absorb these large project shifts by 

identifying other approved projects to mark advanceable as candidates for expedited delivery should 

other projects drop out of the program.

3. Outdated parameters used to establish certain HSIP Guidelines rules and regulations can limit the 

potential utilization of HSIP federal funds. WisDOT has taken steps within SFY14 to address out-of-date 

Guidelines. For example, the project size triggering the companion funding source/copay concept was 

increased from $1,500,000 to $1,700,000 to reflect inflationary increases. Under certain circumstances, 

the HSIP Guidelines now allow the companion funding source/copay concept to be eliminated on a caseby-case basis. In addition, cross median crash definitions and crash rate warrants were changed from 

Caltrans parameters established in the 1960s to current Wisconsin-specific values. This will unlock 

additional eligibility to treat data-justified locations with appropriate safety countermeasures. The HSIP 

Guidelines are monitored to identify opportunities to reflect current research and practices nationwide 

that enable the additional use of federal HSIP funds within Wisconsin.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None.
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Outp

ut 

HSIP 

Cost

Total Cost Funding 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownersh

ip

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strateg

y

1000-08-

58

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 

Miles

368465.

2

409405.7

8

HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

1000-

99-41

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

0 

Miles

145363.

5

161515 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 VAR Data

1000-

99-55

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

0 

Miles

341112.

6

379014 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 VAR Data

1001-

06-73

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 

Miles

908823.

67

1009804.

08

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 IH Roadway 

Departure

1053-

02-63

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 

Miles

10350 11500 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Roadway 

Departure

1053-

02-74

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

0.289 

Miles

106798.

42

118664.9

1

HSIP 

(Section 

0 0 STH Roadway 

Departure
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

cushions, terminals) 148)

1053-

02-75

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0.217 

Miles

426600 474000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Lane 

Departure

1090-

34-00

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0.05 

Miles

29664 32960 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 IH Lane 

Departure

1111-

06-71

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 

Miles

747000 830000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Roadway 

Departure

1133-

03-77

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

1.29 

Miles

507146.

17

563495.7

5

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Roadway 

Departure

1133-

09-71

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

2.94 

Miles

551057.

97

612286.6

3

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Roadway 

Departure

1190-

05-76

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0.19 

Miles

217945.

73

242161.9

2

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Lane 

Departure

1/4/119

5

Access management 

Change in access -

miscellaneous/unspeci

fied

0.06 

Miles

22500 25000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

1195-

01-74

Access management 

Change in access -

miscellaneous/unspeci

fied

0.06 

Miles

181702.

74

201891.9

3

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns

1195-

02-00

Access management 

Change in access -

miscellaneous/unspeci

fied

0.2 

Miles

108000 120000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns

1200-

03-74

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0 

Miles

202426.

83

224918.6

9

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Lane 

Departure

1206-

04-62

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

8.2 

Miles

1215000 1350000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Roadway 

Departure

1/2/131

0

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.13 

Miles

66188 73542.22 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

1370-

02-77

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.328 

Miles

990000 1100000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

1490-

28-71

Access management 

Change in access -

miscellaneous/unspeci

fied

0.871 

Miles

1275300 1417000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

2/1/152

0

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.05 

Miles

55800 62000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

1530-

01-74

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry 

- other

0.05 

Miles

190595.

27

211772.5

2

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns

1540-

00-02

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

signing - add basic 

advance warning

0 

Miles

30600 34000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 LOC Intersectio

ns

2/5/157

0

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.02 

Miles

112500 125000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns

1590-

21-01

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

24936 27706.67 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

1630-

00-75

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry 

- other

0 

Miles

301018.

07

334464.5

2

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns

1630-

06-68

Roadway Roadway -

other

3.31 

Miles

723600 804000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Roadway 

Departure

1647-

09-74

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry 

0.461 

Miles

775297.

09

861441.2

1

HSIP 

(Section 

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

- other 148)

1670-

02-07

Alignment Alignment -

other

2.04 

Miles

648900 721000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Roadway 

Departure

2070-

08-00

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

101708 113008.8

9

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 CTH Intersectio

ns

2070-

09-00

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

176400 196000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 CTH Intersectio

ns

2160-

15-00

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

100800 112000 Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

0 0 CTH Intersectio

ns

2215-

00-01

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

98345.7 109273 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 LOC Intersectio

ns

2216-

02-00

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

115875 128750 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 CTH Intersectio

ns

2265-

03-76

Lighting Lighting -

other

3.02 

Miles

912509.

6

1013899.

55

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Lane 

Departure
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

2340-

09-70

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.347 

Miles

1530000 1700000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

2375-

07-00

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.51 

Miles

49680 55200 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Roadway 

Departure

2595-

08-00

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

234531 260590 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 NON Intersectio

ns

2718-

01-92

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Pedestrian 

signal

0 

Miles

81199.3

1

90221.45 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 LOC Pedestrian

s

2718-

09-70

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

318563.

51

353959.4

5

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 NON Intersectio

ns

2758-

01-00

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

83700 93000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 CTH Intersectio

ns

2758-

04-00

Alignment Alignment -

other

0 

Miles

64080 71200 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

2967-

00-94

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Pedestrian 

signal

0 

Miles

574810.

64

638678.4

9

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 VAR Pedestrian

s
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

2967-

00-95

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Pedestrian 

signal

0 

Miles

520425.

74

578250.8

2

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 VAR Pedestrian

s

4/7/298

4

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

188181 209090 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 VAR Intersectio

ns

3042-

00-73

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.331 

Miles

990000 1100000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

3756-

01-00

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

18540 20600 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

4020-

01-00

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

19696.5 21885 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

4210-

06-00

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.1 

Miles

108000 120000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 CTH Intersectio

ns

5271-

08-72

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

1.69 

Miles

200000 222222.2

2

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Lane 

Departure

5410-

02-71

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

542311 602567.7

8

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

5658-

00-73

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.192 

Miles

90000 100000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 CTH Intersectio

ns

5820-

01-71

Alignment Alignment -

other

0.805 

Miles

915324.

58

1017027.

31

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Roadway 

Departure

5992-

06-63

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.189 

Miles

94554 105060 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 LOC Intersectio

ns

6207-

03-71

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 

Miles

490025.

36

544472.6

2

HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 VAR Roadway 

Departure

6520-

02-71

Advanced technology 

and ITS Advanced 

technology and ITS -

other

0.789 

Miles

0 0 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

6520-

02-71

Advanced technology 

and ITS Advanced 

technology and ITS -

other

0.789 

Miles

915310.

44

1017011.

6

HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

6990-

03-73

Alignment Alignment -

other

0 

Miles

390384.

27

433760.3 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Roadway 

Departure

6991- Roadway Roadway - 0.01 244080 271200 HSIP 0 0 STH Intersectio
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

01-70 other Miles (Section 

148)

ns

6/8/699

9

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

27810 30900 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 LOC Intersectio

ns

7016-

00-72

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.294 

Miles

990000 1100000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

7080-

00-04

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.02 

Miles

31500 35000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns

1/2/713

0

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.62 

Miles

144000 160000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

7132-

07-70

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.17 

Miles

215375.

85

239306.5 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Roadway 

Departure

7255-

05-72

Access management 

Change in access -

miscellaneous/unspeci

fied

0.18 

Miles

433474.

97

481638.8

5

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

7550-

02-00

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry 

- other

0.13 

Miles

13500 15000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

3/3/755

0

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.24 

Miles

46350 51500 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

7570-

05-61

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

122077.

5

135641.6

7

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Roadway 

Departure

7640-

00-71

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry 

- other

0.36 

Miles

279000 310000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 LOC Intersectio

ns

1/4/852

0

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.83 

Miles

45000 50000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

8680-

00-70

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.01 

Miles

57009.2 63343.56 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 USH Intersectio

ns

8865-

00-02

Alignment Alignment -

other

0.57 

Miles

72000 80000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Roadway 

Departure

8907-

00-70

Alignment Alignment -

other

0.156 

Miles

183879.

22

204310.2

4

HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

8997-

00-23

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0 

Miles

12600 14000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 LOC Intersectio

ns
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

9030-

09-70

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

147231.

61

163590.6

8

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

9180-

17-70

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.26 

Miles

292464 324960 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 STH Intersectio

ns

9286-

04-00

Roadway Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

18540 20600 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

0 0 CTH Roadway 

Departure

0953-

00-01

Miscellaneous 0 

Miles

229500 255000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 VAR Pedestrian

s
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

Present data showing the general highway safety trends in the state for the past five years. 

Performance Measures* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 676 628 599 571 559

Number of serious injuries 4639 4382 4114 3834 3625

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.15 1.06 1.02 0.98 0.95

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.98 7.38 7.03 6.55 6.16

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

34
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

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

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 0
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL CITY STREET 11 97.2 0 0

RURAL COUNTY TRUNK 

HIGHWAY

110.6 595.4 0 0

RURAL INTERSTATE 

HIGHWAY

23.8 149.4 0 0

RURAL STATE TRUNK 

HIGHWAY

202.8 1049.6 0 0

RURAL TOWN ROAD 71.8 416.6 0 0
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

URBAN CITY STREET 74.4 775.8 0 0

URBAN INTERSTATE 

HIGHWAY

9 74 0 0

URBAN STATE TRUNK 

HIGHWAY

56 466.8 0 0
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

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

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

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

None.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.112 0.222 0.33 0.33 0.33

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.382 0.762 1.126 1.126 1.126

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

0.494 0.986 1.458 1.458 1.458

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

((F+SI 2012 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2012 Population Figure)+(F+SI 2011 

Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2011 Population Figure)+(F+SI 2010 Drivers and 

Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2010 Population Figure)+(F+SI 2009 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2009 Population Figure)+)+(F+SI 2008 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age 

and older/2008 Population Figure))/5

((338/144)+(337/139)+(310/137)+(311/134)+(326/133))/5
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Decrease in total severe and total injury crashes

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

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

None.
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Target 

Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Improve Design and Operation 

of Intersections

156 1393 0 0 41605 20222 0

Reduce Speed-related 

Crashes

167 916 0 0 18389 7828 0

Prevent/Mitigate Roadway 

Departure Crashes

187 961 0 0 18916 6919 0

create Safer Work Zones 8 53 0 0 1613 686 0

Reduce Alcohol/Drugimpaired Driving218 573 0 0 5491 3171 0

Improve Driver 

Alertness/Reduce Driver 

Distraction

125 855 0 0 20526 9521 0

Improve Occupant Protection 176 592 0 0 0 0 0

Improve Motorcycle Safety 94 621 0 0 2376 2302 0

Reduce Head-on Crashes 66 261 0 0 1470 1384 0
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Improve Safe Travel in Bad 

Weather

105 774 0 0 30990 10443 0

Reduce Cross Median Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2013

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

None.
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2014 Wisconsin Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location 

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data 

are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance dated 

February 13, 2013. 

Performance measure means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor 

changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives.

Programmed funds mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.

Roadway Functional Classification means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into 

classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety 

data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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