Page 1 of 44

MARYLAND 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 44

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence .............................................................3

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

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................6

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Administration .....................................................................................................................6

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................21

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................21

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................23

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................24

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................24

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................29

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................34

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................35

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................35

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................36

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................39

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................40

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................43

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................44
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 44

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. 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.”
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 44

Executive Summary

Summary Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CY 2019 

• The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division.

• The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, 

to identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience 

and, as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. 

• HSIP Staff is located in the Planning, Engineering and Highway Safety Office portions of MDOT. 

• HSIP is administered centrally via Statewide Competitive Application Process. 

• Local roads were not allocated HSIP funds in CY 2019. 

• The Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) along with the Maryland Transportation Authority and the 

Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services are important partners with the Maryland State Highway 

Administration (SHA) in the HSIP process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and several regional planning 

organizations along with local governments, various police agencies and academic organizations also 

coordinate with the SHA. 

• Programs administered under the HSIP 

1. Median Barrier 

2. Horizontal Curve 

3. Skid Hazard 

4. Roadway Departure 

5. Left-turn crash 

6. Intersection Crash Data 

7. Low Cost Spot Improvements 

8. Pedestrian Safety 

9. Rural State Highway 

10. Right Angle Crash 

11. Highway Sections 

• The data types used in the HSIP program methodology are vehicle crashes, traffic volume and highway 

mileage. 

• The project identification methodology used in the HSIP program are crash frequency and relative severity 

index. 

• The HSIP projects are advanced for implementation by a SHA selection committee. The criteria considered 

are Safety, Congestion, Operations and Local Support. This will be revised in the future. 

• Engineering studies and Road Safety Assessments are used to identify potential countermeasures.

• The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies that are related to the HSIP. 

• Reporting period for HSIP funding is CY 2019. 

• All police crash reports used for the crash database are in electronic format as of January 1, 2015

• The general listing of projects includes various traffic control, roadside, lighting, intersection geometry and 

pedestrian-bicyclist access projects. 

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of fatalities have increased from 520 

(FARS) in 2015 to 531 (MD) in 2019 (annual format) and that the number of serious injuries (MD) have 

increased from 2,598 in 2015 to 3,123 in 2019 (annual format). Please note that all 2018 FARS totals are 

preliminary at the time of this report. 2019 FARS totals are not available with state totals being used instead at 

the time of the report. 

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of non-motorized fatalities have increased 

from 111 (FARS) in 2015 to 133 (MD) in 2019 (annual format) and that the number of non-motorized serious 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 44

injuries (MD) have increased from 372 in 2015 to 506 in 2019 (annual format). Please see above note on 

2018-19 FARS totals. 

• Overall five-year average crash trends for the individual functional classification and roadway ownership are 

shown in tables in the annual report. 

• Maryland maintains the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce 

fatalities by at least 50 percent in the next two decades. 

• “A wide range of stakeholder groups - including federal, state and local government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, regional authorities, and individual advocates - participated in the 

development of the SHSP (Maryland Strategic Plan). Each EA (Emphasis Area) Team - which includes 

regional and local agencies - held at least two facilitated discussions to identify, develop, and finalize strategies 

for the 2016-2020 SHSP. Each EA Team wrestled with difficult decisions regarding how to cover the essentials 

of transportation safety while remaining strategic and focused on the most vital needs” (2016-20 SHSP). 

• Older Driver and pedestrian. Fatalities increased from 60 in 2012 to 73 in 2018 (FARS – annual numbers.). 

Severe Injuries decreased from 254 in 2012 to 248 in 2018 (MD – annual numbers). 

• The State measures effectiveness of the HSIP by the change in fatalities and serious injuries 

• Overall yearly crash trends for the individual SHSP (Strategic Highway Safety Program) emphasis areas are 

shown in tables in the annual report. 

• All Maryland counties along with Baltimore City are now provided a three-year listing of pedestrian involved 

crashes which includes a summary of severe injury and fatal crashes on state highways along with a detailed 

listing for local roads. 

• Maryland’s current SHSP was approved by the Governor or designated State representative on 05/31/2017. 

• The years being covered by the current SHSP are 2016 to 2020. 

• Maryland anticipates completing its next SHSP update by 2020. 

• The status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts are shown in tables in 

the annual report.

• MDOT SHA has implemented Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and 

LRS data for HPMS submission. This year MDOT SHA used Roads and Highways for their HPMS submission. 

With the Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manager intersection data, and data gaps, we will be 

able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026.

• In conjunction with the Esri R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline (OMOC) 

program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of data 

between jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate authority. We have begun a 

pilot conflation process between MDOT SHA and two county jurisdictions to test process and develop the 

protocols that will be used for the integration of the remaining counties of Maryland. This geometry will be the 

base of the R&H data model. This data sharing and cooperation between the local and state jurisdictions will 

better allow us to identify and fill data gaps, with the appropriate, authoritative information. 

• FHWA has authorized several pilots to investigate developing methodologies to more accurately calculate 

local AADTs for lower functionally classified roadways. MIRE FDEs require this type of data, while the local 

jurisdictions do not have the wherewithal nor need to completely capture and maintain this type of data. 

Therefore, the need to develop better proxies or models to better estimate these AADTs for local roads is an 

ongoing activity.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 44

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. 

The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division.

Emphasis on Maryland’s highways is placed on improving the safety of intersections, sections and ramps that 

are identified as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs) or through Road Safety Audits and on 

implementing proven blanket safety improvements on a systematic basis. Safety improvements include the 

installation of rumble strips and median barriers; upgrading signs, signals, and markings; improving 

geometrics; and highway and bridge widening, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

The processes used to identify locations, referred to in the HSIP as hazardous locations, which have abnormal 

accident experience. Those locations, referred to herein as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs), 

include intersections, spots and sections where the combination of accident frequencies and/or rates are 

significantly higher than those at similar locations. The identification of CSILs is based on all police reported 

collisions, i.e., those crashes reported by law enforcement agencies across Maryland to the Maryland State 

Police. Information from these reports is entered into a statewide accident database for analysis.

The State Highway Administration (SHA) typically identifies CSILs only on the state maintained highway 

system. Several local jurisdictions use the accident data, which SHA provides to all of the jurisdictions 

annually, to identify similar location on their road systems.

The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, to 

identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience and, 

as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. Locations 

identified by the District Engineers as having a combined safety/capacity problem although not necessarily 

qualifying as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations, also can be included as candidate Fund 76 Program 

projects. The SHA Administrator makes the final project selection.

Maryland's Fund 76 Spot Improvement Program was developed under the guidelines set forth in 23 CFR 924, 

and was designed to address the most critical highway safety problems statewide through a systematic and 

unbiased approach. The Fund 76 Program is under the direction of the SHA's Deputy Administrator/Chief 

Engineer for Operations, with program development and assistance from the Office of Traffic and Safety.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 44

Through the Fund 76 process, accident data for all State highways is reviewed annually, and all sections and 

intersections experiencing abnormally high accident rates are studied to determine what countermeasures are 

applicable. In addition, listings of accidents on local roads are sent to the local governments for their use. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Engineering

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

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

Local Roads are usually not given HSIP funds from the State 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Districts/Regions 

• Governors Highway Safety Office 

• Planning 

• Traffic Engineering/Safety 

• Other-Maryland State Highway District Offices 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Within the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) the State Highway Administration (SHA) Office of 

Traffic and Safety and Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering along with the Motor Vehicle 

Administration (MVA) Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) provided leadership, support, and coordination 

for Maryland's highway safety projects in CY 2019. Part of SHA and MVA's responsibility is to work with other 

State agencies to address highway safety issues. This effort results in a multi-agency approach which includes 

the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services and others that 

have roles in highway safety problems. The seven SHA District Offices also provide a network of field 

personnel willing to coordinate and provide technical assistance to local agencies. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University 

• FHWA 

• Law Enforcement Agency 

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-External partners including MPOs, local government, police agencies and academic 

organizations were included in the 2016-20 SHSP planning process 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

As stated in the 2016-20 SHSP (Maryland Highway Strategic Plan), stakeholder groups which included HSIP 

external partners participated in the development of the SHSP to identify, develop, and finalize strategies for 

the 2016-2020 SHSP. Stakeholder groups have coordinated in the collection and maintaining of safety data for 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 44

all public roads and processes for advancing the State's capabilities for safety data collection and analysis 

through the TRCC).

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

MDOT SHA has draft an HSIP manual and the manual has not been signed yet. We are currently waiting on 

the process for how we will allocate HSIP funding to local agencies. The process will be developed in FY2021 

and the manual will be completed after that.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Bicycle Safety 

• Horizontal Curve 

• Intersection 

• Left Turn Crash

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier 

• Pedestrian Safety 

• Right Angle Crash 

• Roadway Departure 

• Rural State Highways 

• Segments 

• Skid Hazard 

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 44

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 44

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

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

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 44

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

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

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

• Relative severity index

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?
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 44

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 44

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Opeartions:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• selection committee
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 44

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• selection committee
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 44

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

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

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 44

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-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 44

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-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

• Other-Highway mileage • Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 44

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-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 44

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-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 44

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-Saftey:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 4

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Engineering Study 

• Road Safety Assessment 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Yes 

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

The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies as part of the HSIP Planning Process.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 44

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $12,656,000 $1,732,945 13.69%

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 $0 $0 0%

Totals $12,656,000 $1,732,945 13.69%

The programmed HSIP funding for are based on STIP from MPOs with the HSIP funds programmed for FY 

2019.

Most of the programmed HSIP projects in STIP are group projects, which were not fully obligated during Year 

2019, as the STIP went through multiple amendments in each year.

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

safety projects?

0%

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

0%

We are going to develop a process that allows local agencies to compete for the HSIP funds, establish 

selection criteria for proposals, and provide approaches to implement the improvements.

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

$292,500
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 44

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

$292,500

The non-infrastructure safety project is the development of Maryland Safety and Crash Analysis Network 

(MSCAN).

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?

$17,000,000

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

the future.

none at this time
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 44

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

000B237 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new

$1,440,445 $1,609,219 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Corridor 

safety

0003597 Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$292,500 $325,000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 Data
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 44

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 485 511 465 442 520 522 558 501 531

Serious Injuries 3,809 3,312 2,957 3,053 2,598 3,167 3,347 3,233 3,123

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.860 0.900 0.820 0.780 0.890 0.880 0.930 0.840 0.880

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.800 5.870 5.240 5.410 4.533 5.370 5.588 5.422 5.193

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

110 104 118 109 111 125 122 133 133

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

415 402 396 432 372 486 563 527 506
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 44

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 44

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 44

The number of serious injuries has changed in TANG since we last reported these numbers. Data for the years 

2015-2019 is reflective of the most recent query of TANG and is also the numbers submitted in MDOT’s MFR.

State includes pedestrian type/non-motorist types 01, 02, 03 only. (Benchmark Reports/Profiles) Some queries 

include 07 for other conveyances. Need to be more consistent with this.

2011~2018 fatalities, fatality rates, and non-motorized fatalities are based on FARS, and 2019 numbers are 

based on state data. 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

For Year 2019, when FARS data are not available, the state crash database was applied. 

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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

19.2 37.4 0.9 1.76

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 44

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)

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

32.8 128.2 2.91 10.21

Rural Minor Arterial 38 139.6 2.12 7.8

Rural Minor Collector 11.4 53.6 1.32 6.28

Rural Major Collector 29 110.6 1.83 6.98

Rural Local Road or 

Street

18.2 78.2 1.08 4.64

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

69.4 518.6 0.45 3.4

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

43.8 182 0.68 2.8

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

169.6 925.4 1.55 8.44

Urban Minor Arterial 97.4 534 1.08 7.29

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 34.4 237.8 0.81 5.63

Urban Local Road or 

Street

26.4 238.8 0.83 7.54
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 44

Year 2019

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

376.4 1,781

County Highway 

Agency

106.8 738

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

26.8 226.6

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency 0 2.8

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

1.4 6.8

Indian Tribe Nation

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:420.6

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, maintaining the 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 44

injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. 

Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious injuries, 

e.g., 2014–2018 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2017–2021 (five-year average). (However, 

it should be noted that due to significant declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the 

Maryland crash report definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and 

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP.

Number of Serious Injuries:2905.8

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, maintaining the 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious 

injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. 

Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious injuries, 

e.g., 2014–2018 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2017–2021 (five-year average). (However, 

it should be noted that due to significant declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the 

Maryland crash report definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and 

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP.

Fatality Rate:0.742

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, maintaining the 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious 

injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. 

Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious injuries, 

e.g., 2014–2018 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2017–2021 (five-year average). (However, 

it should be noted that due to significant declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the 

Maryland crash report definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and 

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP.

Serious Injury Rate:5.075

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, maintaining the 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious 

injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. 

Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious injuries, 

e.g., 2014–2018 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2017–2021 (five-year average). (However, 

it should be noted that due to significant declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the 

Maryland crash report definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and 

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:467.7
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 44

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

Maryland has set highway safety performance targets that are quantifiable and data driven, maintaining the 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce overall fatalities and serious 

injuries by at least 50 percent in the next two decades, starting with a baseline of 2008 to an end goal in 2030. 

Five-year rolling averages are used to calculate five-year-average targets for fatalities and serious injuries, 

e.g., 2014–2018 actual crash data are used to determine targets for 2017–2021 (five-year average). (However, 

it should be noted that due to significant declines in serious injuries in recent years, and a recent change in the 

Maryland crash report definition of injury severity, the use of historical trends currently puts the State at or 

below current targets for serious injuries.) This method is applied to the five performance measures required by 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and 

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland’s HSP and HSIP.

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

safety performance targets. 

"Stakeholders. A wide range of stakeholder groups - including federal, state and local government agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, regional authorities, and individual advocates - participated in the 

development of the SHSP (Maryland Strategic Plan). Each EA (Emphasis Area) Team - which includes 

regional and local agencies - held at least two facilitated discussions to identify, develop, and finalize strategies 

for the 2016-2020 SHSP. Each EA Team wrestled with difficult decisions regarding how to cover the essentials 

of transportation safety while remaining strategic and focused on the most vital needs.”[1]

The list of stakeholder safety partner agencies is as follows:

Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Washington Regional Alcohol Program

Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services System

National Study Center

Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration

Maryland Highway Safety Office

Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Highway Administration

Maryland Transportation Authority Police

Maryland State Police

Montgomery County Police Department

Howard County Police Department
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 44

Maryland Chiefs of Police Association 

Leidos consultants 

Sabra, Wang & Associates consultants [2] 

[1] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2016-20 PG 5 

[2] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2016-20 Appendix A 

The process stakeholders from SHSP were consulted to establish safety performance targets

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 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. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 435.0 526.4

Number of Serious Injuries 3211.1 3093.6

Fatality Rate 0.771 0.884

Serious Injury Rate 5.702 5.221

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

473.9 615.6

1. Number of traffic fatalities (FARS) 

Reduce the number of traffic-related fatalities on all roads in Maryland from 508.6 (2014-2018 average, FARS 

ARF) to 409.1 (2018–2022 average) or fewer by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2017-2021 target is 420.7. 

The actual number of fatalities was 508.6 (2014-2018 average), which is higher than the target; therefore 

Maryland is not progressing towards its target. 

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT experienced a decrease; however 

2019 reversed this trend with increased VMT and fatalities. Maryland has experienced a downward trend in 

serious injuries for more than the past decade. 

1. Number of serious injuries in traffic crashes (State Data) 

Reduce the number of traffic-related serious injuries on all roads in Maryland from 3,089.6 (2015–2019 

average) to 2,791.6 (2018–2022 average) or fewer by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2017-2021 target is 

2,905.5. The actual number of serious injuries was 3,089.6 (2014–2018 average), which is higher than the 

target; therefore, Maryland is not progressing towards its target.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 44

Maryland has experienced a downward trend in serious injuries for more than the past decade. The most 

recent years have fluctuated as VMT increases in Maryland and fatalities have increased. Some reasons for 

the fluctuations in serious injury trends can be attributed to changes in how law enforcement is trained and 

submitting injury severity information on the Maryland crash report (ACRS). 

1. Annual rate of traffic-related fatalities/VMT (FARS) 

Reduce the number of traffic-related fatality rate on all roads in Maryland from 0.866 (2014–2018 average, 

FARS ARF) to 0.719 (2018–2022 average) or lower by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2017-2021 target is 

0.741. The actual fatality rate was 0.866 (2014-2018), which is higher than the target; therefore, Maryland is 

not progressing towards its target. 

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT experienced a decrease; however 

2019 reversed this trend with increased VMT and fatalities. 

1. Annual rate of traffic-related serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (State Data) 

Reduce the traffic-related serious injury rate on all roads in Maryland from 5.258 (2015–2019 average) to 4.871 

(2018–2022 average) or lower by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2017-2021 target is 5.075. The actual 

serious injury rate was 5.258 (2014–2018 average), which is higher than the target; therefore, Maryland is not 

progressing towards its target. 

Maryland has experienced a downward trend in serious injuries for more than the past decade. The most 

recent years have fluctuated as VMT increases in Maryland and fatalities have increased. Some reasons for 

the fluctuations in serious injury trends can be attributed to changes in how law enforcement is trained and 

submitting injury severity information on the Maryland crash report (ACRS). 

1. Number of non-motorized fatalities plus serious injuries on all roads (FARS and State Data) 

Reduce the number of traffic-related non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries on all roads in Maryland from 

610.4 (2014-2018 average) to 455.3 (2018–2022 average) or fewer by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2017-

2021 target is 467.7. The actual number of traffic-related non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries was 

610.4 (2014–2018 average), which is higher than the target; therefore Maryland is not progressing towards its 

target.

Mirroring national trends, Maryland has experienced increases in fatalities and serious injuries in its most 

vulnerable road users—non-motorists (pedestrians and bicyclists). While Maryland does not have an exposure 

measure to determine precisely an increase in road use by pedestrians and bicyclists, Maryland has increased 

pedestrian and bicyclist facilities year after year and is experiencing similar trends in changes in transportation 

mode use seen nationally. 

* 

1a. Number of traffic fatalities (State Data) 

Reduce the number of traffic-related fatalities on all roads in Maryland from 529.0 (2015–2019 average, State 

data) to 416.2 (2018–2022 average) or fewer by December 31, 2020. The actual number of fatalities was 529.0 

(2015–2019 average, State data), which is higher than the target; therefore, Maryland did not meet its target. 

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT Maryland’s 2017-2021 target is 427.2. 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 44

experienced a decrease; however 2019 reversed this trend with increased VMT and fatalities. Maryland has 

experienced a downward trend in serious injuries for more than the past decade.

2a. Annual rate of traffic-related Fatalities/VMT (State Data)

Reduce the number of traffic-related fatality rate on all roads in Maryland from 0.894 (2015–2019 average, 

State data) to 0.737 (2018–2022 average) or lower by December 31, 2020. Maryland’s 2017-2021 target is 

0.757. The actual fatality rate was 0.894 (2014–2018 average, State data), which is higher than the target; 

therefore, Maryland did not meet its target.

Mirroring national trends in increased vehicle miles traveled, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for 

three straight years (2015–2017). In 2018, Maryland fatalities and VMT experienced a decrease; however 

2019 reversed this trend with increased VMT and fatalities. Maryland has experienced a downward trend in 

serious injuries for more than the past decade.

Note:

Targets (conforming to federal requirements) set using an exponential trend line for an overall reduction by 

2030 with yearly interim targets based on five-year rolling averages. Current targets through 2022 are set using 

a baseline five-year average of 2004-2009, updated to include trend changes in 2015-2019. The target for 

2019 is the midpoint of the rolling five-year average target for 2017-2021; and the 2020 target is the midpoint of 

the rolling five-year average target for 2018-2022.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

60 50 63 71 74 80 73

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

254 235 258 172 263 279 248
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 44

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Program Type: Wet Surface Crashes 

Target Crash Type: Wet Road

2017 Fatalities - 82

2018 Fatalities – 93

2019 Fatalities – 70

2017 Serious Injuries - 461 

2018 Serious Injuries – 552

2019 Serious Injuries – 368

For Wet Surface crashes, the Fatalities decreased for 17% and Serious Injuries for 25% during the 2017-19 

period. 

Program Type: Left Turn Crashes 

Target Crash Type: Left Turn

2017 Fatalities - 33

2018 Fatalities – 30

2019 Fatalities - 25

2017 Serious Injuries - 269 

2018 Serious Injuries – 260

2019 Serious Injuries – 222

For Left Turn crashes, the Fatalities decreased for 32% and Serious Injuries for 21% during the 2017-19 

period. 

Program Type: Angle Crashes 

Target Crash Type: Angle

2017 Fatalities - 76

2018 Fatalities - 77

2019 Fatalities - 73

2017 Serious Injuries - 618 

2018 Serious Injuries – 576

2019 Serious Injuries – 538

For Angle crashes, the Fatalities decreased for 4% and Serious Injuries for 15% during the 2017-19 period. 
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 44

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• Increased focus on local road safety 

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period. 

Work continues on an improved process for project selection and evaluation for the HSIP program. An HSIP 

Implementation Plan is created to identify activities, strategies, and projects that would improvement safety 

performance in Maryland. 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

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 Run-off-road 163.2 694.6 0.28 1.17

Intersections Intersections 141 1,129.8 0.24 1.91

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 114 422.2 0.19 0.71

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 10.8 68.2 0.02 0.11

Aggressive Driving All 39 180.2 0.07 0.3

Occupant Protection All 112.4 423 0.19 0.71

Distracted Driving All 181 1,509.8 0.3 2.55

Impaired Driving All 162 449.8 0.27 0.76
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 44

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 44

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)

Maryland has 

chosen not to 

complete this 

optional 

section.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 44

Compliance Assessment

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

 05/31/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020

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

 2020

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 44

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

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 90 100 90

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 98 50

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

95 95

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

50 50

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

35 35

AADT Year (80) [82] 25 25

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

75 75

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 44

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

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 99.33 72.50 72.50 100.00 100.00 94.44 87.78 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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. 

• MDOT SHA has implemented Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and LRS data for HPMS submission. This year MDOT SHA used Roads and Highways for their HPMS submission. With the 

Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manager intersection data, and data gaps, we will be able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026. 

• In conjunction with the Esri R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline (OMOC) program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of data between 

jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate authority. We have begun a pilot conflation process between MDOT SHA and two county jurisdictions to test process and develop the protocols that will be 

used for the integration of the remaining counties of Maryland. This geometry will be the base of the R&H data model. This data sharing and cooperation between the local and state jurisdictions will better allow us to identify and fill 

data gaps, with the appropriate, authoritative information.

• FHWA has authorized several pilots to investigate developing methodologies to more accurately calculate local AADTs for lower functionally classified roadways. MIRE FDEs require this type of data, while the local jurisdictions 

do not have the wherewithal nor need to completely capture and maintain this type of data. Therefore, the need to develop better proxies or models to better estimate these AADTs for local roads is an ongoing activity.
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 44

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 44

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.