Page 1 of 40

CALIFORNIA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 40

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................. 2

Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 5

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 7

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................17

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................17

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................19

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................20

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................20

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................26

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................27

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................28

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................28

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................28

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................33

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................36
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 40

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.”
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 40

Executive Summary 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or “MAP-21” (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405), was 

signed into law July 6, 2012, and continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a core 

program under title 23 United States Code section 148 to reduce fatalities and injuries on all public roadways. 

Title 23 United States Code section 148(h) requires each state to submit an annual report to the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding its HSIP implementation and effectiveness and title 23 Code of 

Federal Regulations sections 924.15(a)(1) and 924.15(a)(2) specify that the report be submitted no later than 

August 31 of each year. This annual report describes the progress being made to implement projects and the 

status of program evaluations for the HSIP as described in Title 23 United States Code section 148, and for 

High-Risk Rural Roads (HR3) (23 U.S.C. § 148(g)). The Railway-Highway Crossings (23 U.S.C. § 130(g)) 

report is submitted to FHWA directly by the California Public Utility Commission as a separate report. Under 

the “MAP-21” (Pub. L. 112-141, July 6, 2012; 126 Stat. 405), the High-Risk Rural Roads program was merged 

into the HSIP for safety improvements on public rural roadways that meet the functional classification 

requirements of title 23 United States Code section 148(a)(1). In addition to the above, in accordance with title 

23 United States Code section 164 repeat intoxicated transfer funds, approximately $60.79 million was 

obligated for alcohol impaired driving countermeasures. Caltrans' Division of Traffic Operations provided 

information on the State Highway System (SHS) for this report, and Caltrans' Division of Local Assistance for 

local roads. Caltrans implements the HSIP for State highways by programming and funding projects in the 

Collision Reduction Category, one of eight categories that make up the State Highway Operation and 

Protection Program (SHOPP). The Collision Reduction Category is further divided into two programs: Safety 

Improvement and Collision Severity Reduction. The Safety Improvement Program is among Caltrans’ top 

priorities in the SHOPP. The projects evaluated in this report are funded by the Collision Reduction Category, 

which includes both federal HSIP and State highway funds.

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law on December 4, 2015 and 

continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) with only minor changes. The FAST Act 

confirmed the overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements.

Caltrans uses collision data from California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Record 

System) database. Collision data for the state highway system is imported into the Transportation System 

Network (TSN) Caltrans database, which includes volume and inventory data.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 40

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 Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

Caltrans Division of Traffic Operations addresses the state highway system and Caltrans Division of Local 

Assistance administers the HSIP funds for local and tribal roads. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Division of Traffic Operations and Division of Local Assistance

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP. 

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) uses an HSIP application benefit-cost tool to provide a consistent, 

data-driven methodology for ranking local roadway (non-State owned and operated) project applications on a 

statewide basis. This tool, known as HSIP Analyzer was developed by DLA. DLA also provides the Local 

Roadway Safety Manual for California local road owners and directly incorporates UC Berkeley’s 

Transportation Injury Mapping System website to assist applicants applying for local HSIP funds. These tools 

and resources encourage local agencies to proactively analyze their roadway networks for the highest crash 

locations and develop and submit applications with the greatest chance of reducing fatalities and serious 

injuries using low cost proven systemic countermeasures. The DLA HSIP application process is also open and 

available to the tribes that would like to submit an application for HSIP funds. 

Identify which internal partners (e.g., State departments of transportation (DOTs) 

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Operations

• Planning
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 40

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Research Innovation and System Information

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

On the State Highway System, the Traffic Safety Program in Headquarters within the Division of Traffic 

Operations works with the Division of Planning, Division of Design, Division of Programming, Division of 

Research Innovation and System Information, and 12 Caltrans district offices to develop Project Initiation 

Documents to program projects. 

For local roads, DLA staff manages the local agency share of HSIP funds with inputs from the Local HSIP 

Advisory Committee. The DLA prepares the HSIP guidelines and solicits project applications from local 

agencies and tribes. Additionally, Office of Federal Programs in DLA has been actively supporting the local 

agencies to develop their own local road safety plans. 

Traffic Operations quarterly provides a list of high collision concentration locations to 12 districts. Each district's 

traffic investigation unit is required to investigate and respond with possible safety improvement 

recommendation and countermeasures. Traffic Operations is to concur with district's response and 

recommendation before any major safety improvement project can be initiated.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

• Regional Planning Organizations (e.g. MPOs, RPOs, COGs)

• Tribal Agency

Describe coordination with external partners. 

Caltrans has been working with 400 stakeholders from 170 public & private agencies including tribal agencies, 

local technical assistance program, and universities to develop CA-SHSP. Projects developed are consistent 

with SHSP strategies. Caltrans’ DLA with local agencies are involved in planning projects on local roads. 

California started work on their SHSP update in July of 2018 and will be completed in December of 2019. 

Additional stakeholders and agencies will be asked to participate, which in turn will make for better HSIP 

projects and help to reduce fatal and serious injuries.

Caltrans coordinates with FHWA by asking for guidance and interpretation of HSIP funding criteria and other 

FHWA legislative requirements.

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period. 

The Pedestrian Monitoring program was launched on July 20, 2016. The Bicycle Monitoring program was 

launched on April 20, 2018.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 40

Program Methodology

Does the State have an HSIP manual or similar that clearly describes HSIP planning, 

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

2017 STATE HSIP GUIDELINES FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Bicycle Safety

• HSIP (no subprograms)

• Local Safety

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other--2 and 3 Ln Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring Pro 

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:4/20/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-High Collision Concentration Location

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-State is set-aside funding. DLA both competes with all projects and set-aside.

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles 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

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 40

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• Other-compete with all projects and funding is set aside.

• Other-Data and Criteria

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-meet minimum criteria:100

On the California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded from the set-side funding.

DLA does not have a bicycle safety improvement monitoring program; however, it has bicycle safety 

improvement projects that competes with all the benefit cost projects as well as the set-aside funding.

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:6/20/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles 

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
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 40

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• Other-meet minimum criteria

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-meet minimum criteria:100

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Competes with all other safety projects and set-aside funding

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

No

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program. 

Local Agencies take the lead in identifying projects within their own juristrictions 
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 40

How are projects under this program 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). 

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

Other-set asides:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:11/15/1977

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only 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

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Any project that meets the established Median Barrier criteria for project selection can 

be programmed
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 40

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Collision and volume warrants:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/20/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-High Collision Concentration Location

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-State is set-aside. DLA both competes with all projects and set-aside.

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles 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

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

How are projects under this program 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 
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 40

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-meet minimum criteria:100

On the California State Highway System, if a proposed project meets data requirement and approved 

countermeasures, it will be funded from the set-side funding.

DLA does not have a pedestrian safety improvement monitoring program; however, it has pedestrian safety

improvement projects that competes with all the benefit cost projects as well as the set-aside funding.

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:11/15/2004

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-see the optional description 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Other-Fatal and injury crashes on Wet 

Pavement 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Fatal and injury crashes resulting 

in Overturned Vehicle 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-see the optional description for this question

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

program? 

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-see the optional description for this question

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 40

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 

Other-100% top 25% of run-off-road concentration locations with higher scores +100% of identified 

long segments selected based on collision frequency, roadway type, geometric characteristics and 

traffic volume. :100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:1/15/1985

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles 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

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

How are projects under this program 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 
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 40

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 

Other-crash frequency and crash rate:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Other--2 and 3 Ln Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring Pro

Date of Program Methodology:1/15/1985

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal crashes only 

Other-See optional description 

pertaining to this subprogram 

Volume 

Lane miles 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

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-All projects meeting established criteria can be programmed

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 
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 40

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 

Other-Crash frequency and rate :100

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 73

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Other-Median Barrier

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Safety Edge

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

• Upgrade Guard Rails

• Wrong way driving treatments

California does incorporate tapered edge (also known as safety edge) systemically in projects; however, has 

not used HSIP funds to fund tapered edge projects.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

• Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP)

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

The team has not met yet. It's premature at this time to make determination at this time. Emerging 

technologies is a new challenge area in the SHSP 2020 - 2024. When the State HSIP has data on emerging 

technologies, the state will report on the HSIP annual report.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts? 

Yes
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 40

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts. 

HSM training classes have been conducted. The state HSIP program is Integrating HSM methodology into the 

network screening and cost/benefit processes with a 2020 goal.

Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to 

elaborate.

For the most part, Local HSIP and State highway HSIP use the cost/benefit methodology as a qualifying 

criteria for HSIP funds with some differences. For State highway HSIP, the benefit / cost tool, called the safety 

index, is used for projects at spot locations whereas Local HSIP utilizes the benefit / cost methodology for both 

spot and systemic type of projects. For the State highway HSIP, the systemic approach is accomplished 

through various monitoring programs, like the Cross Median Collision Monitoring Program or the Two and 

Three Lane Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring Program. The Local HSIP utilizes set asides for low cost 

countermeasures, such as pedestrian crossing enhancements at non-signalized locations, horizontal curve 

signing and guardrail upgrades. These set asides do not require crash data to receive HSIP funding but is 

limited to a maximum dollar amount per agency and only specific low cost countermeasures can be selected.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 40

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

Based on state fiscal year calendar - July 1, 2018 - Jun 30, 2019

Funding Category Descriptions: HSIP (23 U.S.C 148) is Federal HSIP Funding for Caltrans State and Local 

side; State and Local Funds are combination of Federal HSIP Funding and State HSIP Funding, which 

includes State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds.

Penalty Funds and Other Federal-aid Funds are included in the programmed State HSIP until funds are 

obligated for specific projects and phases. 

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $351,675,000 $263,503,541 74.93%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$75,079,552 $64,769,867 86.27%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$14,000,000 $14,646,221 104.62%

State and Local Funds $89,000,000 $86,552,664 97.25%

Local HSIP (23 U.S.C 148) $109,800,000 $90,680,598 82.59%

Totals $639,554,552 $520,152,891 81.33%

How much funding is programmed to local (non-state owned and operated) or tribal 

safety projects?

$109,800,000

How much funding is obligated to local or tribal safety projects? 

$90,680,598

Tribal Funding projects for this question were recently programmed in last FTIP, Obligations will be reported in 

future reports.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 40

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

$14,000,000

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

$14,646,221

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

$0

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

$0

Caltrans contributes 2.5 to 3 times the Federal HSIP amount every year in addition to the Federal HSIP funds 

from the SHOPP.

Discuss impediments to obligating HSIP funds and plans to overcome this challenge in 

the future. 

In the past years, local HSIP project delivery has been enforced through (1) monthly update of delivery status 

report posted in the DLA website, (2) HSIP manager’s phone calls and emails to district focal-point contacts 

responsible for monitoring project delivery, (3) the set drop-dead dates for late projects in various previous 

project cycles, (4) requesting local agencies to send HSIP program an official delivery commitment letter for 

project delay request, and (5) efforts made by various Local HSIP Advisory Committee members. This has 

proved to be successful and is now a Local HSIP policy that all current projects programmed need to have 

construction authorization within five years of being programmed. Project delivery delay flags are held in place 

for PE Authorization and Construction Authorization to alarm local agencies with delayed project flags that they 

will be ineligible to apply any future HSIP funding until these flags are cleared.

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on 

which the State would like to elaborate. 

The DLA continues to investigate, with the help of locals and FHWA the delays caused by unnecessary 

environmental requirements in streamlining HSIP projects. 

The DLA initiated the first ever tribal HSIP set-aside for $2 M for safety improvements on tribal lands. As a 

result $1.2 M was programmed into the Local HSIP.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 40

General Listing of Projects

List the projects obligated using HSIP funds for the reporting period. 

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

01-Hum-101 

PM 78.1

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Intersections $6,614,000 $10,016,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

For the complete list of projects obligated using HSIP funds, please see attachment list. 

All safety projects using HSIP funding are tied back to one of the current SHSP Challenge Areas. Next year the State HSIP program will include a column in their safety project list showing relationship to SHSP challenge area.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 40

Safety Performance

General Highway 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 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 3,090 2,720 2,816 2,966 3,107 3,102 3,387 3,837 3,602

Serious Injuries 10,369 10,423 10,607 10,864 10,664 10,995 11,942 13,258 14,180

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.953 0.834 0.866 0.908 0.944 0.927 0.997 1.119 1.046

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.198 3.194 3.263 3.324 3.240 3.285 3.514 3.867 4.118

Number nonmotorized fatalities666 701 749 782 881 838 955 1,088 982

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

2,678 2,598 2,671 2,743 2,710 2,795 2,874 3,102 3,273
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 40

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 40

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 40

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

Pull down menu, SWITRS, 2008 to 2017

Caltrans requested the latest Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data (raw data that 

contains all roadway types in CA) available through our external partner - California Highway Patrol. Working 

on raw data to extract data from Caltrans state highway system has been a challenge to achieve high level of 

confidence. 

We also use FARS to cross check our numbers. Caltrans used SWITRS data for their numbers and rates.

To the maximum extent possible, present this data by functional classification and 

ownership. 

Year 2017

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

1,462 4,467 2.67 8.16

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 40

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or 

Street

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

2,119

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 40

Year 2017

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

3,457 12,444.6

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Urban State Hwy 602.6 1,936.4

Urban Non-State Hwy 1,289.4 4,807.8

Rural State Hwy 698.6 1,742

Rural Non-State Way 616.6 2,065.8

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

The general trend in fatalities, serious injuries, non-motorized fatal and serious injuries and the rates are on an 

upward trend; however, the trend may be leveling off in looking at 2017 data. More will be known with 2018 

and 2019 data."
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 40

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:3518.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

The fatality numbers are the latest recorded data in FARS. From 2017 to 2050, fatalities decrease to 

zero by the end of December 2049.

Number of Serious Injuries:13740.4

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

The current data that is available in SWITRS. The number of serious injuries to decrease 1.5% from 

2017 - 2050. The 5 year rolling average target for 2020.

Fatality Rate:1.023

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

5 year rolling average for fatality rates.

Serious Injury Rate:3.994

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

5 year rolling average for serious injuries

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:4147.4

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

5 year rolling average. 1.5% decrease per year for serious injuries with fatalities decreasing to zero 

by the end of December 2049.

Describe efforts to coordinate with other stakeholders (e.g. MPOs, SHSO) to establish 

safety performance targets. 

The state had a workshop on May 8, 2019 with MPOs and other stakeholders to set the safety performance 

targets for 2020.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 40

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

We do not have 2018 data available at this time to make a determination regarding the 2018 performance 

targets. The targets set are aggressive and the data trend shows continual growth in ADT and collision 

increases from year to year.

Applicability of Special Rules

Does the HRRR special rule apply to the State for this reporting period? 

No 

The HRRR special rules does not apply to California for this reporting period, as it has been determined that 

the 5 year average fatality rate on rural roads in California does not increase from 2009 - 2013 to 2013 - 2017.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

156 172 185 190 198 205 206

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

184 227 206 223 288 323 295

The latest data available is through 2017.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 40

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Other-3-year before & after

There are 3 levels of Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of overall HSIP Program: (1) Evaluation of 

Approved Countermeasures, (2) Evaluation of approved projects, and (3) Evaluation of various Safety and 

monitoring Programs within the HSIP Program. California state DOT, normally, performs at least one level of 

Evaluations annually by comparing fatality , injury, PDO from 3 year before and 3- year after, and including 

Benefit - Cost Analysis to determine whether a low-cost and effective countermeasure does reduce certain 

type of collisions and patterns. DLA does a preliminary screening for approving safety improvement projects by 

using method of Benefit-Cost Analysis and data criteria. It has not measured effectiveness from a 3-year 

before and after evaluation until 2020 due to a lack of 3-year after collision data.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

The California State HSIP program has reduced a significant number of collisions for specific collision types 

and patterns in the past 10 years even though the overall other-type of collisions are increasing as well as the 

ADDT. Local Assistance does not currently evaluate the effectiveness of HSIP funded projects on local roads, 

however they plan to evaluate the effectiveness starting in the year 2020.

What other indicators of success does the State use to demonstrate effectiveness and 

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2017

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 1,607.6 5,369.4 0.48 1.59

Intersections 702.4 3,032.4 0.21 0.9
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 40

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Pedestrians 856.6 1,898.6 0.25 0.56

Bicyclists 158.8 968.6 0.05 0.29

Older Drivers 513.2 1,511 0.15 0.45

Motorcyclists 520.6 2,502 0.15 0.74

Work Zones 60.2 170.6 0.02 0.05

Increase Use of Safety 

Belts and Child Safety 

Seats

623 1,287 0.18 0.38

Reduce Young Driver 

Fatalities

447 1,690.8 0.13 0.5

Aggressive Driving 1,149 4,174 0.34 1.23

Impaired Driving 1,319 2,936 0.39 0.87

Distracted Driving 150 596 0.04 0.18

Commercial Vehicles 361 703 0.11 0.21
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 40

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 40

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

Caltrans has not completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 40

Caltrans seldom conducts countermeasure effectiveness evaluations and typically refers to the CMF 

clearinghouse for countermeasure effectiveness.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 40

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

01-HUM-299-PM 

19.3/19.8

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

01-HUM-101-PM 

86.3/87.8

Roadside Barrier - cable 29.00 30.00 2.00 13.00 11.00 44.00 41.00 6.82

01-MEN-101-PM 

50.7/51.2

Roadway Roadway - other 10.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 4.00 26.00 10.00 61.54

03-SUT-099 PM 

13.7

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 36.00 73.00 5.00 5.00 39.00 57.00 80.00 135.00 -68.75

03-yol-113 

PM21.8

Roadside Barrier - other 3.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 25

04-SCL-009 PM 

2.5/7.0

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

44.00 30.00 1.00 1.00 43.00 32.00 88.00 63.00 28.4

04-SCL-152 

PM19.5

Roadway Roadway - other 37.00 43.00 15.00 27.00 52.00 70.00 -33

04-SOL-012 PM 

20.6/21.3

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 -400

04-ALA-061 PM 

19.20/0.00

Roadside Drainage improvements 10.00 12.00 9.00 4.00 19.00 16.00 15.79

04-SON-101 PM 

25.0/29.30

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade intersection to 

interchange

81.00 139.00 3.00 49.00 83.00 130.00 225.00 -73.08

05-SCR-001- PM 

9.70/17.60

Roadside Barrier - concrete 601.00 578.00 4.00 328.00 240.00 929.00 822.00 11.52

05-SBT-025 PM 

18.80/19.50

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 1.00 1.00 100

05-MON-001 PM 

R77.6/R78.1

Roadway Roadway - other 33.00 59.00 13.00 39.00 46.00 98.00

05-SCR-017 

PM9.4/10.1

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or other 125.00 104.00 1.00 63.00 42.00 189.00 146.00 22.75

05-MON-101 PM 

57.1/60.8

Roadside Barrier - concrete 39.00 64.00 17.00 12.00 56.00 76.00 -35.71

05-SB-101 

PM13.0/22.80

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

627.00 679.00 3.00 4.00 259.00 289.00 889.00 972.00 -9.34
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 40

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

06-FRE-145 PM 

32.80/33.40

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - no control to 

roundabout

8.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 13.00 10.00 23.08

06-KER-099 PM 

24.60/0.0

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify rightturn lane offset65.00 90.00 22.00 46.00 87.00 136.00 -56.32

06-FRE-041 PM 

24.5/24.8

Roadside Barrier - concrete 17.00 11.00 14.00 4.00 31.00 15.00 51.61

06-FRE-041 PM 

25.2/31.7

Roadside Barrier - concrete 429.00 627.00 4.00 258.00 318.00 687.00 949.00 -38.14

06-KER-058 

PM36.30/39.9

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 17.00 5.00 4.00 7.00 21.00 12.00 42.86

06-MAD-152 PM 

0.0/1.1

Roadway Rumble strips - center 1.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 13.00 -85.71

07-LA-010 PM 

R4.929/14.803

Roadway Rumble strips - center 2578.00 2744.00 7.00 5.00 987.00 1312.00 3572.00 4061.00 -13.69

07-VEN-101 

PM5.168/5.269

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

18.00 7.00 25.00

07-LA-105 

PMR0.54/R0.051

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

7.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 8.00 13.00 -62.5

07-LA-105 PM 

R0.951/R 4.94

Roadway Roadway - other 356.00 599.00 1.00 133.00 286.00 490.00 885.00 -198.98

07-LA-134 PM 

10.8/11.50

Roadway Rumble strips - center 63.00 81.00 1.00 31.00 33.00 95.00 114.00 -20

08-sbd-095 PM 

51.2/51.6

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

1.00 1.00 100

08-SBD-018 PM 

59.7/65.0

Roadway Rumble strips - center 9.00 18.00 1.00 26.00 24.00 35.00 43.00 -22.86

08-SBD-395 PM 

16.225/16.225

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

16.00 7.00 14.00 1.00 30.00 8.00 73.33

09-MNO-006 PM 

0.66/2.06

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 1.00 1.00 100

10-SJ-088 PM 

6.1/8.9

Roadside Barrier transitions 15.00 9.00 1.00 12.00 21.00 28.00 30.00 -7.14

10-MER-140 

PM40.7

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

5.00 4.00 7.00 5.00 12.00 9.00 25

10-STA-108 PM 

33.1/36.1

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

30.00 29.00 1.00 2.00 20.00 33.00 51.00 64.00 -25.49

10-AMA-016 PM 

0.0/2.5

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

3.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 8.00 4.00 50
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 40

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

10-SJ-005 

PM41.7/45.9

Roadway Rumble strips - center 29.00 48.00 15.00 26.00 44.00 74.00 -68.18

10-SJ-088 PM 

15.4/19.4

Roadway Rumble strips - center 14.00 16.00 2.00 4.00 19.00 17.00 35.00 37.00 -5.71

11-SD-005 

PM12.6/72.2

Roadway Roadway - other 3060.00 4392.00 28.00 35.00 2093.00 2687.00 5181.00 7114.00 -37.309

11-SD-005 PM 

23.9/25.5

Roadside Barrier - concrete 64.00 69.00 1.00 48.00 63.00 113.00 132.00 -16.81

12-ORA-091 PM 

0.3/0.3

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 -200

12-ORA-039 PM 

7.1/9.6

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 193.00 126.00 2.00 2.00 160.00 194.00 355.00 322.00 9.30

12-ORA-039 PM 

2.1/6.1

Lighting Lighting - other 446.00 265.00 2.00 4.00 408.00 433.00 856.00 702.00 18.0

In the following reporting year the sample size being analyzed will be larger and focus on data quality. This before/after project list does not account for volume increase.
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 40

Compliance Assessment

What date was the State’s current SHSP approved by the Governor or designated State representative? 

 09/01/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2015 To: 2019

When does the State anticipate completing it’s next SHSP update? 

 2020

The next update to the SHSP is expected in December 2019 with an Implementation Plan is expected in Spring of 2020.

Provide the current status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts using the table below. 

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 10

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 40

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

60 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

Ramp Length (187)
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 40

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100

Interchange Type 

(182)

100

Ramp AADT (191) 60

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

60

Functional Class 

(19)

100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 92.22 83.33 62.50 25.00 65.45 0.00 0.00 78.89 60.00 60.00

*Based on Functional Classification

Caltrans is focusing on better data quality and is on schedule to be MIRE FDE compliant come 2026. Caltrans has made significant efforts to get more local involvement in the process.

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026. 

Caltrans will continue with its efforts to continue collecting data and update MIRE Fundamental data elements annually to meet the requirement by September 30, 2026 Division of Local Assistance is preparing a contract that will aid in 

getting MIRE Fundamental data elements on all non-state public roads.

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period? 

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2022
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 40

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2017 STATE HSIP GUIDELINES FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

LOCAL_HSIP_ProjectData_for_2019 HSIP_Annual_Report.xlsx

#29 2019 HSIP Annual Report 18-19 010 projects.xlsx

LOCAL_HSIP_ProjectData_for_2019 HSIP_Annual_Report.xlsx

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

2017 SWITRS.xls

Compliance Assessment:
2019 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 40

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, 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.