Page 1 of 41

KANSAS

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 41

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

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

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................22

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................22

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................27

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................29

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................31

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................31

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................31

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................35

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

Page 3 of 41

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 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 41

Executive Summary

In Kansas we continue to spend our HSIP dollars in a variety of independently managed sub-programs, 

including intersections, signing, pavement markings, lighting, rail, HRRR, and general safety improvements. 

The rail program is reported with the RHGCP report. This is the seventh year HRRR is reported with the HSIP 

report. We are working with our sub-program managers to develop program manuals specific to each subprogram in a manner consistent with the requirements of this report and related strategies in our Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan. Collectively, these programs cover all 140,000 centerline miles of public roads in Kansas

while applying a multitude of proven countermeasures designed to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes 

statewide.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 41

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. 

Our HSIP is managed via seven independent sub-programs, including intersections, signing, pavement 

markings, lighting, rail, HRRR, and general safety improvements. Each of these programs, with the exception 

of rail, is described in detail within this report.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Design

Intersections, signing, pavement markings, lighting, and general safety improvements are managed in the 

Bureau of Transportation Safety and Technology within the Division of Planning and Development. HRRR is 

managed by the Bureau of Local Projects and rail by the Bureau of Road Design, both within the Division of 

Engineering and Design.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Other-Headquarters

A committee made up of the HSIP Program Manager, FHWA Division Safety Engineer, sub-program 

managers, and management meet twice a year to measure program progress based on planned obligations 

and to estimate and distribute allocations for future years.

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

Our HSIP program is made up of seven sub-programs: lighting, pavement marking, signing, rail, intersections, 

HRRR, and general safety improvements. Lighting, pavement marking, signing, and general safety 

improvement projects are exclusive to the State Highway System, although projects may impact intersecting 

non-state roads. Intersections and rail projects may include local roads, that is, public roads not a part of the 

State Highway System. HRRR is exclusive to local roads. The rail program is addressed in the Rail-Highway 

Grade Crossing Program report.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 41

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

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Lighting sub-program: Projects are selected with input from the structural engineer in our State Bridge Office 

responsible for foundations for lighting, as well as field information from our Area Offices, and road safety 

audits performed by our Traffic Engineering Section.

Signing sub-program: This blanket replacement program was programmed to cover the entire state highway 

system in ten years. Our Area Offices complete a sign inventory for each project. Projects that are primarily on 

conventional roads the Area Offices typically install the new signs and posts. Projects that are on urban 

expressways and freeways are typically contractor let. Area Offices then administer the construction 

engineering duties.

Pavement Marking sub-program: Our pavement marking technician works closely with our district maintenance 

engineers to identify recommended routes. Works also with Traffic Engineering Section to identify locations in 

need of improved markings for safety.

Intersections sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to cities and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program 

reports (TEAP) and traffic studies. When the intersection is located on the State Highway System, our District 

and Area Offices are made part of the discussion as well. Once locations are identified a competitive process 

for funding begins using Part B of the Highway Safety Manual and engineering judgment.

HRRR sub-program: District Offices provide construction oversight. The Bureau of Local Projects manages the 

program. 

General Safety Improvements sub-program: Projects are selected and scoped in partnership with District and 

Area Offices.

All sub-programs: The Traffic Safety Section in our Bureau of Transportation Safety & Technology manage and 

report on crash data as needed.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-Kansas Association of Counties

• Other-Local Roads Emphasis Area Team (SHSP)
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 41

Describe coordination with external partners. 

Intersections sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to cities and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program 

reports (TEAP) and KDOT traffic studies.

HRRR sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to counties and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program 

reports (TEAP), road safety audits, and Local Road Safety Plans.

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period. 

As we move into FY20, we are transitioning from semi-annual sub-program manager meetings to monthly. We 

are also planning to meet quarterly with our FHWA Division Office.

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

elaborate. 

A total of $25,691,533 in safety funds (HSIP and Rail) was apportioned for FFY 2019, distributed to each subprogram as follows:

Lighting: $3,100,000 HSIP

Pavement Marking: $4,500,000 HSIP

Signing: $2,400,000 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $6,428,758 ($6,428,758 Rail & $0 HSIP)

Intersection Safety: $3,262,775 HSIP

High Risk Rural Roads: $4,000,000 HSIP

General Safety Improvements: $2,000,000 HSIP

The following dollars were obligated for SFY 2019 in each program:

Lighting: $225,643 HSIP 

Pavement Marking: $2,423,809 HSIP 

Signing: $0 HSIP

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing and Rail: $6,243,866 ($483,805 Rail, $1,897,354 HSIP and $3,862,707 

ACHSIP)

Intersection Safety: $11,349,953 HSIP
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 41

High Risk Rural Roads: $3,850,499 ($3,874,684 HSIP and -$24,185 HRRR)

General Safety Improvements: $100,309

Each of the programs discussed further in this report are consistent with our SHSP. It is our intent that 

strategies identified or developed as part of the SHSP process will contribute to the continued success of these 

programs. A portion of our HSIP funding is programmed as part of our RHGCP. See RHGCP report for more 

information.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

We are working with our FHWA Division Office on assessing our program and anticipate a final report at the 

beginning of FFY 2020. Outcomes will emphasize the importance of program evaluation at least at the subprogram level, overall distribution of funding, and an HSIP manual.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Intersection

• Local Safety

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Other-Pavement Marking

• Other-Lighting

• Other-General Safety Improvements

Our HRRR Program may also be referred to as Local Safety since it applies exclusively to locally-owned roads.

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:8/25/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Must satisfy a need based on the HSM, address crashes, and have a B/C>1.

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Fatal and SI crashes 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Lane miles 

Functional classification 

Other-Turn lanes 
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 41

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-B/C ratio

• Other-Observed crashes and patterns

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. 

Process is same except local road projects include a periodic solicitation letter to all cities with 

population of 5000 or greater requesting project proposals.

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:2

Available funding:3

Other-Crash patterns:1

This program is increasingly focused on low-cost safety improvements as well as higher-cost that addresses 

observed crash patterns. Additionally, HSM tools such as Safety Analyst help us rank and quantify the 

countermeasures to address intersections with the greatest potential to improve safety.

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:2/11/2011

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 41

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features

Other-Shoulder width, sign sheeting 

type, percent in district, past projects, 

cost, road safety audit, county priority

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

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. 

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated.)

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• Other-Scoring rubric

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Scoring rubric:1

Other-Geographical distribution:3
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 41

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2006

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-Sign inventory 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Pre-programmed blanket replacement program

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-Projects were pre-programmed based on a blanket replacement program.

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-Per established cyclical program:1

This program was established in 1996 to address necessary sign replacements on the State Highway System 

due to pending (now final) federal requirements for minimum retro-reflectivity of highway signs. This program 

schedules sign replacements based upon highway route-mileage statewide and the total mileage of all the 

routes in each District Sub-Area with multiple Sub-Areas in each District being addressed each year. This 

program excludes signs on any other state project that include sign replacement for that highway route in the 

same year. This program also excludes any signs that were replaced within seven years of the scheduled date 

of the replacement project. This is the 13th year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve permanent signing. 

The projects in the program are administered using two separate methods. Sub-Areas comprised primarily of 

routes classified as freeways and expressways with interchanges are let to contract via normal letting 
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 41

procedures. Sub-Areas with routes that are classified as expressways and conventional roads are 

administered by releasing contracts to purchase the signs and posts with installation performed by KDOT 

maintenance crews. However, due to KDOT maintenance work force reductions, the program will rely on 

contractors to install the signs regardless of route classification within some Sub-Areas.

Program: Other-Pavement Marking

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2006

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 

Volume 

Population 

Other-If we considered only traffic 

volumes, only high volume districts (1 

and 5) would get funded, thus 

population is taken into account. At the 

district level, we then consider higher 

volume routes first and take into account 

retro-readings. 

Other-Retro-reflectivity. 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-Mobile retro-reflectivity data

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-Pavement Marking Specialist works closely with district maintenance engineers to select 

projects.

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 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 41

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:1

This set-aside program was established in FY 1996 to address pavement marking necessary due to pending 

new federal requirements for minimum retro-reflectivity of pavement markings. Improvements in this category 

utilize high-performance, long-life pavement marking materials. Efforts are also made to identify those marking 

materials with wet-weather retro-reflectivity. This program is limited to projects that do not have highperformance markings included under any other KDOT program. Projects are selected by the BTS&T based 

upon a roadway's traffic volumes, past performance of marking material, geometry, surface condition, surface 

type, crash history, and, in the case of new marking materials, the research benefit. We are also expanding our 

use of mobile retro-reflectivity data to identify potential projects. This is the 14th year KDOT has used HSIP 

funds to improve pavement markings.

Program: Other-Lighting

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2006

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-Night-time unlit crashes Volume Other-Road type: Interchanges 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Locations are identified by District Engineers and public

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-Lighting Unit
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 41

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:1

Because lighting is beneficial to the safety and operation of the highway system, this set-aside program was 

established in FY 2000. Projects are selected by the Bureau of Transportation Safety & Technology (BTS&T) 

based on the roadway's volume and the potential for night-time crash history. This program is limited to 

projects which are not included under any other KDOT program. Projects are scheduled until the available 

lighting funds are exhausted. This is the 14th year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve lighting.

Program: Other-General Safety Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:2/10/2012

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 and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Population 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

No

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

Page 15 of 41

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Cost Effectiveness:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 56

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

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

Percent was calculated by summing amounts apportioned for Lighting, Pavement Marking, and 80% of HRRR, 

and then dividing by the total apportioned.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Other-Highway Safety Manual and CMF Clearinghouse

• Other-Crash data analysis to identify systematic countermeasures

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

Dollars have been obligated under the GSIP to support truck parking projects in Kansas.

The State of Kansas has formed an autonomous vehicle (AV) task force to consider the impacts of this 

emerging technology on everything from state statutes to infrastructure safety expenditures.

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

Yes
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 41

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

Our intersections sub-program is working to integrate Part B (Roadway Safety Management Process) and Part 

D (Crash Modification Factors) into the program methodology.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 41

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $19,262,775 $19,871,752 103.16%

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)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $7,556,805 $6,836,484 90.47%

Totals $26,819,580 $26,708,236 99.58%

HSIP values were provided by our Management Systems Analyst; State and Local values were provided by 

our WinCPMS Administrator. Both persons in our Bureau of Program and Project Management. State and 

Local values are based on original estimates and obligations that occurred between 07/01/2018 and 

06/30/2019.

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

safety projects?

38%

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

$6,972,038

Programmed is the total apportionment to those programs that include non-state owned roads in the 

methodology and may include dollars that get obligated to projects on state-owned roads: $0 (rail) + 

$3,262,775 (intersections) + $4,000,000 (HRRR) / $19,262,775 (total) = 38%

Obligated is the total obligated to those programs that include non-state owned roads in the methodology 

excluding projects in the intersections program on state-owned roads. $1,897,354 (rail) + $1,200,000 

(intersection projects on locally-owned roads listed in the project listing) + $3,874,684 (HRRR) = $6,972,038.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 41

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

0%

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

$1,850,000

No funding is programmed directly to non-infrastructure safety projects. However, each sub-program may have 

non-infrastructure projects and those obligated in SFY 2019 are included in the total: $750,000 to KA-5259-01 

for mobile analysis of pavement markings, $200,000 for C-4855-19 for TEAP, and $900,000 to C-4790-02 for 

LRSP.

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%

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

the future. 

Nothing to report at this time.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 41

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

C-4790-02 Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

4440 Miles $900000 $1008786 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Road 

Safety Plan

C-4869-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

71 Miles $221487 $269411 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4855-19 Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$200000 $220000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

As requested Traffic 

Engineering 

Assistance

C-4888-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

88 Miles $229828 $227851 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing and 

passing 

zones

C-4889-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

15 Miles $83655 $83153 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4890-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

102 Miles $349000 $320064 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4892-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

154 Miles $137768 $136705 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4893-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

23 Miles $101810 $101141 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4894-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

112 Miles $202470 $165341 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4895-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

14 Miles $131692 $130674 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4897-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

131 Miles $299068 $295610 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4899-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

102 Miles $126192 $124975 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 41

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

C-4900-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

115 Miles $264548 $261655 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4901-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

64 Miles $116230 $115546 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4902-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

87 Miles $107481 $146119 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4903-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

51 Miles $127085 $104011 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4904-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

86 Miles $194537 $193302 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4905-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

46 Miles $111485 $91144 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4929-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

224 Miles $49838 $302644 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4930-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

165 Miles $52310 $475471 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4931-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

61 Miles $41105 $269986 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4932-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

42 Miles $43477 $209296 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4933-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

120 Miles $49293 $296035 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4934-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

100 Miles $44000 $425938 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing

C-4937-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

0.3 Miles $6868 $71613 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Upgrade 

signing and 

pavement 

markings

C-4964-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

50 Miles $31103 $175686 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Upgrade 

signing
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 41

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

U-0225-01 Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

0.4 Miles $100000 $100041.45 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 13,140 30 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Intersections

U-2317-01 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

3 Intersections $700000 $1446116.06 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 3,560 40 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Intersections

U-2316-01 Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

0.1 Miles $400000 $488511.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 19,475 40 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Intersections

KA-4514-01 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $6079741.99 $626132.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,620 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Roundabout

KA-5142-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

14.094 Miles $162607.3 $162607.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

3,390 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5143-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

26.533 Miles $708622.49 $708622.49 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

29,300 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5144-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

5.48 Miles $275989.94 $275989.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

8,660 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5259-01 Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$750000 $750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Pavement 

Markings

KA-5282-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

9.5 Miles $709500 $709500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

21,000 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-0725-02 Lighting Intersection 

lighting

0.4 Miles $155908.18 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate12,000 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 41

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

Present data showing the general highway safety trends in the State for the past five 

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 431 386 405 350 385 355 429 461 405

Serious Injuries 1,717 1,597 1,596 1,456 1,204 1,195 1,175 1,027 971

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.440 1.290 1.325 1.159 1.250 1.130 1.340 1.430 1.250

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.742 5.320 5.220 4.820 3.921 3.808 3.670 3.188 2.999

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

16 16 33 31 30 27 46 39 33

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

95 97 106 108 84 101 102 86 85
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 41

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 41

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 25 of 41

The above data is consistent with the data used to develop our safety performance targets for 2020.

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2016

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

24 78 0.67 2.12

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

10 25 0.8 1.89

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

67 137 2.1 4.3

Rural Minor Arterial 48 111 2.07 4.81

Rural Minor Collector 6 20 1.94 6.05

Rural Major Collector 48 141 1.84 5.36

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 26 of 41

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 Local Road or 

Street

54 144 3.07 8.2

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

22 115 0.54 2.76

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

14 51 0.7 2.62

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

29 187 2.19 14.1

Urban Minor Arterial 29 138 0.64 3.06

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0.18

Urban Major Collector 10 43 0.44 1.95

Urban Local Road or 

Street

21 114 0.84 4.66
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 41

Year 2015

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

202 647 1.12 3.59

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 175 750 1.31 5.61

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

We are continuing to resolve issues associated with crash locating and do not have confidence in our 2017-

2018 data enough to confidently report these numbers. We anticipate this issue to be resolved by next 

reporting cycle and will update and add all five-year averages going back to 2014.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:411.0
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 41

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

The 2020 five-year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 411 fatalities. A flat 

projection would derive our goal of 411 fatalities in 2020. Based upon recent history, the trend line of 

the target, the flat projection is realistic and attainable.

Number of Serious Injuries:907.0

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

The 2020 five-year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 916 serious 

injuries. A one percent reduction in this projection would derive our goal of 907 serious injuries in 

2020. Based upon recent history, the trend line of the target, the one percent reduction goal is 

realistic and attainable.

Fatality Rate:1.250

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

The 2020 five-year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates a fatality rate of 

1.26. A one percent reduction in this projection would derive our goal of 1.25 fatality rate in 2020. 

Based upon recent history, the trend line of the target, the one percent reduction goal is realistic and 

attainable.

Serious Injury Rate:2.750

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

The 2020 five-year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 2.77 serious injury 

rate per 100 million VMT. A one percent reduction in this projection would lead to our goal of 2.75 

serious injury rate per 100 million VMT in 2020. Based upon recent history, the trend line of the 

target, the one percent reduction goal is realistic and attainable.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:131.0

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

The 2020 five year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 133 fatalities and 

serious injuries. A one percent reduction in this projection would derive our goal of 131 fatalities and 

serious injuries in 2020. Based upon recent history, the trend line of the target, the one percent 

reduction goal is realistic and attainable.

The state of Kansas is fortunate in that both the SHSP and HSP administrators are in the KDOT Bureau of 

Transportation Safety and Technology. Calculations of the four common performance targets used the fiveyear moving average data to plan programs, establish goals and track progress. Both plans rely heavily on the 

same data sources to establish strategies and goals. These data sources include, but are not limited to: FARS, 

the statewide crash database, and observational surveys. The four identified performance measures – 

fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries and serious injury rate – have the same definition and goals.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 41

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

safety performance targets. 

On February 22, 2017 we hosted a Kansas Safety Target Setting Coordination Training Workshop presented 

by the FHWA. Most MPOs in the state were represented at this training. On April 17, 2017 we hosted a 

conference call with all the MPOs to present state targets and discuss next steps. We have been and will 

continue to provide each MPO with the data necessary to calculate their 2019 targets. At present, we are not 

certain whether individual MPOs will adopt the state targets or their own. Our SHSO and SHSP/HSIP 

coordinator are housed in the same section within the Kansas DOT, making coordination simple. Our state 

targets were discussed and established at a meeting dated May 23, 2019. On May 24, 2018, our methodology 

was presented to the Executive Safety Council, a multi-agency committee that oversees development and 

implementation of our SHSP.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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 met three of the five targets for CY 2018: serious-injuries, serious-injury rate, and non-motorized. We did 

NOT meet the target for both fatalities and fatality rate. We look forward to the FHWA's determination if we 

have made "significant process" toward these targets. Our fatality numbers have been very inconsistent the 

past few years, making target-setting that much more difficult. We are encouraged by our significant decline in 

serious injuries. We are not certain what to attribute this to. Safer vehicles? Safer roads? We adopted the new 

serious-injury definition on January 1, 2019. We are anxious to see how this change impacts our numbers and 

also how the FHWA plans to address this issue in relation to meeting targets. Finally, we are close to rolling 

out our revised SHSP and may be making significant changes to our HSIP process.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

The HRRR special rule has never applied to Kansas. However, we continue to spend HSIP funding on locallyowned roads thru the HRRR sub-program as described in this report. Perhaps the two are related!

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

68 70 63 50 78 74 64

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

107 117 84 89 102 102 91

The numbers above reflect our interpretation of the older driver rule. Specifically, these are only older drivers 

and pedestrians who have died or been seriously injured. These numbers do NOT include older passengers, 
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 41

or, for example, fatal crashes where an older driver was involved but did not have serious injuries.

Please note: serious injuries increased from 99 to 102 in 2016 and from 96 to 102 in 2017.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 41

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Other-Obligation of HSIP dollars.

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

In FFY 2017 we were apportioned $18,375,593. In SFY 2017 we obligated $19,233,724, providing some 

indication we are spending our HSIP funding. However, in FFY 2018 we were apportioned $18,827,840. In 

SFY 2018 we obligated only $14,599,213.74. While scheduling and timing often dictate the values of these 

calendar totals, we successfully worked towards a higher obligation rate in FY 2019: We were apportioned 

$19,262,775 and obligated $19,871,752.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• 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 2018

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)

Roadway Departure 251 530 0.79 1.67

Intersections 89 342 0.28 1.08

Pedestrians 30 68 0.1 0.22

Bicyclists 5 29 0.02 0.09

Older Drivers 97 204 0.31 0.64

Motorcyclists 53 170 0.17 0.53

Work Zones 7 22 0.02 0.07

Unbelted 149 235 0.47 0.74

Teen Drivers 49 189 0.15 0.6
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 41

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)

Impaired Driving 129 205 0.41 0.65

Large Commercial 

Vehicles

73 114 0.23 0.36
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 41

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 41

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 41

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)

Nothing to 

report

Describe any other aspects of HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate. 

It remains our intent to develop performance measures for each of these HSIP sub-programs. This will be in concert with a current HSIP Assessment and completion of a program manual for each eligible sub-program, and be driven by 

our SHSP which includes reallocation of HSIP funding as a key strategy for the emphasis areas intersections and roadway departure. As an example, three of these programs (lighting, pavement marking, and signing) can be measured 

by wet-weather and/or nighttime crashes.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 41

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/26/2017

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? 

 2019

The 2019 Kansas SHSP was scheduled to be published by July 1, 2019. However, we were asked to delay publication until peer exchanges with a few model states to determine if changes should be made to our plan. The 2019 Kansas 

SHSP is intended to be a five-year, strategic plan, that focuses on data-driven emphasis areas with three to seven key strategies each.

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)

99 99 99 99 99 99

Route Number (8) 99 99

Route/Street Name 

(9)

99 99

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

99 99

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

99 99 99 99

Surface Type (23) 99 99 99 99

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

99 99 99 99 99 99

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

99 99 99 99 99 99

Segment Length 

(13)

99 99

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

99 99

Functional Class 

(19)

99 99 99 99 99 99

Median Type (54) 99 99
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 41

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

Access Control (22) 99 99

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

99 99

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

99 99 99 99

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

99 99 99 99

AADT Year (80) 99 99

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

99 99 99 99 99 99

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

75

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

75

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

75

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

75

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

75

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

75

AADT Year (80) 75

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

75

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

99

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 41

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

Ramp Length (187) 99

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

99

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

99

Interchange Type 

(182)

50

Ramp AADT (191) 99

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

99

Functional Class 

(19)

99

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

99

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 99.00 99.00 75.00 0.00 76.55 0.00 99.00 99.00 99.00 99.00

*Based on Functional Classification

These numbers have not been updated for this year's report. It can be assumed actual values are at or above those recorded above.

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. 

Complete access to MIRE FDE on all public roads in Kansas should be accomplished by two projects: K-Hub and work associated with Next Generation 911.

K-Hub:

K-Hub is a new Linear Referencing and Transportation Database System, which will replace our existing CANSYS II database system. K-Hub is an opportunity for KDOT to develop a combined statewide geospatially enabled roadway 

and transportation data management system that allows KDOT to efficiently meet current and future business requirements. Successful deployment of K-Hub will position KDOT to maintain data on all 140,000 miles of Kansas public 

roads with the current level of staffing. Bottom line, this is a colossal IT project that will influence almost every KDOT system.

Primary objectives of the K-Hub project include:

• Deploy an innovative solution that balances upfront project cost, system lifecycle cost and total cost of ownership to achieve the best value and level of service for KDOT.

• Utilize commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software components licensed to KDOT and additional components, as needed, to meet K-Hub System Requirements.

• Innovative approaches to accomplish system functions and data exchanges to support current and future KDOT business processes while minimizing the need for custom components.

• Project planning and execution to ensure successful and timely transition to K-Hub from the existing system.

• Integration of hardware and software components to provide system response performance that consistently meets system benchmarks.

• Flexibility that allows for modification and enhancement by KDOT, the bidder team or third parties.

• User friendly and easily accessible design for enterprise-wide usage.

• Configurable system parameters.

• Position KDOT to maximize its ability to support the system post implementation.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 41

Next Generation 911:

Next Generation 9-1-1 (abbreviated NG9-1-1) refers to an initiative aimed at updating the 9-1-1 service infrastructure in the United States and Canada to improve public emergency communications services in a growingly wireless mobile 

society. 

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

We are currently working on our assessment. It will be completed this fall.
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 41

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 41

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.